By Alan Beattie in London and Andrew Bounds in Brussels
Published: October 8 2007 02:01 | Last updated: October 8 2007 02:01
The European Union appears to have backed away from a threat made just last month to end unilaterally trade privileges extended to its former colonies unless they sign new trade deals.
Peter Mandelson, the European trade commissioner, had warned the so-called African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries that, unless they agreed to open up their services and government procurement sectors, he would be forced to reduce their tariff-free access to the 500m-strong market on January 1.
ADVERTISEMENT
The news sent shockwaves through the business community in the 31 richer ACP countries, which would find themselves having to apply for import permits. The rest of the 70-plus ACP states are so poor as to benefit from World Trade Organisation rules allowing quota-free, duty-free access.
Last week, however, Mr Mandelson announced he was prepared to sign an interim deal with the Pacific region of about 20 island states covering goods only. Other controversial areas Brussels had fought for, where its companies have an edge – such as services trade, investment rules and opening the government procurement market – could wait until a second stage.
Campaigners said that second stage might never come. “Finally the cracks are beginning to show and the Commission is facing the reality that it cannot impose provisions in EPAs [Economic Partnership Agreements] that the ACP does not want,” said Alexander Woollcombe, of Oxfam. “Nonetheless a goods-only agreement could still be harmful. The devil is in the detail. Now is the time to focus on development, not a WTO deadline.”
The EU offered the same terms to west African countries this month, in a letter seen by the Financial Times. However, a goods-only deal has been rejected by the region. An official from the Economic Community of West African States said on Friday that it wanted instead to extend talks by two years.
In the letter Mr Mandelson and Louis Michel, the development commissioner, said it would be illegal to continue policies struck down by the WTO once an initial five-year waiver ended on December 31. The WTO also required some market opening by ACP countries, though this would be less than for the EU, which would immediately scrap tariffs on more than 99 per cent of products, whereas west African countries could have up to 25 years on the most sensitive products.
The Commission is under intense pressure to avoid a clash. The UK and other EU countries pressed Mr Mandelson to settle for a goods-only deal at a meeting in Madeira last month. Don McKinnon, the secretary-general of the Commonwealth of 53 mainly English-speaking countries, also met Mr Mandelson and emphasised that point.
“This sort of thing is of concern to us because you are dealing with a heavyweight against many flyweights. They are not equal. The deadline is all about creating a crisis and in those situations the big guy is going to win,” he said in an interview with the FT. “The EU has to give more than it is getting.”
Sunday, 14 October 2007
Nigeria blunts graft inquiry
By Matthew Green in Abuja
Published: October 9 2007 18:21 | Last updated: October 9 2007 18:21
Britain’s chief prosecutor has accused the Nigerian authorities of jeopardising attempts by UK police to recover funds they suspect were looted by powerful politicians under the previous government in Abuja.
The criticisms, contained in a letter seen by the Financial Times, appear to confirm fears that infighting in President Umaru Yar’Adua’s administration is undermining his pledges to crack down on graft.
The controversy centres on investigations into James Ibori, the former governor of Delta state, which has enjoyed soaring income from oil production. Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is investigating Mr Ibori on suspicion of stealing state funds during his eight-year tenure as governor, which ended in May. British police are investigating him under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Britain is a popular destination for wealthy Nigerians seeking to buy houses and open bank accounts. UK officials have worked closely with the EFCC on several investigations of former state governors.
Sir Ken Macdonald QC, the UK’s director of public prosecutions, wrote to Michael Aondoakaa, Nigeria’s justice minister and attorney-general, to request evidence compiled by the EFCC against Mr Ibori. He said a failure by the Nigerian authorities to supply evidence had led to “major difficulties” with the case.
Activists see the investigation as a test of whether Mr Yar’Adua’s government will build on the limited progress made under his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo, in bringing senior figures before the courts. Mr Ibori’s case is being watched closely since he is widely regarded as having been instrumental in the campaign that brought Mr Yar’Adua to power in April’s general elections.
Mr Ibori declined to comment on the case while it was pending. He has not been charged in the UK or Nigeria.
Britain’s Metropolitan Police obtained a freeze on $35m (€25m, £17m) of Mr Ibori’s assets on August 2 while they pursued investigations. The investigation dates back several years and has been carried out in co-operation with the EFCC. But the police suffered an embarrassing setback last week when a judge lifted the freeze, citing the time the investigation had taken and the lack of progress on a decision on whether to charge Mr Ibori.
Mr Macdonald said a lack of co-operation by Nigerian authorities was endangering the Ibori case. The letter said investigations against other former governors were also pending.
“The difficulty and lack of progress in obtaining hard evidence from Nigeria is causing major difficulties in relation to the court proceedings in the United Kingdom and putting these other cases in jeopardy,” Mr Macdonald wrote in his letter, dated October 2.
