Archive for the ‘Nordic’ category

IMF Article IV Consultation on Burma and ramifications of PRGF

November 26, 2007

According to the media information of IMF (International Monetary Fund) released today, the next article IV consultation of IMF with Burma would take place tentatively on 28th of November 2007. Earlier IMF article IV consultation with Burma took place in October, 6, 2006, 25 March 2005, and 17 March 2004. Most importantly, as of October 2007, Burma is also eligible for Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) programme help of the IMF with other Seventy-Seven countries of the developing and under-developed nations, which includes –Angola, Albania, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Cambodia, India etc.

IMF established the PRGF programme in September 1999 to make the objectives of poverty reduction and growth themes more central to lending operations in its poorest member countries. But here, IMF should also take care of the contemporary situation in Burma under military dictatorship, which lacks any public account mechanism without any elected institutions to direct funds towards poverty reduction. And there have been serious concern raised by many observers of Burma events, that, it might go to the other areas of spending serving little to the core objectives of PRGF of serving poor and needy people of the Burma in its forthcoming article IV consultation.      

It is important to note that, recently in an article published in the military’s official newspaper – “The New Light of Myanmar” of 24th of November entitled, “Duty of All Who Love Motherland Myanmar” by Kyaw Min Aye (page no. 5) wrote about the IMF data on Burmese economy that, “Well, let me point out some facts regarding the present economic situation of Myanmar. A report of IMF says that at the end of 2006-2007 fiscal, it is estimated that Myanmar’s economy would grow by seven percent (7)”. However, according to the latest 2007 World Economic Outlook report of IMF about Burma’s economy released on 17th of October 2007, says that the real GDP figures of Burma in the year 2007 is of 5.5 percent growth rate, and projected growth rate of real GDP for the year 2008 falling to 4 (four) percent.      

Moreover, the announced PRGF programme of IMF has three core objectives. First in principle as a central theme is of “broad public participation and greater country ownership”, which totally lacks in the present circumstances in Burma under military rule. The second priority is that, “each country’s poverty reduction and growth priorities” policies should be taken care of and it is well known that, the present military leadership in Burma is more focused on selling petroleum resources and gems and jewelries to business houses rather then following IMF’s core objectives. Most crucial is the third priority of PRGF programme, which is focused on “strengthening governance”, in order to assist countries’ efforts to design targeted and well-prioritized spending. In which, special emphasis has been given to improve public resource management, transparency, and accountability. And, all the three things – “public resource management, transparency and accountability in governance” are missing in Burma and it couldn’t develop without the freedom of expression and elected institutions in Burma, which present ruling military regime wants to control through proposed drafting of constitution by bringing unelected element of military in Burma’s forthcoming Parliament. The military regime, which has recently faced the human rights resolution in the third committee of UN General Assembly regarding the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners in Burma has not even obeyed the wishes of international institution like UN, and earlier ASEAN ministerial meetings joint communiqués. It is true that, the concerned human rights resolution of GA third committee is non-binding; but it doesn’t imply that, the concerned nations should avoid the moral accountability of obligations of international institutions like – third committee of UN General Assembly to perpetuate authoritarian rule and suppressing independent observation including economic verification of governance by visiting remote areas of the country.      

The PRGF eligibility is based principally on the IMF’s assessment of a country’s per capita income, drawing on the cutoff point for eligibility to World Bank concessional lending (currently 2005 per capita gross national income of $1,025). And, loans under the PRGF carry an annual interest rate of 0.5 percent, with repayments made semiannually, beginning 5½ years and ending 10 years after the disbursement. An eligible country may normally borrow up to a maximum of 140 percent of its IMF quota under a three-year arrangement, although this may be increased to 185 percent of quota in exceptional circumstances. In each case, the amount will depend on the country’s balance of payments need, the strength of its adjustment program, and its previous and outstanding use of IMF credit.    

And, as per the recent IMF data released on 31st of October 2007, Burma’s financial position in the IMF in General Resources Account of Quota and Fund holding of Currency is – 258.40 million SDR to each segment.  And Net Cumulative allocation in SDR department is – 43.47 million SDR. It is important to note that, Burma joined the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on 3rd of January 1952 during the democratic era of Prime Minister- U Nu.

*************************************  

ENDNOTES:     

IMF Article IV Consultation: Under Article IV of the IMF’s Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds bilateral discussions with members, usually every year and a staff team visits the country, collects economic and financial information, and discusses with officials the country’s economic developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the Executive Board. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors, and this summary is transmitted to the country’s authorities.     

SDR: Special Drawing Right (SDR) as an International reserve asset created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement to existing reserve assets. Under SDR’s allocation, distribution of SDRs to members is taken by the decision of the IMF. A “general” allocation requires a finding by the IMF that there is a global need for additional liquidity. And the currency valuation of SDR is determined daily by the IMF by summing the values in U.S. dollars, based on market exchange rates, of a basket of four major currencies—the euro, Japanese yen, pound sterling, and the U.S. dollar. The SDR valuation basket is normally reviewed every five years. The last review, which took place in 2000, resulted in a revision of the weights assigned to each currency in order to take into account the introduction of the euro on January 1, 1999 and the growing role of international financial markets. The revisions in the valuation basket became effective on January 1, 2001.      

(Note: Based on the reports of International Monetary Fund (IMF) entitled, “A Factsheet October 2007 – The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) programme, 2007 World Economic Outlook Reports of IMF released in October 2007 and the official – The New Light of Myanmar, 24th of November 2007 of Burma.)    

(THE END)    

*************************************  

Letter of Richard Mookerdum for Military Rulers and My Answers!

