It seemed like a throwback to the days when a white minority ruled South Africa. Inside a colonial-era courthouse that was once a stage for the political trials of anti-apartheid activists, a white lawyer in robes and frilly bib accused a black leader of being a Communist and fomenting hatred of whites. “Do you know who Vladimir Lenin was?” demanded the lawyer, rekindling memories of the anti-Communist measures that helped crush dissent during apartheid.
In his defense, the black leader in the dock championed his right to lead his supporters in singing a song with the seemingly bloodthirsty line “Shoot the Boer!” — a historical reference widely taken as a threat by Afrikaners, the descendants of Dutch settlers and the creators of apartheid. Of course, that racist system ended 17 years ago with Nelson Mandela’s election. The African National Congress has been the governing party ever since. But the past is not really past here. Race remains a fraught issue, riveting the country in recent weeks as the hate-speech trial of Julius Malema, the leader of the party’s youth wing, was broadcast live on television. Closing arguments are expected within weeks.
The decision will help establish where free speech crosses the line into hate speech in one of Africa’s most democratic countries. The trial itself may also have strengthened Mr. Malema’s political allure in a nation where four out of five citizens are black. He is alternately denounced here as a demagogue and hailed as a future president. Even some senior leaders in the A.N.C. worry that his angry brand of populism could resonate with the country’s millions of dispossessed youths. The final day of testimony, in a wood-paneled courtroom packed with Mr. Malema’s partisans, presented a polarized version of South Africa’s complicated and never-ending debate about how to deal with its racial legacy. “It’s a clash of atavisms,” said Nic Dawes, editor of The Mail & Guardian. “It’s like those days when you tune into talk radio and you hear a version of the national conversation dominated by the most unpleasant aspects of white anxiety and the angriest black reactions.”
The imagery was powerful: Roelof du Plessis, an Afrikaner lawyer with a heavy Afrikaans accent, accusing Mr. Malema of being a Communist, suggesting that South Africa was heading toward a genocide against whites and accusing Mr. Malema of having carried a gun “illegally” as a child during the armed struggle against apartheid. (Mr. Malema happily confirmed the claim). “That seems to be typical of Africa, using children to fight wars,” Mr. Du Plessis harrumphed.
At the other extreme, Mr. Malema, 30, arrived each day at the courthouse in Johannesburg surrounded by bodyguards in dark suits and red ties, assault rifles slung across their chests. In recent years, he has declared a readiness to kill for Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s president; described the leader of the main opposition party, Helen Zille, as a cockroach; and hounded a BBC correspondent out of a news conference, accusing him of “white tendencies.” He has also pushed the African National Congress into a debate on the nationalization of South Africa’s mineral wealth, though party elders warned it could drive away foreign investment. Some of his statements last year prompted his party to order him to attend anger management classes. Nonetheless, party leaders rallied to Mr. Malema’s defense in the current case, testifying in support of his assertion that the “Shoot the Boer” refrain was a metaphorical call to defeat apartheid, not a literal incitement to violence.
The debate has played out in newspapers and blogs. Many in the news media and academia who have been harsh critics of Mr. Malema’s have nonetheless argued that his singing of the offending song does not justify banning it as a form of hate speech under South Africa’s Constitution. Some also found Mr. Du Plessis’s cross-examination ridiculous. Pierre de Vos, a law professor at the University of Cape Town, wrote that Mr. Du Plessis’s line of questioning reminded him of apartheid-era leaders speaking on “the dangers of communism and the evils of A.N.C. ‘terrorism.’ ” “I must say, Adv. Du Plessis’s performance today is almost enough to make me want to burst out singing: ‘dubul’ibhunu/dubula dubula,’ ” the professor wrote, quoting the Zulu rendition of the “Shoot the Boer” refrain.
But others found the hate speech complaint convincing. It was filed by two groups representing Afrikaners, who contended that the song’s refrain suggested that Afrikaners were “the enemy at least to be shunned and at most to be killed.” Rhoda Kadalie, a columnist writing in an Afrikaans-language newspaper, said the lyrics were wrong during apartheid years and shocking now, especially in light of the many white farmers murdered since the end of apartheid. “Justifying these wrongs in the name of apartheid gives carte blanche to yesterday’s liberators to become tomorrow’s oppressors,” she wrote.