The letter said officers from London were due to arrive in Nigeria on Wednesday to collect evidence from the EFCC. Mr Macdonald asked Mr Aondoakaa to assure him that the requested evidence would be made available, warning he would otherwise have to abandon an appeal against the judge’s lifting of the asset freeze. The High Court in London on Monday upheld the prosecutors’ right to appeal.
Mr Yar’Adua’s government raised hopes it would not shrink from confronting once untouchable politicians when the EFCC, an anti-graft agency, took the unprecedented step of charging five other ex-governors soon after they lost their immunity to prosecution after their tenures ended in May.
But activists say a growing power struggle between branches of the judicial system in Nigeria has undermined investigations in both that country and Britain. Campaigners have accused Mr Aondoakaa of attempting to undermine the independence of the EFCC since he took office in July by insisting he should take over prosecutions by the agency.
But the EFCC has also been accused of targeting opponents of Mr Obasanjo, whose government created it in 2003. Each side blamed the other for delays in providing evidence to British police in the Ibori case.
Published: October 9 2007 18:21 | Last updated: October 9 2007 18:21
Britain’s chief prosecutor has accused the Nigerian authorities of jeopardising attempts by UK police to recover funds they suspect were looted by powerful politicians under the previous government in Abuja.
The criticisms, contained in a letter seen by the Financial Times, appear to confirm fears that infighting in President Umaru Yar’Adua’s administration is undermining his pledges to crack down on graft.
The controversy centres on investigations into James Ibori, the former governor of Delta state, which has enjoyed soaring income from oil production. Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is investigating Mr Ibori on suspicion of stealing state funds during his eight-year tenure as governor, which ended in May. British police are investigating him under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Britain is a popular destination for wealthy Nigerians seeking to buy houses and open bank accounts. UK officials have worked closely with the EFCC on several investigations of former state governors.
Sir Ken Macdonald QC, the UK’s director of public prosecutions, wrote to Michael Aondoakaa, Nigeria’s justice minister and attorney-general, to request evidence compiled by the EFCC against Mr Ibori. He said a failure by the Nigerian authorities to supply evidence had led to “major difficulties” with the case.
Activists see the investigation as a test of whether Mr Yar’Adua’s government will build on the limited progress made under his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo, in bringing senior figures before the courts. Mr Ibori’s case is being watched closely since he is widely regarded as having been instrumental in the campaign that brought Mr Yar’Adua to power in April’s general elections.
Mr Ibori declined to comment on the case while it was pending. He has not been charged in the UK or Nigeria.
Britain’s Metropolitan Police obtained a freeze on $35m (€25m, £17m) of Mr Ibori’s assets on August 2 while they pursued investigations. The investigation dates back several years and has been carried out in co-operation with the EFCC. But the police suffered an embarrassing setback last week when a judge lifted the freeze, citing the time the investigation had taken and the lack of progress on a decision on whether to charge Mr Ibori.
Mr Macdonald said a lack of co-operation by Nigerian authorities was endangering the Ibori case. The letter said investigations against other former governors were also pending.
“The difficulty and lack of progress in obtaining hard evidence from Nigeria is causing major difficulties in relation to the court proceedings in the United Kingdom and putting these other cases in jeopardy,” Mr Macdonald wrote in his letter, dated October 2.
The letter said officers from London were due to arrive in Nigeria on Wednesday to collect evidence from the EFCC. Mr Macdonald asked Mr Aondoakaa to assure him that the requested evidence would be made available, warning he would otherwise have to abandon an appeal against the judge’s lifting of the asset freeze. The High Court in London on Monday upheld the prosecutors’ right to appeal.
Mr Yar’Adua’s government raised hopes it would not shrink from confronting once untouchable politicians when the EFCC, an anti-graft agency, took the unprecedented step of charging five other ex-governors soon after they lost their immunity to prosecution after their tenures ended in May.
But activists say a growing power struggle between branches of the judicial system in Nigeria has undermined investigations in both that country and Britain. Campaigners have accused Mr Aondoakaa of attempting to undermine the independence of the EFCC since he took office in July by insisting he should take over prosecutions by the agency.
But the EFCC has also been accused of targeting opponents of Mr Obasanjo, whose government created it in 2003. Each side blamed the other for delays in providing evidence to British police in the Ibori case.
Markets on alert for G7 shift on currency
By Krishna Guha in Washington
Published: October 14 2007 17:09 | Last updated: October 14 2007 17:09
Currencies and the regulatory response to the credit crisis will top the agenda when world finance ministers, central bank governors and private sector bank executives meet this week in Washington for the Group of Seven summit and the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Foreign exchange markets in particular are on alert for any changes to the G7 communiqué that raise even the remote possibility of co-ordinated international intervention to support the dollar, which has fallen to its lowest levels against the euro in recent weeks.
This heightened sensitivity follows a high-profile public campaign by many European governments, led by France, for something to be done to halt the euro’s appreciation.
Banks feared media would misinterpret subprime woes
Banks were reluctant to disclose their exposure to US subprime mortgages during the credit squeeze for fear of being misinterpreted by the media, according to the head of the PwC accounting firm.
