IMF Says "No Agreement" With Sri Lanka, Meets in Hungary, Omits Bulgaria, Angola and Chavez Questions

The International Monetary Fund's lack of transparency is matched by its claims to be transparent. Take for example the IMF's arrangement with Sri Lanka, where parliament has been suspended and the state of emergency extended.

  Two weeks ago, Inner City Press submitted three questions to the IMF's briefing. Spokesman David Hawley did not take any of the questions on camera. Afterwards, and after complains, two of the three questions were answered, but not the one on Sri Lanka: "With an IMF team in Sri Lanka, what is the IMF's thinking on the EU's suspension of the GSP Plus tariff treatment, and/or the arrest of opposition politician Sarath Fonseka?"

  On March 4, Inner City Press submitted five questions, some repeatedly. Spokesperson Caroline Atkinson read out her own summary of the question, about the third tranche of the IMF's loan, and then said that the IMF "mission returned from Sri Lanka," we don't have an agreement, we don't expect the third tranche to be released."

  Then Ms. Atkinson said, I understand we have more online questions, we'll wait for technology. See transcript below.

  But it appears that the delay is not technology related, but rather consists of IMF staff screening and editing the questions that are submitted. Of Inner City Press' four other questions, only one was mentioned by Ms. Aktinson. Inner City Press had submitted, "In Hungary, why did the IMF meet with opposition party Fidesz? What was discussed? Fidesz says the discussions concerned the deficit, and if Fidesz comes to power in the April elections -- is that true?"

  Ms. Atkinson read only part of the question, then said that such meetings are "common... an exchange of views." But the opposition party said it had an agreement with the IMF. Shouldn't the IMF respond?