For
Global Goals
or SDGs
Campaign, Do
Partners Pay
Taxes, FOIA
Needed
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 4 --
The
Sustainable
Development
Goals, to
which a
session just
before the UN
General
Assembly
debate later
this month
will be
devoted, will
be promoted in
videos, flags,
projections on
the UN
buildings.
Inner
City Press on
September 4
asked
film-maker
Richard Curtis
and Amina
Mohammed,
Special
Advisor to the
Secretary-General
on Post-2015
Development
Planning about
this campaign,
and if it will
raise the
issue of who
will PAY for
implementation
of the goals
-- including
if the
corporate
partners of
the campaign
are in fact
paying or
avoiding their
taxes.
Earlier on
September 3
when the
International
Monetary Fund
resumed its
biweekly
embargoed
media
briefings,
Inner City
Press
submitted four
questions.
Inner City
Press asked:
"Who from the
IMF is coming
to the UN
General
Assembly (and
SDGs, etc)
week in late
September, and
what is their
program? What
meeting will
they
participate
in? What do
they hope to
accomplish?"
IMF Deputy
Spokesperson
William Murray
answered, as
fast
transcribed by
InnerCityPro:
“Matthew, and
others, the
Managing
Director is
scheduled to
attend the
UNGA
particularly
the SDGs
segment in
late
September.
There was a
previous
meeting in
Addis Ababa we
participated
in at a high
level that
dealt with the
SDGs... The
IMF's
Executive
Board recently
endorsed a 50%
increase in
access to all
the funds
concessional
lending
facilities and
to maintain a
0% rate for
low income
countries that
struggle with
disasters and
conflict. The
Executive
Board of the
Fund has
endorsed IMF's
engagement in
sustainable
inclusive
growth, on
which we'll be
elaborating in
the weeks and
months to
come.”
One
focus should
be financial
inclusion, on
which we'll
have more
during UNGA
week.
In the
meanwhile,
Murray also
said Managing
Director
Christine
Lagarde is
about to
arrive in
Ukraine for
"opportunistic"
meetings with
the
authorities,
and an IMF
mission team
will go there
on September
22.
On
September 3,
Inner City
Press also
submitted
questions
about Nepal
and Grenada,
as well as
this:
"In Indonesia
the Vice
Speaker of the
House of
Representatives
Taufik
Kurniawan
recently said,
'We do not ask
for IMF
support in
crisis;' at
the UN in NY
on Sept 2, the
Vice
Chairman of
the House of
Representatives
of Indonesia
H. Fadli Zon
told Inner
City Press
much the same
thing. What is
the IMF's
response to
these
criticisms or
resistance to
the IMF, from
elected
representatives
of the country
where the IMF
now plans its
2018 Annual
Meetings?"
We hope
to receive
answers.
Back on
July 8 when
the
International
Monetary Fund
released
reviews and
papers about
the United
States,
complete with
support of the
Dodd Frank Act
and mentions
of anti money
laundering
protection
Inner City
Press asked
about the
proposal to
raise the
definition of
Systemically
Important
Financial
Institution
from $50
billion up to
$500 billion
and if tight
AML strictures
are to blame
for cutting
off
remittances to
Somalia.
Aditya
Narain, IMF
mission chief
for the
Financial
Sector
Assessment
Program and
deputy
director,
Monetary and
Capital
Markets
department,
told Inner
City Press
that the IMF
believes such
definition
should give
predictability,
but should be
based on risk
and not
necessarily
only asset
size.
Narain
told Inner
City Press,
"On the first
one, our
general belief
is that
supervisory
approaches
should be risk
based, and
therefore the
materiality
and
proportionality
of
institutions
should be
taken into
account for to
develop
supervisory
frameworks. At
the same time,
we also
recognize that
it’s important
to have some
clear rules,
regarding a
unit, in this
case size of
institutions,
because not
only does it
set a baseline
of
expectations,
but it also
provides a
useful
framework for
people to
anchor their
expectations
on. So that’s
why, in a
sense we would
agree that
it’s important
to make these
approaches
risk based and
therefore not
dependent on
size alone. I
should add
also, that our
only political
ideology is
financial
stability, for
the purpose of
this exercise.
But
will this be
used FOR the
Senator
Richard Shelby
draft bill?
On
remittances,
Aditya Narain
said it is an
important
question but
one that the
IMF is dealing
with in other
venues; it
apparently
wasn't raised
to the US
during this
process. Why
not?
Narain
told Inner
City Press,
"On the
regulatory
question, this
is an issue
which is being
discussed in
several forums
where the IMF
has been
participating,
and this is an
issue not just
for the US,
although it
has been most
discussed in
the context of
the US, but
the effects of
the AML on
remittances
and the
result, the
stringent
adherence to
standards has
led to a
concern more
globally that
might be
affecting the
flow of
remittances to
those
jurisdictions...
where such
remittances
and the
channels
through which
they flow are
more
important. We
have not
discussed
this... there
is work
ongoing in the
Fund,
including in
collaboration
with other
institutions
like the World
Bank... and we
expect to be
able to have
more
information on
this in a few
months time."
In the
embargoed
media
conference
call, two
questions in a
row went to
the Financial
Times, which
opined that
the IMF report
takes the side
of the
Democratic
Party. The IMF
disagreed. The
IMF said, in
writing, “As
the epicenter
of the global
financial
crisis that
began in 2008,
the United
States passed
a major law in
2010, the
Dodd-Frank
Act, to reform
its financial
system.
Officials need
to complete
the rulemaking
under the law,
while parts of
reform agenda
face
legislative
proposals to
water them
down.”
, 