Speaking to the Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society in Deauville, France, Sam DiPiazza, global chief executive officer of the Big Four accounting firm, said: “The media handled that very poorly because they didn’t understand and they didn’t take the time to communicate the facts.”
Mr DiPiazza said he had met a number of bank executives who had fought shy of going public about their exposure.
“They said, ‘If I go out and tell the world we hold $10bn of subprime debt, the media will write we have $10bn of losses and we’re bankrupt.’ ”
The subprime mortgage crisis rippled through world credit markets this summer, undermining trust among banks, many of which stopped lending freely to one another. In the UK, that helped trigger a funding squeeze for Northern Rock, which led to a rush by savers to withdraw money. Some observers blamed the media for exacerbating this crisis of confidence. Reporting by Andrew Hill
Click here for further coverage and video interview from the Women’s Forum 2007Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, last month said the eurozone “should not be the only area in the world where the currency is not put at the service of growth”.
Two former US Treasury officials told the Financial Times that it could be in the US’s interest to create some uncertainty about possible currency intervention – not in order to boost the value of the dollar but to ensure any further decline is orderly.
However, neither thinks that Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, will adopt this strategy. Mr Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, believes that politicians have no business trying to establish the value of currencies that trade in deep and liquid markets, and would not succeed if they tried.
The US Treasury has signalled that it will not agree to any G7 statement that suggests that Washington wants the dollar to appreciate against the euro.
The UK, meanwhile, has sided with the US. Asked about whether the G7 should change its language on currencies, Alistair Darling, chancellor of the exchequer, said: “I think the G7 really needs to concentrate on, perhaps, some of the longer-term structural reforms that are necessary in the economies of the world.”
A hedge fund manager told the FT he worried that the French had overplayed their hand by raising expectations of the G7 meeting to the point where the absence of a policy shift could be seen as a green light for further dollar depreciation.
However, a head-on collision between the eurozone and the US at the G7 looks unlikely, following the European Union’s decision last week to tone down its rhetoric on the dollar, in response to the US formally backing a strong dollar and the need for China to allow the renminbi to appreciate.
This brings Europe into line with US thinking that the problem is not the fall of the dollar against the euro, but other currencies not sharing the burden of the currency’s decline.
In private, though, European governments, led by France, are expected to push for some new wording in the communiqué.
A former US official said the G7 would probably agree to “tweak” the language. This could involve some tougher words on the renminbi and, perhaps, the yen, with possible compromise language about monitoring “volatility” or “abrupt movements” in exchange rates.
He said the Europeans would probably spin this as being “really about getting the euro down”. But he said the US would not support this interpretation.
There is broader agreement on the regulatory agenda, with a “to-do” list that focuses on credit rating agencies, disclosure of banks’ exposure to off-balance-sheet investment vehicles, regulatory and incentive problems in the system by which financial institutions sell mortgage debts on to securities markets, and difficulties surrounding complex structured credit products.
The UK wants new international regulations that focus on liquidity rather than just credit risk.
These issues will be discussed at the G7 on Friday and the annual meeting of the IMF the following day, which brings together all the world’s finance ministers.
Differences over hedge funds – particularly between the US and Germany – still remain but have narrowed and are not a core issue.
However, the US wants policymakers to take time to analyse the crisis before leaping to regulatory solutions, a view backed by the IMF and central bankers and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Washington is also inclined to see more scope for market-based solutions to many of the failures exposed than are most European states.
In spite of domestic political pressure, Mr Paulson remains unwilling to scapegoat the rating agencies, emphasising the need to reform but not destroy them.
Additional reporting by Chris Giles and Gillian Tett in London, Bertrand Benoit in Berlin, Ben Hall in Paris, Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt and Tony Barber in Brussels.
Published: October 14 2007 17:09 | Last updated: October 14 2007 17:09
Currencies and the regulatory response to the credit crisis will top the agenda when world finance ministers, central bank governors and private sector bank executives meet this week in Washington for the Group of Seven summit and the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
Foreign exchange markets in particular are on alert for any changes to the G7 communiqué that raise even the remote possibility of co-ordinated international intervention to support the dollar, which has fallen to its lowest levels against the euro in recent weeks.
This heightened sensitivity follows a high-profile public campaign by many European governments, led by France, for something to be done to halt the euro’s appreciation.
Banks feared media would misinterpret subprime woes
Banks were reluctant to disclose their exposure to US subprime mortgages during the credit squeeze for fear of being misinterpreted by the media, according to the head of the PwC accounting firm.
Speaking to the Women’s Forum for the Economy and Society in Deauville, France, Sam DiPiazza, global chief executive officer of the Big Four accounting firm, said: “The media handled that very poorly because they didn’t understand and they didn’t take the time to communicate the facts.”
Mr DiPiazza said he had met a number of bank executives who had fought shy of going public about their exposure.
