India strongly opposed giving more financial assistance to Pakistan in the IMF Executive Board meeting held on Friday and expressed serious concern over the previous record of Islamabad. Also said that the country, which is struggling with lack of cash from bailout, is able to sponsor terrorism across the border. In the meeting, India kept itself away from voting on the proposal to give a new loan of $ 1.3 billion to Pakistan under flexibility and stability facility (RSF) loan program.
The IMF Executive Board consists of 25 directors who represent the groups of member countries or countries. This handles daily operations including loan acceptance. Unlike the United Nations, where every country has a vote, the voting power of the IMF reflects the economic size of each member. For example, countries like the United States have high voting shares. Thus, to simplify things, IMF usually takes unanimous decisions.
System is not formal …
In cases where votes are required, the system does not allow formal “no” votes. Directors can either vote on the side or remain absent. There is no provision to vote against the loan or proposal.
India recently kept itself away from the IMF voting to sanction loans to Pakistan, not due to lack of protest, but because formal “no” voting is not allowed under the IMF rules.
By not participating in the voting, India expressed its strong disagreement within the limits of the IMF polling system and used the opportunity to formally record its objections. Major objections of India are included.
Questioning the effectiveness of the current assistance of the IMF, India said that Pakistan has been assisted in 28 years out of the last 35 years, out of which there were only four programs in the last five years in which there was no meaningful or permanent improvement.
India strongly exposed the continuous dominance of the Pakistani Army in economic matters, which weakens transparency, civil surveillance and permanent reforms. India strongly opposed providing money to a country which keeps sponsoring the cross -border terrorism. He warned that such support threatens the reputation of global institutions and weakens international norms.