The song is not among the famous freedom anthems. Hugh Masekela, the renowned South African trumpeter, said he had not heard of it, adding that there were many such songs. “This was a time when people were very angry,” he said, “and they were singing songs much more violent than that one.” Mr. Malema, just 13 when Mr. Mandela became president, was too young to join the armed struggle against apartheid, but seemed eager to use the trial to bolster his revolutionary street cred. “I belong to a radical and militant youth organization, and if you’re not militant in the Youth League, you run the risk of being irrelevant,” Mr. Malema said on the stand.
He boasted that the A.N.C. has taught him to fire a gun and chant slogans since he was 11. In 1993, he said, when he was 12, he marched into white suburbs armed with a gun after a right-wing white assassinated the charismatic black leader Chris Hani — only to be disappointed when Mr. Mandela appealed for discipline and nonviolence rather than ordering an attack. “We came across white people,” Mr. Malema said. “We never shot any one of them. We had all the reasons.”
Mr. Du Plessis, advocating for white farmers, opened the door for Mr. Malema to make his case for nationalizing the mines and confiscating the land of white farmers without compensation — policies that would constitute a sharp break with the country’s Constitution.
Mr. Malema said he would act according to the law in seeking to change the Constitution to allow land confiscation. But he held up Robert Mugabe, the strongman in neighboring Zimbabwe, as a democrat who had led that nation’s drive to seize white-owned land — a drive that Mr. Malema noted regretfully had relied on violence. “It’s a democratic country,” Mr. Malema said of Zimbabwe, flashing a grin. “They have been holding elections every five years.” “Oh, I see!” Mr. Du Plessis sputtered sarcastically.
After his testimony, Mr. Malema told hundreds of his followers who had stood outside for hours that Mr. Du Plessis “couldn’t hide the racism in his face.” He said the lawyer’s clients were far more worried about the confiscation of their land than about a song’s lyrics. “We are going to take their land whether they like it or not!” he exclaimed, as the crowd roared. His supporters then serenaded Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Mr. Mandela’s former wife, who had been at Mr. Malema’s side throughout his trial. Ms. Madikizela-Mandela, who was implicated in the murders and beatings of township youths in the late 1980s, thanked AfriForum, one of the complainants in the case, for bringing Mr. Malema’s supporters together “to baptize” him as “the future president of South Africa.” “This is the leadership that is going to run the very last mile of transformation for this country,” she proclaimed.
Source: New York Times
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Thomas Sankara: A tribute
"Africa and the world are yet to recover from Sankara’s assassination. Just as we have yet to recover from the loss of Patrice Lumumba, Kwame Nkrumah, Eduardo Mondlane, Amilcar Cabral, Steve Biko, Samora Machel, and most recently John Garang, to name only a few. While malevolent forces have not used the same methods to eliminate each of these great pan-Africanists, they have been guided by the same motive: to keep Africa in chains."– Antonio de Figueiredo, February 2008 (via African artists)
Thomas Sankara is one in a long lineage of African sons and daughters whose ideas and actions have left an indelible mark on the history of the continent. He was however killed by his brothers in arms with the belief that they could defeat the great example he set for progressive youth across the continent. Unfortunately for his murderers they couldn't have been more wrong with their belief as a week to the faithful day of his assassination, in a historic speech marking the 20th anniversary of the assassination of another great revolutionary, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, Thomas declared that "ideas cannot be killed, ideas never die". Indeed, the history of humanity is replete with martyrs and heroes whose ideas and actions have survived the dawn of time and have inspired future generations. The ideas, belief and sacrifice of Thomas Sankara has made him a martyr that is larger than life.
This is the reason why over two decades of his dead, Thomas Sankara continues to be in the minds and heart of the few that struggle to end the domination and enslavement of the African Continent. The power of Sankara's revolutionary ideas and popularity cannot be unconnected to the continuous reflection of African's who are frustrated with corrupt leaders and rotten leadership styles that is incapable of setting the continent with all its rich resources of both human and natural abundance in the pairs of western and Asian continents. Sankara’s popularity is also deeply rooted in the profound sincerity of his commitment to serving his people, his devotion to the cause of the emancipation of the Burkinabés and all African peoples. His charisma, honesty and integrity made him a hero for the ‘wretched of the Earth,’ to coin a phrase from Frantz Fanon, who was greatly admired by Sankara.