“They said, ‘If I go out and tell the world we hold $10bn of subprime debt, the media will write we have $10bn of losses and we’re bankrupt.’ ”
The subprime mortgage crisis rippled through world credit markets this summer, undermining trust among banks, many of which stopped lending freely to one another. In the UK, that helped trigger a funding squeeze for Northern Rock, which led to a rush by savers to withdraw money. Some observers blamed the media for exacerbating this crisis of confidence. Reporting by Andrew Hill
Click here for further coverage and video interview from the Women’s Forum 2007Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, last month said the eurozone “should not be the only area in the world where the currency is not put at the service of growth”.
Two former US Treasury officials told the Financial Times that it could be in the US’s interest to create some uncertainty about possible currency intervention – not in order to boost the value of the dollar but to ensure any further decline is orderly.
However, neither thinks that Hank Paulson, US Treasury secretary, will adopt this strategy. Mr Paulson, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, believes that politicians have no business trying to establish the value of currencies that trade in deep and liquid markets, and would not succeed if they tried.
The US Treasury has signalled that it will not agree to any G7 statement that suggests that Washington wants the dollar to appreciate against the euro.
The UK, meanwhile, has sided with the US. Asked about whether the G7 should change its language on currencies, Alistair Darling, chancellor of the exchequer, said: “I think the G7 really needs to concentrate on, perhaps, some of the longer-term structural reforms that are necessary in the economies of the world.”
A hedge fund manager told the FT he worried that the French had overplayed their hand by raising expectations of the G7 meeting to the point where the absence of a policy shift could be seen as a green light for further dollar depreciation.
However, a head-on collision between the eurozone and the US at the G7 looks unlikely, following the European Union’s decision last week to tone down its rhetoric on the dollar, in response to the US formally backing a strong dollar and the need for China to allow the renminbi to appreciate.
This brings Europe into line with US thinking that the problem is not the fall of the dollar against the euro, but other currencies not sharing the burden of the currency’s decline.
In private, though, European governments, led by France, are expected to push for some new wording in the communiqué.
A former US official said the G7 would probably agree to “tweak” the language. This could involve some tougher words on the renminbi and, perhaps, the yen, with possible compromise language about monitoring “volatility” or “abrupt movements” in exchange rates.
He said the Europeans would probably spin this as being “really about getting the euro down”. But he said the US would not support this interpretation.
There is broader agreement on the regulatory agenda, with a “to-do” list that focuses on credit rating agencies, disclosure of banks’ exposure to off-balance-sheet investment vehicles, regulatory and incentive problems in the system by which financial institutions sell mortgage debts on to securities markets, and difficulties surrounding complex structured credit products.
The UK wants new international regulations that focus on liquidity rather than just credit risk.
These issues will be discussed at the G7 on Friday and the annual meeting of the IMF the following day, which brings together all the world’s finance ministers.
Differences over hedge funds – particularly between the US and Germany – still remain but have narrowed and are not a core issue.
However, the US wants policymakers to take time to analyse the crisis before leaping to regulatory solutions, a view backed by the IMF and central bankers and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Washington is also inclined to see more scope for market-based solutions to many of the failures exposed than are most European states.
In spite of domestic political pressure, Mr Paulson remains unwilling to scapegoat the rating agencies, emphasising the need to reform but not destroy them.
Additional reporting by Chris Giles and Gillian Tett in London, Bertrand Benoit in Berlin, Ben Hall in Paris, Ralph Atkins in Frankfurt and Tony Barber in Brussels.
South Sudan minister explains pull out
Sunday, 14th October, 2007 E-mail article Print article
Dr. Samson Kwaje
The SPLM pulled out of the unity government, citing concerns over the implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The New Vision’s Els De Temmerman and Milton Olupot interviewed the Minister of Information of South Sudan, Dr. Samson Kwaje, by tele-conference.
Q: You cited oil revenue sharing as one of the reasons for withdrawing your ministers from the national government. But Khartoum claims it is releasing about $160m every three months in oil revenues to the South?
A: The issue is not about remitting money. The issue is lack of transparency in the entire oil sector. Southern Sudanese are not involved in the production process or the marketing. We don’t know how much is being extracted. They don’t tell us the truth. According to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), we are supposed to get 50% of the oil produced in South Sudan. Calculations two years ago in Naivasha established that we would be getting between $80m and $115m per month. At that time the price of oil was $35 to $37 per barrel. Right now it has gone beyond $70 per barrel. But the revenues we are getting range between $28m and $60m per month. Considering that two more oil fields were added, in Paluoch and Adar, we should be getting over $150m per month.
Q: So how is your share being determined?
A: They just tell us: this month production has fallen because the old oil fields are producing less than usual. The problem is that the government of South Sudan and the SPLM are not involved in the oil sector. We are not represented in the ministry of energy or the ministry of finance, where the calculations are done. We feel that there is cheating.
Q: Another outstanding issue is the North/South border demarcation. Khartoum claims that the border commission and the commission for the allocation of natural resources have been formed but that their work is hampered by the rains.