November 23, 2007

On 21st of November 2007, after uploading the news-article entitled, “GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent”, I received a comment from one person named Mr. Richard Mookerdum supporting military regime. Even earlier, I had received his one comment but I couldn’t publish it because of the abusive nature of his logics supporting military junta but I feel that by doing so I’m committing a heinous crime against Gandhian principles of running away to answer even the worst form of criticism. So, I have published his comment and attempted to answer all his points, which could be viewed at the end of the post – “GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent” in the comment section.  

 

Rajshekhar

Editor, Burma Review 

GA Third Committee approves Burma Resolution despite India’s dissent

November 21, 2007

According to the Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) of the United Nations Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York issued on 20th of November 2007, the United Nations Sixty-Second General Assembly “Third Committee” (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) in its day-long 49th and 50th meetings approved a draft resolution on the Situation of human rights in Burma by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 24 against, with 66 abstentions despite Government of India’s note of dissent and going against the resolution♣. Earlier, in the same day vote on the motion to adjourn debate was taken up, in which India favored unsuccessfully adjournment of the debate with military junta   

By going against the resolution with China, Russia and Pakistan, India once again lost the golden diplomatic opportunity to review its Burma policy of constructive engagement with infamous junta started since 1992 under the banner of “Look East Policy”. If India’s South Block diplomatic core is facing problem in suddenly breaking-up the full grown economic engagement with the military regime, then it could have avoided it with fineness by abstaining from resolution rather then voting against it like – Thailand, South Africa, Brunei Darussalam, Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore etc. or neighbouring SAARC countries like – Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan? Another SAARC country – Maldives remain absent from the resolution and Afghanistan voted with Japan, EU, UK, USA, Turkey etc. facilitating the welcome step of the adoption of Human Rights resolution on Burma.   

While participating in the GA Third Committee resolution debate, unfortunately; the India representative said that, “His country had consistently maintained that all initiatives vis-à-vis Myanmar should be forward-looking, non-condemnatory, and seek to engage the Government in a non-intrusive and constructive manner.  By adopting a condemnatory, intrusive and unhelpful tone, the draft resolution would not contribute to, or strengthen, the initiatives being taken by the United Nations; in fact, it might prove to be counterproductive.  It also did not reflect the positive steps being taken by the Government of Myanmar, including the visit of the Special Rapporteur and meetings between Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the Government’s specially appointed minister for relations with her.  India had no option but to vote against – L.41/Rev.1”.  

It is unfortunate, because many a times, India has officially spoken and maintained the position of freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi from House arrest, apart from many world leaders demand and the United Nations Secretary General’s  appeal to immediately release all political prisoners in Burma without any pre-conditions. And the draft resolution’s texts stated that, “General Assembly would strongly call upon the Government (Burma) to desist from further arrests and violence against peaceful protesters, and to release all political prisoners without conditions, including the leaders of the NLD, Aung San Suu Kyi and Tin Oo. The Government would also be called upon to lift all restraints on peaceful political activity, to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, and to immediately ensure safe and unhindered access to all parts of Myanmar for the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations.”   

In addition, Burma’s military regime’s showing news and photograph of meeting of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi with Government appointed minister on 19th – 20 November was only a tactical move to manage 40th  anniversary ASEAN meeting and adjourn voting in GA third committee, as they have continued side by side their propaganda of negating Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and NLD in their official mouthpiece – “The New Light of Myanmar (NLM)” (even in today’s NLM) through government supported ethnic groups.     

Moreover major countries of Nordic region, Latin America, Africa, Asia remain either in favour or abstained or remain absent and not going against resolution facilitating the adoption of resolution. Although, many democratic groups are criticizing the role played by many ASEAN countries or Asian countries for abstaining from voting but practically it also helped in realizing the adoption of resolution seeking freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, Tin Oo and other political prisoners of Burma. Although, the position of many Asian countries while abstaining from voting that, “they oppose country specific resolution” is erroneous. They should also understand that, the beginning of Second World was country specific problem and recent rise of Taliban in Afghanistan was also the outcome of country specific problem. And the brutal suppression of monk’s non-violent protests in August-September 2007 by military regime is a proof that, Burmese regime requires a country specific resolution.     

It is also important for the success of United Nations as an upholder of the institution of democratic values as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, that the adopted resolution including the freedom of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi gets implemented without any delay and pre-condition by Burmese military authority. Now it doesn’t matter that which country voted with or abstained or absent or against on the resolution, it is now important that the act of world’s largest body finds its implementation or not? Or, it finds death like the earlier appeal of Mr. Kofi Annan or present UN Secretary General appeared in January 2007 to immediately release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners without delay?     

ENDNOTES:  

ANNEX VI: Vote on Situation of Human Rights in Burma

The resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 24 against, with 66 abstentions, as follows: 

In favour:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu. 

Against:  Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe. 

Abstain:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia. 

Absent:  Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Madagascar, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Tonga, and Tunisia.  

ANNEX V: Vote on Motion to Adjourn Debate:  

The motion to adjourn the debate on the resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (document A/C.3/62/L.41/Rev.1) was rejected by a recorded vote of 88 against to 54 in favour, with 34 abstentions, as follows:  

In favour:  Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, India, Iran, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.  

Against:  Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Uruguay, Vanuatu. 

Abstain:  Belize, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ghana, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Philippines, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, and Tuvalu. 

Absent:  Algeria, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, and Tajikistan.    

(Source: United Nations, Department of Public Information, News and Media Division, New York, Press Release (GA/SHC/3909) issued on 20th November 2007 entitled: “THIRD COMMITTEE APPROVES THREE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC TEXTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE OPPOSITION LED BY DEVELOPING COUNTRIES”)   

 

(THE END)  

 

***********************************