As Africa looks desperately for leaders of integrity and vision, the life and ideals of the late Thomas Sankara seem more and more relevant and exemplary with the passage of time. Above all, however, the greatness of Sankara lies within the ideas and values he embodied during his brief time on the African and international stage. Indeed, if Sankara arouses as much fervor today as he did two decades ago, it is because he embodied and defended causes that still resonate today among the millions of oppressed in Africa and around the world. Sankara was a genuine revolutionary and a great visionary who had the courage to take on the most difficult challenges and who held great ambitions for his country and Africa. Most of the ideas or causes he defended two decades ago are still at the heart of the struggle for the economic, social and political emancipation of peoples around the world. He was an environmentalist ahead of his time in a so-called ‘poor’ country that was supposed to have other more pressing priorities than the environment.
Sankara was one of the first heads of State, perhaps the only one in his time, to condemn female excision, a position that reflected his unwavering commitment to the emancipation of women and the struggle against all forms of discrimination against women. He was a relentless advocate of gender equality and the recognition of the role of women in all spheres of economic and social life. In his famous speech of 2 October 1983, he stated: ‘We cannot transform society while maintaining domination and discrimination against women who constitute over half of the population.’ His unrelenting struggle against corruption, long before the World Bank and the IMF picked up on this issue, made Sankara an enemy of all corrupt presidents on the continent and of the international capitalist mafia for whom corruption is a tool for conquering markets and pillaging the resources of the global South.
Sankara rejected the inevitability of ‘poverty,’ and was one of the first proponents of food security. He achieved the spectacular feat of making his country food self-sufficient within four years, through sensible agricultural policy and, above all, the mobilisation of the Burkinabé peasantry. He understood that a country that could not feed itself ran the risk of losing its independence and sovereignty. In July 1987, Sankara, close on the heels of Fidel Castro two years earlier, called on African countries to form a powerful front against their continent’s illegitimate and immoral debt and to collectively refuse to pay it.
Once again, he understood before others that the debt was a form of modern enslavement for Africa; a major cause of poverty and deep suffering for African populations. Sankara famously stated: ‘If we do not pay the debt, our lenders will not die. However, if we do pay it, we will die…’ On the international stage, Sankara was the first African head of State, indeed the first in the world, to denounce the UN Security Council’s right of veto and to condemn the lack of democracy within the United Nations system as well as the hypocrisy that characterized international relations. Today, all of these ideas have become self- evident truths and are at the heart of popular resistance movements, including the World Social Forum that has become one of the most powerful major rallying points.
Captain Thomas Sankara is the lion king that should be remembered by all and who value the ideas and values that he stood for and died for this values should particularly be upheld by the youth of the African continent since it has become obvious that the current generation of leaders are hell bent on throwing the continent back to colonial rule. Thomas Sankara is a role model, a teacher, inspiration and a benchmark to all of us that strive to see a better, progressive and more united Africa that should be strong enough to be heard and respected.
Long Live Sankara, Long Live Africa and long live the cause of the good.
Source: Because I am involved
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
South Africa Exults Abroad but Frets at Home
With the country preparing for local elections on May 18, the cabinet member Mr. Zuma chose to oversee local government, Sicelo Shiceka, is now embroiled in scandalous reports about his profligate living at public expense. Mr. Zuma announced Sunday that he was awaiting an explanation from Mr. Shiceka that has yet to come. “It’s this flaunting of inequality and conspicuous consumption that people get agitated about,” said Ben Roberts, a researcher at the Human Sciences Research Council, which recently conducted a survey of South Africans documenting widespread disillusionment with local government.
Parliamentary leaders of Mr. Zuma’s party, the African National Congress, have asked for independent investigators in the public protector’s office to find out whether Mr. Shiceka spent more than $50,000 of taxpayers’ money to fly to Switzerland and stay in five-star hotels while visiting his girlfriend, a flight attendant, who was jailed there on drug charges, as The Sunday Times of South Africa reported.