A: According to the agreement, the North/South border commission was supposed to finish its work between January 9 and July 9, 2005. The government of Khartoum has been dragging its feet. Even after the SPLA named its members, the commission was not formed until the end of 2005. And when the commission was formed, the ministry of finance did not want to fund it. There was no funding until early 2007, when they began the actual work. The Khartoum government is not interested in the demarcation of the border, because when the border is formed, most of the oil now called northern Sudan oil is actually in South Sudan. The delay is not because of the rain. It is because they don’t want the commission to finish its work.
Q: What about the idea of bringing in British experts to demarcate the border?
A: For the North/South demarcation, it is the SPLM and the Government of Sudan to determine the borders, but they are free to engage national or international experts. So far, Khartoum has refused to bring in experts, claiming we are capable of doing it ourselves. For the Abyei boundary commission, five international experts and five members from the SPLM and the Sudan government each were appointed.
They produced their report. But the Khartoum government rejected its findings. Up to now, the Abyei Protocol has not been implemented because Khartoum rejected the experts’ report and subsequently failed to set up an administration in Abyei.
Q: You claim that the North has not withdrawn all its troops from the South, as agreed in the CPA. But Khartoum, in turn, claims the SPLA has not withdrawn all its troops either.
A: Khartoum has not yet withdrawn its troops from Unity State and Upper Nile. These are states where oil is being produced. They still have 16,000 troops in those two states. This is a clear violation of the CPA, which said that all troops should have been withdrawn by July 9, 2007. Our information is that instead of withdrawing, they are deploying more troops in those areas. As for us, we have withdrawn all our troops from the Nuba Mountains and the eastern Front. We are left with less than 50 troops in a place called Kurmuk in Blue Nile who are guarding our heavy arms. They have not been able to cross because of the rains, which have made the roads impassable. We are waiting for the floods to go down so that we can drive our tanks out of the area.
Q: One of the demands on the list handed to the Sudan President was the reshuffle of ministerial posts. What is the problem?
A: The government of unity is composed as follows: 52% the National Congress Party, the party of President Bashir, 28% SPLM, and the rest from other northern political parties. There are 30 cabinet ministers, 34 state ministers and a number of advisors. Out of that, we have eight cabinet ministers, 10 state ministers and two advisors. According to the agreement, these are nominated by the chairman of the SPLA, with the recommendation of the party, and given to President Bashir for appointment. Each party has a right to replace its members. Three months ago, the President of South Sudan, who is the chairman of the SPLM, sent a letter to reshuffle some of its ministers. He appointed new ones and reassigned others. But President Bashir has refused to implement it. Yet, according to the agreement, it is not a prerogative of the President to refuse a recommendation of any party that wants to reshuffle it members. This is again a clear violation of the CPA.
Q: What is the way forward?
A: We are still in negotiations. We have sent a high level negotiating team to Khartoum to present our complaints to the government of national unity. The SPLA is not going to start a war. We are just expressing our disappointment in the non-implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
Q: Is this going to affect the peace talks you are brokering between the LRA and the Government of Uganda?
A: It is not going to affect the Juba peace talks in any way because this is an initiative of the government of South Sudan, which is functioning normally. We are only suspending our participation in the government of national unity.
Q: Should Ugandan businessmen in South Sudan be worried?
A: Not at all. South Sudan is normal. There is no war. We are only handling our problems with the Khartoum government, not at the level of the government of South Sudan.
Dr. Samson Kwaje
The SPLM pulled out of the unity government, citing concerns over the implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The New Vision’s Els De Temmerman and Milton Olupot interviewed the Minister of Information of South Sudan, Dr. Samson Kwaje, by tele-conference.
Q: You cited oil revenue sharing as one of the reasons for withdrawing your ministers from the national government. But Khartoum claims it is releasing about $160m every three months in oil revenues to the South?
A: The issue is not about remitting money. The issue is lack of transparency in the entire oil sector. Southern Sudanese are not involved in the production process or the marketing. We don’t know how much is being extracted. They don’t tell us the truth. According to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), we are supposed to get 50% of the oil produced in South Sudan. Calculations two years ago in Naivasha established that we would be getting between $80m and $115m per month. At that time the price of oil was $35 to $37 per barrel. Right now it has gone beyond $70 per barrel. But the revenues we are getting range between $28m and $60m per month. Considering that two more oil fields were added, in Paluoch and Adar, we should be getting over $150m per month.
Q: So how is your share being determined?
A: They just tell us: this month production has fallen because the old oil fields are producing less than usual. The problem is that the government of South Sudan and the SPLM are not involved in the oil sector. We are not represented in the ministry of energy or the ministry of finance, where the calculations are done. We feel that there is cheating.
Q: Another outstanding issue is the North/South border demarcation. Khartoum claims that the border commission and the commission for the allocation of natural resources have been formed but that their work is hampered by the rains.
