On Thailand, ICP Asks UN If Ban
Will Raise
Coup to
General
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 13 --
With military
rule still in
place in
Thailand, on
March 13 Inner
City Press
asked the UN
if Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon will
raise the
restoration of
civilian rule
and democracy
when he meets
Thailand's
General at the
disaster risk
reduction
conference in
Japan, video
here:
Inner
City Press: I
want to know
if you can
confirm now
before the
weekend that
the
Secretary-General
will be
meeting with
the, I guess,
interim or
military
leader of
Thailand while
at this
conference in
Japan, General
Chan-o-cha?
And I ask
because there
are public
calls that the
Secretary-General
use such an
opportunity.
Apparently
they believe
that he will
be meeting
with him to
raise the need
to return to
democratic
civilian rule
in
Thailand.
Is he going to
meet, and will
he be raising
that?
Spokesman
Dujarric:
This is an
issue that the
Secretary-General
and others
have raised in
meetings with
senior Thai
officials.
If the meeting
is confirmed,
and once it
has happened,
we will issue
a
readout.
We'll see.
How
does the
International
Monetary Fund
describe and
respond to a
military coup?
Just out of
embargo is the
IMF's Article
IV report on
Thailand, with
this line:
"private
investment
is being
hampered by
low capacity
utilization,
weak external
demand, and
concerns over
political
uncertainty.”
Yeah,
political
uncertainty.
Inner City
Press, which
puts questions
every
fortnight to
the IMF, asked
the UN about
Thailand in
2014 and
more recently.
In
fairness, here
is the
complete IMF
paragraph:
At
the
conclusion of
the visit, Mr.
Breuer issued
the following
statement:
“Staff
estimates that
real GDP
expanded by
around 0.5
percent in
2014. A modest
recovery is
expected to
continue in
2015 with
growth
projected at
3.5 percent on
account of
some recovery
in
consumption,
including from
lower fuel
prices, and in
private
investment as
backlogs of
project
approvals have
been largely
cleared by
various
government
agencies.
Accommodative
monetary
policy will
also support
the recovery.
Nonetheless,
private
investment is
being hampered
by low
capacity
utilization,
weak external
demand, and
concerns over
political
uncertainty.
Private
consumption is
also weakened
by high
household debt
and tighter
credit
conditions. At
the same time,
global demand
for Thailand’s
exports is
weak. The
expansion of
public
investment has
proven more
difficult than
expected,
including the
implementation
of the
stimulus
package
approved in
October.”
IMF Deputy
Spokesperson
William Murray
said that
recent events
are "not
positive from
an economic
standpoint,"
but that the
IMF's first
review of its
program will
not be until
the Spring.
Where will the
Houthis be
then? And
Hadi? And
Saleh?
Inner City
Press also
submitted
questions on
Sri Lanka and
on Ebola and
debt relief.
On the latter,
Murray spoke
of an
exceptional
assistance
program as
with Haiti,
but wouldn't
specify debt
relief. We'll
have more on
this.
On
Yemen, Murray
referred back
to the January
21 report and
briefing by
Masood Ahmed
-- to which
Inner City
Press also
submitted the
question. In
that briefing,
Ahmed said:
"we
are worried
about the
continued
difficulties
in Yemen,
really because
Yemen is
already a
country with a
fragile
economic
recovery, with
a large number
of people
living in
poverty, and
with already
trying to cope
with different
shocks that
the economy
has undergone,
and so this
makes the
uncertainty,
makes it both
harder to deal
with those
shocks and
also it
affects
confidence, so
that some of
the private
sector
activity is
affected.
"Of
course we as
an interactive
institution
don't have a
view on the
political
developments
in any
country, but
we can look at
the economic
consequences,
which is what
I was
referring to.
In terms of
the
implications
for this on
the price of
oil, you know
the price of
oil, the
markets build
in both up
side and down
side risks
into that
price. So
there's a risk
of supply
disruptions.
That is one of
the sources
that can push
up oil prices
with the risk
premium, not
just from
Yemen but also
people have
been concerned
about supply
disruptions in
other oil
producing
countries, but
there's also
the risk that
the world
economy may
turn out to be
slower in
terms of
growth or
there's a risk
that in fact
oil production
may turn out
to be higher
in some
countries than
expected. If
you remember,
earlier on in
2014, people
were expecting
oil production
in Libya to be
relatively low
for the year.
As it
happened, oil
production
actually
increased at
one point to
900, 1000
barrels a day
and so that
was
unexpected.
And some
people say
that was one
of the reasons
that was
helping people
to reestablish
equilibrium in
terms of their
expectations.
So I think
that the
market is
always looking
at both up
side and down
side risks and
prices."
The IMF's
Middle East
and Central
Asia
Department
Regional
Economic
Outlook Update
as released on
January 21,
says “Yemen is
at high risk
because its
banks are
highly exposed
to government
debt against
the backdrop
of a weak
fiscal
position and
limited
financing
options.”
Referring to
the demands
for fuel
subsidy cuts,
the IMF report
says “Yemen
“is planning
to increase
non-oil
revenue
collection,
contain the
government
wage bill, and
continue fuel
subsidy
reform.” Is
that still the
case? How
could the IMF
know?
Looking
wider, the IMF
report says
that
“conflicts,
terrorism, and
related
security
disruptions
continue to be
a prevailing
concern in the
region.
Although
airstrikes
have slowed
the advance of
the so-called
Islamic State
(ISIS),
conflicts in
Iraq and Syria
persist,
creating
significant
economic and
political
spillovers for
neighboring
countries
(especially
Jordan and
Lebanon). The
security
situations in
Afghanistan,
Libya,
Pakistan, and
Yemen also
remain
challenging.
Conflicts cast
a shadow over
the economic
outlook for
the MENAP
region, not
only because
they disrupt
economic
activity; they
also reduce
political
space for the
much-needed
reforms and
delay the
return of
confidence to
the MENAP
region.”
On
January 19-20,
the IMF's
Olivier
Blanchard
answered Inner
City Press'
question about
the impact of
falling oil
prices on
Africa by
saying
"Nigeria will
have to
adjust. I do
not know at
this stage
whether they
can adjust on
their own or
they might
need a program
from the Fund.
If they did
any member is
welcome to
come at this
stage I have
no information
about it.”
A
Yemen-like
program?
To the IMF's
World Economic
Outlook Update
press
conference,
Inner City
Press had
submitted this
question:
“Please
summarize what
the decline in
oil prices may
mean for
countries in
Africa, and
what the IMF
is prepared to
do about those
countries
negatively
impacted.”
As the second
online
question
taken, this
question was
put to
Blanchard, who
responded:
“Most
African
countries are
importers and
so are helped.
Some countries
are not and
the main
example is
Nigeria.
Nigeria will
have to
adjust. I do
not know at
this stage
whether they
can adjust on
their own or
they might
need a program
from the Fund.
If they did
any member is
welcome to
come at this
stage I have
no information
about it.”
Earlier on
January 19,
the UN
Security
Council issued
a Presidential
Statement
about, but not
funding, the
fight against
Boko Haram.
Security
Council
sources
leaving the
meeting told
Inner City
Press that for
funding, those
in the region
-- i.e.
Nigeria --
should be
looked to
first.
But if Nigeria
may even need
to apply for
an IMF
program, is it
reasonable for
the powers in
the UN and it
Permanent Five
members of the
Security
Council to
expect it to
be entire
responsible
for fighting
Boko Haram?
We'll have
more on this.
Footnote:
while
Blanchard's
"main example"
was Nigeria,
what about
Angola? What
about
Equatorial
Guinea? To the
north, what
about Libya?
Questions,
questions...