In a follow-up article on Sunday, the newspaper reported that municipal trucks were delivering water to the building site of Mr. Shiceka’s new home in the poorest district in the Eastern Cape. His home was also slated to be among the first to get electricity. “What a disgrace!” shouted the headline. “Minister builds emperor’s palace in South Africa’s poorest village.”
Corruption and great disparities in wealth are hardly uncommon among the other BRICS countries. But the lack of basic services has touched a particular nerve here. People in Mr. Shiceka’s home district had been protesting the poor quality of water and sewerage services. And it was precisely these issues that led poor people in Ficksburg, a town in the Free State, to take to the streets last week in a protest that ended in tragedy. SABC, the state broadcaster, showed police officers in Ficksburg assaulting an unarmed, shirtless protester named Andries Tatane, 33, and thwacking his torso with batons. Mr. Tatane then looked down at his chest, streaming with blood. A haunting photograph shows him lying wounded in the arms of a friend whose face is contorted in anguish. Mr. Tatane died minutes later. “The post-mortem showed he died of gunshot wounds,” said Moses Dlamini, spokesman for the Independent Complaints Directorate, which investigates police brutality. “And he had bruises which indicated he was assaulted.” Two police officers have been charged with the murder and four others with assault, but not before enraged residents of Mr. Tatane’s township set fire to two government buildings.
An African National Congress spokesman, Jackson Mthembu, described the attack on Mr. Tatane as reminiscent of “apartheid-era strong-arm tactics” — a remarkable statement considering that the A.N.C. itself led the struggle against apartheid and has governed the country, and overseen its police force, since 1994.
The so-called service delivery protests, a phenomenon across the country, provide signs of the simmering discontent among many South Africans about how long it is taking to translate the gains of freedom into material progress. Even as South Africa takes center stage with the world’s most prominent developing nations, a majority of young black South Africans are jobless. Poverty remains widespread. A nationwide survey of about 3,200 South Africans age 16 and older, sponsored by the country’s Independent Electoral Commission, found that South Africans were most dissatisfied with local government performance on job creation, crime and housing.
The survey, released last week, documented an erosion of trust at all levels of government, with the lowest approval level — 38 percent — reserved for local government, down from a high of 55 percent in 2004. Politicians rated even lower. Only 27 percent of South Africans trusted them when the survey was conducted in the final months of 2010. The main opposition party, the Democratic Alliance — widely perceived as dominated by whites — has sought to attract more black support by highlighting its strong record in running the city of Cape Town. Helen Zille, the former journalist who leads the party, has seized on the killing of Mr. Tatane as emblematic of how the A.N.C. has “become disconnected from the people it is supposed to serve.”
But the loyalty of voters to the A.N.C., the party of Nelson Mandela, remains deep, and the survey found that those who were most unhappy with government were also the ones who said they were least likely to vote. So the question of whether discontent leads to change in the ballot box remains open.
Source: New York Times
Libya and the BRICS: Currency Wars, Imperial Wars and Popular Uprisings
On one side of the world NATO bombs Libya and on the other, the newly expanded BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) meet on the island of Hainan, off the south coast of China. Two seemingly unrelated events. But there are links and forces at play fuelling important new power contestations in the world.
Western bombs are raining down on Libya and a “no-fly zone” is being imposed after a United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution. At the UN, BRICS members, China and Brazil, abstained from voting (although South Africa voted for) but publicly criticised the idea of bombing Gaddafi’s forces.
The US is in decline as the power able to exert its authority over world affairs. At the same time we are seeing the rise of China – predicted to be the world’s largest economy within 10 to 20 years – having imperial ambitions, but racked with many internal contradictions. China is the single biggest holder of the US’ debt, in the form of federal bonds. Its rise is offset by its dependence on the US for its exports and on US companies that are its biggest foreign investors. Moreover, holding dollar-denominated US treasury bonds also means that China can't simply watch the dollar decline or risk a US bond default.
So China and the US are like two adversaries manacled together, taking wild pot shots at each other, but unable to strike the decisive blow. For some while now the US has been attacking the Chinese for what it calls a form of protectionism by keeping its currency, the Renminbi, allegedly, artificially low.