A: According to the agreement, the North/South border commission was supposed to finish its work between January 9 and July 9, 2005. The government of Khartoum has been dragging its feet. Even after the SPLA named its members, the commission was not formed until the end of 2005. And when the commission was formed, the ministry of finance did not want to fund it. There was no funding until early 2007, when they began the actual work. The Khartoum government is not interested in the demarcation of the border, because when the border is formed, most of the oil now called northern Sudan oil is actually in South Sudan. The delay is not because of the rain. It is because they don’t want the commission to finish its work.
Q: What about the idea of bringing in British experts to demarcate the border?
A: For the North/South demarcation, it is the SPLM and the Government of Sudan to determine the borders, but they are free to engage national or international experts. So far, Khartoum has refused to bring in experts, claiming we are capable of doing it ourselves. For the Abyei boundary commission, five international experts and five members from the SPLM and the Sudan government each were appointed.
They produced their report. But the Khartoum government rejected its findings. Up to now, the Abyei Protocol has not been implemented because Khartoum rejected the experts’ report and subsequently failed to set up an administration in Abyei.
Q: You claim that the North has not withdrawn all its troops from the South, as agreed in the CPA. But Khartoum, in turn, claims the SPLA has not withdrawn all its troops either.
A: Khartoum has not yet withdrawn its troops from Unity State and Upper Nile. These are states where oil is being produced. They still have 16,000 troops in those two states. This is a clear violation of the CPA, which said that all troops should have been withdrawn by July 9, 2007. Our information is that instead of withdrawing, they are deploying more troops in those areas. As for us, we have withdrawn all our troops from the Nuba Mountains and the eastern Front. We are left with less than 50 troops in a place called Kurmuk in Blue Nile who are guarding our heavy arms. They have not been able to cross because of the rains, which have made the roads impassable. We are waiting for the floods to go down so that we can drive our tanks out of the area.
Q: One of the demands on the list handed to the Sudan President was the reshuffle of ministerial posts. What is the problem?
A: The government of unity is composed as follows: 52% the National Congress Party, the party of President Bashir, 28% SPLM, and the rest from other northern political parties. There are 30 cabinet ministers, 34 state ministers and a number of advisors. Out of that, we have eight cabinet ministers, 10 state ministers and two advisors. According to the agreement, these are nominated by the chairman of the SPLA, with the recommendation of the party, and given to President Bashir for appointment. Each party has a right to replace its members. Three months ago, the President of South Sudan, who is the chairman of the SPLM, sent a letter to reshuffle some of its ministers. He appointed new ones and reassigned others. But President Bashir has refused to implement it. Yet, according to the agreement, it is not a prerogative of the President to refuse a recommendation of any party that wants to reshuffle it members. This is again a clear violation of the CPA.
Q: What is the way forward?
A: We are still in negotiations. We have sent a high level negotiating team to Khartoum to present our complaints to the government of national unity. The SPLA is not going to start a war. We are just expressing our disappointment in the non-implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
Q: Is this going to affect the peace talks you are brokering between the LRA and the Government of Uganda?
A: It is not going to affect the Juba peace talks in any way because this is an initiative of the government of South Sudan, which is functioning normally. We are only suspending our participation in the government of national unity.
Q: Should Ugandan businessmen in South Sudan be worried?
A: Not at all. South Sudan is normal. There is no war. We are only handling our problems with the Khartoum government, not at the level of the government of South Sudan.
Monday, 8 October 2007
Independent Africa: Is it a sinking or sailing ship?
INDEPENDENCE ERA | Nicholas Sengoba
October 9, 2007
Today, Uganda celebrates forty five years of independence and is in league with several African countries as they inch towards a golden jubilee (50 years) of self rule.
This period is considerably long enough to write a magisterial report card about whether they will sink or swim - the former being the greater possibility as things stand.
The immediate former Secretary General of the East African Community Nuwe Amanya Mushega lamented recently that “the state of affairs of the people of Africa and black Africa in particular, is nothing to be proud of” which profound statement is in tandem with the famous “Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world” made by the former British Premier Tony Blair.
Be it mortality rates, HIV/Aids prevalence, life expectancy, poverty levels, productivity, corruption, freedoms and governance indices, independent Africa comes last- with very depressing statistics.
So, how did all the enthusiasm and euphoria that characterised the attainment of self rule drown into a turbulent sea of despair to the extent that almost everything in Africa that can move has literally gone to the dogs and turned the blissful dream of independence into a harrowing nightmare?
Writing for the defunct Weekly Topic (November 22, 1991) in his column A View From Boston, Charles Onyango- Obbo opined that “great institutions as well as nations are built and nurtured by men and women who give to them (at least) more than they take away.”
Africa is not a great place and may not be for a long time to come, simply because the actions and spirit of most of its leaders point towards a pathetic future not a destiny of prosperity.
At the launch of the Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative (STAR) in New York last month, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, and World Bank President, Robert Zoellick revealed that a quarter of the gross domestic product or the market value of all the goods and services produced in a year by labour and assets located in African countries (about $148 billion) is lost to theft and corruption.
