[stop-imf] IMF says nasty things about protesters

[Robert Weissman]

Also see below for the latest IMF line of defense in response to openness
demand.

-- 
Robert Weissman	<rob@essential.org>
Essential Information
P.O. Box 19405, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Tel: 1-202-387-8030
Fax: 1-202-234-5176
www.essential.org

http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2001/tr010907.htm

Transcript of a Press Briefing by Thomas Dawson
Director
External Relations Department
International Monetary Fund
Friday, September 7, 2001
Washington, D.C.

[snip]

Meanwhile, this year's meetings are fast approaching, and as I've said, we
all know, we've taken steps to consolidate the meetings. These steps were
driven by concern about the safety of the people attending the meeting,
the safety of the local community, and while we fully understand the long
tradition of peaceful demonstrations in the nation's capital and
elsewhere, we do urge people, who intend to exercise their right to
protest, to also understand that there are valid security concerns.

And I have to say I'm a little struck at the lack of reporting, I guess I
would say, on some aspects of the Movement for Global Justice that is
organizing many of these demonstrations. I would suggest that many of you
may wish to visit their websites, which is open in the spirit of
globalization, and notes some of the descriptions that they have made
about things such as unpermitted activities and the possibility of opening
up the meetings wherever they may be, or confronting delegates wherever
they may be. I would just suggest you go and look at the website yourself
to see that, for those who think that security concerns are perhaps
overstated, there really are quite a few indications that people are
planning activities that do not fit in the peaceful category.

[snip]

QUESTIONER: Mr. Dawson, my question really relates to the coverage of the
meetings. The year before last, despite the fact that I had the press
credentials, the D.C. Police would just not let me through. I got through
the demonstrators somehow, talked my way past them, but the D.C. Police
stopped me. They said, "We couldn't give a damn about your press
credentials." So, you know, obviously, the liaison, at least the year
before, was quite poor, or at least there were people and I ran into the
wrong guy. But I'm not the only one to whom this happened. There were a
number of other journalists who were unable to gain access to the
conference because of D.C. Police.

MR. DAWSON: Well, I think, as I recall, we suggested people come in very,
very early in the morning, and that I think that will be the likely
recommendation again. We are quite sorry about that, but unfortunately,
these things happen when you have people who are trying to shut down
meetings, and I think it's inevitable that these difficulties will happen.

We, of course, do try to learn lessons, both in this matter as well as in
other matters in the Fund, and we are trying to learn lessons from those
previous experiences, but there is quite clearly a serious security
threat, and I think that anyone who thinks that access is going to be
easy, may well wind up being disappointed.

But we did have a few complaints in that regard last time, not only from
journalists, from Governors of the Fund, who were blocked by demonstrators
blocking their buses and access, and this is very, very regrettable, but
I'm not quite sure what we can do about it, other than to do our best. The
reality is, people are trying to make your life inconvenient. It's not us.
It's the consequence of people who are trying to shut the meetings down.

QUESTIONER: There have been suggestions by some members of the Congress,
as well as some other organizations, that the meetings of the Boards of
the IMF and the World Bank should be held in public. I was wondering if
you regard the Board of the IMF and the World Bank like a bank board, not
open to the public, or they should be treated like the U.N.Security
Council, where you decide things in public. What's your feeling on that?

MR. DAWSON: Well, these are decision-making meetings of lending
organizations, and I'm not familiar with any organization, public or
private, that has public meetings of their decision-making meetings. At
the same time, I would note we publish our schedules in advance. You know
when our Board meetings are taking place. We put up summaries in a timely
fashion immediately afterwards. The loan documents, which is sort of a
letter of intent, are in general published ahead of time.

So I think that's a record of quite substantial transparency and openness.
Remember, we are an governmental organization, 183 member governments, and
the governments choose the context in which they meet, but I would again
note, compared to, say, three or four years ago, the degree of openness in
this institution is the difference between night and day, so I am--I think
my own view is that some of these calls--I mean if we started having the
meetings open, I suspect they'd be asking to have their own Board seats.

QUESTIONER: Members of the Mobilization for Global Justice has sort of
insisted over and over again that they are a completely peaceful
organization, I suppose, implying that the more violent elements that
travel to these meetings are completely unrelated to them. Can you talk
about some of the evidence that you've seen to the contrary?

MR. DAWSON: Sure. Here's the evidence right here. Mr. Robert Naiman, who
is a prominent member of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. This
photograph is from February of last year-of Mr. Naiman being apprehended,
having thrown a pie at Michel Camdessus, the then Managing Director of the
IMF. Mr. Naiman is the individual, who last week, organized the
demonstrations in front of the Bank on disclosure policy. He is a member
of this group. This group claims to be nonviolent. I believe that's
evidence of a violent act.

QUESTIONER: Any other examples?

MR. DAWSON: There are many examples. I suggest you look at the websites. I
shouldn't be doing your reporting. You should be doing your own reporting.

QUESTIONER: What's the name of the group?

MR. DAWSON: The Mobilization for Global Justice is the umbrella group, but
this is an interesting group, actually, now that you ask. The Center for
Economic and Policy Research which is often referred to as CEPR. It's a
Washington-based group. They have a website, and I suggest you take a look
at it. It is, however, quite coincidental that it has the same acronym,
CEPR, as the Center for Economic Policy Research, an organization that's
based in London, has some 378 research fellows, according to their
website. This group seems to have a slightly different orientation. It was
founded, I believe, in October of 1999, unless I'm mistaken. It says so on
the website. You know, we have a problem on occasion with these groups,
where these coincidences seem to happen.

Mr. Naiman's group seems to have this double identity. Mr. Naiman happened
to be on the local Channel 7 News, what, about 2 weeks ago. Asked a
question about the Gary Condit affair, and launched into an attack on the
World Bank. He didn't identify, nor was he identified as being that. The
next speaker just happened to be the head of media relations for the
Mobilization for Global Justice.

We had the letter in The Washington Post a couple weeks ago by Soren
Ambrose, also a leading member of--in his case, 50 Years is Enough, which
is also part of this coalition. He wrote a letter to the editor,
attacking, complaining about the cost of the meetings to the D.C.
Taxpayer, without quite disclosing that he was in fact one of the
organizers of the demonstrations that were incurring the costs.

So these is examples of, I think, where the media has a certain obligation
to do its own due diligence. We are an open organization, and we would
expect to be scrutinized, and we would expect you to carry out at least
the same scrutiny of other organizations.

[snip]