The November 2010 meeting of the G20 countries in Seoul was supposed to be an attempt at resolving the currency wars between the US and China. But in the midst of the G20 diplomacy and fine rhetoric about solving trade imbalances, the US decided to indulge in another round of quantitative easing – to the tune of US$600b – essentially a form of printing money by buying back bonds from private banks and then crediting their balance sheets with money.
If any other country were to print money in this way the consequences would be devastating in terms of inflation and the collapse of the currency in world markets. But the US’ currency is the world’s currency, so it doesn’t incur inflation, nor does anyone dump dollars because global trade is conducted in dollars. So the US can get away with it.
This certainly raised the hackles, not only of China, but also of Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, who are all consequently attracting hot money from low US interest rates and quantitative easing, which overvalues their currencies and makes their exports more expensive.
At the BRICS meeting, President Zuma joined his counterparts in calling for greater independence from the dollar.
The BRICS meeting echoed comments made by the governor of the Chinese Central Bank in 2009, in the midst of the global financial crisis, that the dollar’s role, as the global reserve currency and medium of international trade was placing the world at risk, given the scale of the US’ debt and the fact that the crisis was centred on the US.
This is no mere arcane technical spat between economists. This is about economic clout and the political power that comes with having one’s currency both the global reserve currency and the medium of global exchange. The fight over the dollar is also a fight over who is to be the main political force in the 21st century, and who is the fulcrum around which all foreign policy matters of nation states will turn -- with all the implications for domestic issues.
So the currency wars have direct meaning for what our lives will be like in the next while.
Meanwhile the world’s attention is focussed on the Libyan crisis and the evil perpetrated by Muammar Gaddafi. Having armed Gaddafi, invested in his oil fields and welcomed him back into the fold of the “international community,” the US, Britain and France, are now arming his adversaries and bombing his air force in the name of a “humanitarian mission.”
All of this while there are people’s uprisings against dictators throughout North Africa and the Arab world in Yemen, Algeria, Syria and Bahrain (and, of course, the successful insurrections in Tunisia and Egypt).
So why are the US, Britain and France now supporting what they call “pro-democracy groups” in Libya, while taking the opposite stance in Bahrain and Yemen by arming the dictator’s forces, which are killing the pro-democracy forces in those countries?
And why did the BRICS countries take a different view on Libya to that of the West?
Maybe there is an additional explanation to the theory that this is about Libya’s oil. There appears to be a currency war at stake here as well.
Recently, US financial journalists, speaking to their investor community, have begun highlighting some little-reported developments in Libya. Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank. This before they even had a government.
Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal, “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.”
In a statement, the Libyan rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed “pro-democracy forces” announced the "designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."
US senior financial editor, John Carney, has asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."
Clearly there is something different about Libya.
Earlier in the twentieth century Libya was a colony of Italy. But Italy was a losing power in World War II and ceded power to Britain. Unlike Italian colonialism, Britain was happy to exercise power indirectly through a Libyan king -- King Idris, who ruled from 1949.
However, a wave of nationalism spread after World War II and Gamal Nasser and army officers seized power in Egypt in 1952 proclaiming themselves nationalists and Arab socialists. The region became notable for the clash between Arab nationalism and imperialist interests in the centre of the world’s oil reserves. So when a Libyan army officer – Muammar Gaddafi – seized power from King Idris in 1969 and proclaimed his movement as Arab socialist and pan-Africanist, he was immediately declared the enemy of the West.
Gaddafi, in return, ruled Libya through the army and through a system of alliances with tribal lords. Internationally, he manoeuvred to play competing imperial interests off against one another.
Inside Libya he combined the suppression of the people with claiming that he was merely a “brother leader” using the growing oil revenue to strengthen the Libyan army and establish a high standard of living for the Libyan middle classes. As a result, Libya has the highest human development index (HDI) in Africa and the fourth highest GDP per capita. Libya also has the 10th-largest oil reserves of any country in the world and the 17th-highest petroleum production.
And critically for current events, Gaddafi also set up a Libyan Central Bank that was 100% state-owned. That in itself was not so unusual, but what is unique amongst the major oil producers is the fact that the Libyan Central Bank is not a member of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) (the BIS is the international clearing house for global trade and conducts its transactions in dollars).