Put another way more money is (mostly) stolen or ‘diverted’ as bribes by leaders and sidekicks of ‘donor dependant’ independent African countries from the deserving recipients, (the poor in Africa,) than is received from the western donors or ‘development partners’ and aid institutions which is about $13 billion.
The loot is safely and profitably banked or invested overseas -with full awareness of western governments and donor agencies- at the expense of social programmes including healthcare, education, infrastructural development and poverty alleviation.
Sad to say, good old Africa is led by raw thieves in suits (and military fatigues) and people led by thieves throughout history rarely cut respectable figures. They will fight wars, kill, manipulate the law, steal elections, bribe and suppress the opposition, muzzle the media, stuff all levels and spheres of influence relying on tribalism and nepotism as a basis of recruitment, all for the sake of perpetuity and self preservation to safeguard the looting.
Consequently, whichever system has been tried in post independence Africa, from socialism, capitalism, mixed economy, to multiparty democracy to one-party rule, from all inclusive “movement democracy,” to outright military dictatorship, the results have been similarly futile.
Two centuries since the abolition of slavery the African is led in such a manner that (s)he still lives precariously at the mercy of God and the whims of nature, despised even at his best and taken as the third class citizen constantly caught between pillar and post, works in deplorable conditions, and is treated shabbily as a slave both at home and abroad.
The western world like the slave traders of old profits immensely by conniving with African rulers in an illegitimate, immoral and unbalanced trade relationship to fleece Africans of their labours’ sweat.
Herein lies the genesis of Africa’s backwardness, for which race is falsely attributed. Africans have been made to appear as a gullible and hapless lot capable of enduring any level of fraud and oppression at the hands of the continent’s leaders who rob, and sell off for a pittance whatever wealth they lay their hands on.
An agonising reality is that as a result of the machinations of the leadership provided after independence, the ordinary African is so traumatised that he has become unbothered, apathetic, fatalistic, and cynical towards his own predicament and is therefore hapless as a factor in the process of changing the destiny of the continent.
Sadly, this leaves the other potential agents of change, the opposition and civil society without a powerful domestic base financially, materially and morally. Instead, they look to the West for a panacea to rein in dictators and kleptocrats yet in many cases the West and its agents are opportunistic bedfellows of the leaders on the continent.
That is why one must be either very naïve or dishonest to still speak of a bright future for this continent as was envisaged at the dawn of independence. Happy Independence Day!
nicholassengoba@yahoo.com
October 9, 2007
Today, Uganda celebrates forty five years of independence and is in league with several African countries as they inch towards a golden jubilee (50 years) of self rule.
This period is considerably long enough to write a magisterial report card about whether they will sink or swim - the former being the greater possibility as things stand.
The immediate former Secretary General of the East African Community Nuwe Amanya Mushega lamented recently that “the state of affairs of the people of Africa and black Africa in particular, is nothing to be proud of” which profound statement is in tandem with the famous “Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world” made by the former British Premier Tony Blair.
Be it mortality rates, HIV/Aids prevalence, life expectancy, poverty levels, productivity, corruption, freedoms and governance indices, independent Africa comes last- with very depressing statistics.
So, how did all the enthusiasm and euphoria that characterised the attainment of self rule drown into a turbulent sea of despair to the extent that almost everything in Africa that can move has literally gone to the dogs and turned the blissful dream of independence into a harrowing nightmare?
Writing for the defunct Weekly Topic (November 22, 1991) in his column A View From Boston, Charles Onyango- Obbo opined that “great institutions as well as nations are built and nurtured by men and women who give to them (at least) more than they take away.”
Africa is not a great place and may not be for a long time to come, simply because the actions and spirit of most of its leaders point towards a pathetic future not a destiny of prosperity.
At the launch of the Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative (STAR) in New York last month, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, and World Bank President, Robert Zoellick revealed that a quarter of the gross domestic product or the market value of all the goods and services produced in a year by labour and assets located in African countries (about $148 billion) is lost to theft and corruption.
Put another way more money is (mostly) stolen or ‘diverted’ as bribes by leaders and sidekicks of ‘donor dependant’ independent African countries from the deserving recipients, (the poor in Africa,) than is received from the western donors or ‘development partners’ and aid institutions which is about $13 billion.
The loot is safely and profitably banked or invested overseas -with full awareness of western governments and donor agencies- at the expense of social programmes including healthcare, education, infrastructural development and poverty alleviation.
Sad to say, good old Africa is led by raw thieves in suits (and military fatigues) and people led by thieves throughout history rarely cut respectable figures. They will fight wars, kill, manipulate the law, steal elections, bribe and suppress the opposition, muzzle the media, stuff all levels and spheres of influence relying on tribalism and nepotism as a basis of recruitment, all for the sake of perpetuity and self preservation to safeguard the looting.
Consequently, whichever system has been tried in post independence Africa, from socialism, capitalism, mixed economy, to multiparty democracy to one-party rule, from all inclusive “movement democracy,” to outright military dictatorship, the results have been similarly futile.
Two centuries since the abolition of slavery the African is led in such a manner that (s)he still lives precariously at the mercy of God and the whims of nature, despised even at his best and taken as the third class citizen constantly caught between pillar and post, works in deplorable conditions, and is treated shabbily as a slave both at home and abroad.
The western world like the slave traders of old profits immensely by conniving with African rulers in an illegitimate, immoral and unbalanced trade relationship to fleece Africans of their labours’ sweat.
Herein lies the genesis of Africa’s backwardness, for which race is falsely attributed. Africans have been made to appear as a gullible and hapless lot capable of enduring any level of fraud and oppression at the hands of the continent’s leaders who rob, and sell off for a pittance whatever wealth they lay their hands on.
An agonising reality is that as a result of the machinations of the leadership provided after independence, the ordinary African is so traumatised that he has become unbothered, apathetic, fatalistic, and cynical towards his own predicament and is therefore hapless as a factor in the process of changing the destiny of the continent.
Sadly, this leaves the other potential agents of change, the opposition and civil society without a powerful domestic base financially, materially and morally. Instead, they look to the West for a panacea to rein in dictators and kleptocrats yet in many cases the West and its agents are opportunistic bedfellows of the leaders on the continent.
That is why one must be either very naïve or dishonest to still speak of a bright future for this continent as was envisaged at the dawn of independence. Happy Independence Day!
nicholassengoba@yahoo.com
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack on Somalia
A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie.
What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn’t reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia.
While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia’s Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, 22 January 2007
By Wanjohi Kabukuru
01/22/07 "ICHBlog" -- -- Just why did the US attack Somalia two weeks ago? Of course, the answer given for the US military intervention and the generally accepted notion is the hunt for terrorists. But is it? Are terrorists the only bone of contention the US has with Somalia? When the US military devised “Operation Restore Hope” in 1993 which was short-lived after they were whipsawed by rag-tag militia in and around Mogadishu, were they fighting the ‘war on terror’?
They couldn’t have been because this war was to start much later, If anything it is a post-Sept 11 phenomenon. So then why did the US bomb ICU extremists in the name of Al Qaeda terrorists and not throughout last year when they occupied Mogadishu?
Just why is Somalia so important to the US, and by extension the big boys of Europe and some Gulf states? A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie.
What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn’t reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia.
While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia’s Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia.
The story of Somalia and oil goes back to the colonial period. British and Italian geologists first identified oil deposits during that period of imperialism. The first oil wells historically referred to as the Daga Shabell series were dug in the 1960s. Tiny gas discoveries adjacent to Socotra were also noted.
The race for these precious natural resources took a new turn in 1988, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, with the support of the governments of Britain, France and Canada and backed by several Western oil companies financed a regional hydrocarbon study of the countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden.
The countries were Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was later dropped, but not before it had been established that within the study area, massive deposits of oil and gas existed. The results of the findings were presented to a three-day American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Hemisphere group conference, in London in September, 1991. Is there oil in Somalia? Listen to the answer:
“It’s there. There’s no doubt there’s oil there,” said geologist Thomas E. O’Connor, the World Bank’s principal petroleum engineer, who steered the in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in Somalia’s Gulf of Eden in the northern coastal region.
The study was intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations. The conclusions of their findings are quite telling as the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.
While presenting their results during the conference, two geologists involved in the study (an American and an Egyptian) reported that the investigation of nine exploratory wells dug in Somalia pointed out that the region was “situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil.”
Geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, who was involved in the survey, noted that “the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas” were within the offshore sites. Soon after a race for lucrative deals kicked off in earnest.
Four US oil companies, namely Conoco, Chevron, Amoco and Philips have concessions in nearly two thirds of Somalia. This quartet of oil conglomerates was granted these contracts in the final days of Somalia’s deposed dictator, Siad Barre. The US first military engagement in Somalia was fully supported by Conoco.
___________________________
About the Author: Mr Kabukuru is a Nairobi-based freelance journalist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Updated January 23, 2007 12:27 PM
Tuesday, 2 October 2007
Criticism
When Africans talk about Africa, America is often blamed for not doing enough to help this poor continent. America is to blame for AIDS, poverty, high rates of infant mortality, etc. Often these anti-Americans call on the country they despise to help America, if necessary by starting a new Marshall Plan. Now, I've called for a Marshall Plan for Africa as well (and am by no means anti-American), but Revel is quite right when he writes that people seem to forget that "the international aid received by Africa since decolonization is equivalent to four or five Marshall Plans, all of which was squandered, embezzled or outright stolen, when it wasn't swallowed up in incessant wars or wiped out in stupid 'agrarian reforms' modeled on the suffocating collectivism of Russia and China." However, despite that, it remains "convenient to throw back on America all responsibility for one's own mistakes or crimes – while still appealing to her for rescue."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