As a result, the Libyan government, up to now, could create its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank and insist that trade in oil must take place in its national currency (and not in dollars, as is the case with all the other major oil producers).
This has placed Libya in the same advantageous position as the US, who, as custodian of the global currency of trade, the dollar, can merely print money to expand its trade capacity without, as in the case of Zimbabwe, incurring disastrous inflationary consequences. In order to do business with Libya, banking cartels, oil barons and so on, have had to go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency.
So Gaddafi’s Libya was indeed special -- a small player, but suddenly a significant player given the global power plays over the dollar, as the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange.
In the new Libya being crafted, the “pro-democracy forces” in Eastern Libya around Benghazi are being pulled into the West’s economic orbit in the currency wars, to the trepidation of China and her allies. This is an additional reason why the BRICS countries have been so critical of the West’s latest military adventure.
In this, South Africa’s precariousness in the imperial wars – with its BRICS allies in raging against the dollar, yet voting with the US to bomb Libya, heading an AU delegation to seek peace with Gaddafi and then being brushed aside by NATO – is so apparent.
But how did the initial stirrings of a people’s movement in Libya become something else?
When the Arab uprisings began in Tunisia and spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East many people in Libya also became inspired to confront Gaddafi’s tyranny. They gathered in the main square in Tripoli – the Green Square – defied Gaddafi, and called for democracy. From Tripoli the mood spread out to the South and East of the country.
But other forces were at play…Tribal leaders reading the shifting currents in the region and seeking to position themselves accordingly, old King Idris loyalists seeking to bring back the monarchy, and some of Gaddafi’s own lieutenants trying to guarantee their future careers by jumping ship to the West. Some of these began waving the old Kingdom of Libya flags.
All these forces have completely swamped the original movement, which began in Tripoli and today the “pro-democracy forces” are clearly these, rather than the original Libyan uprising. Tripoli is no longer a centre of rebellion and the whole thing has degenerated into a civil war where one side is being backed by Western special forces, NATO air strikes and arms supplied by whomsoever wants to swing events their way.
And what has been the priority of these forces?
To get the oil terminals at Benghazi to flow and to get a new Central Bank of Libya up and running.
Before the conflict has even ended, the Benghazi-based Transitional National Council (TNC), led by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, an ex-finance minister of Gaddafi, has already met with Sarkozy in France and attended the London meeting on Libya convened by Britain’s David Cameron. At the meeting, the TNC promised to respect all international treaties, including Libya joining the BIS, and guarantying private sector investment.
It is these anti-democracy opportunists who are calling for NATO air strikes and seeking the blessing of the West before the Libyan people can decide for themselves.
Libya is providing an opportunity for imperialism to both crush an old enemy and co-opt the Arab uprising, turning calls for independence, freedom and democracy into calls for independence for central banks, greater free markets and imperial domination.
But the world has changed. The Arab uprisings are themselves a sign that there are weak links in the imperialist chain.
The current capitalist crisis is of such proportions that the space to finance a major war, commit troops to occupation and administer such an occupation is severely limited. The US is already carrying the can for occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and is simply incapable of sustaining another one at the time of its biggest debt. This is why Obama wants a UN/NATO coalition to share the political and economic cost of the war on Libya. And even within NATO, member country, Turkey, has its own domestic reasons for not wanting to be part of an attack on a Muslim country.
What is being played out are contestations within imperialism – largely between China and the US - on the one hand, and a new tide of popular rebellion against domination – a tide that began in Latin America over the last 10 years, but which has now exploded across North Africa and the Middle East - on the other. The key is the strength of the people on the ground in Yemen, Syria and even Saudi Arabia, but above all, in Tunisia and Egypt, where they are still directly engaged in determining the outcome of events.
Our world will be shaped by which social forces prove triumphant over the next few years.
Western bombs are raining down on Libya and a “no-fly zone” is being imposed after a United Nations (UN) Security Council resolution. At the UN, BRICS members, China and Brazil, abstained from voting (although South Africa voted for) but publicly criticised the idea of bombing Gaddafi’s forces.
The US is in decline as the power able to exert its authority over world affairs. At the same time we are seeing the rise of China – predicted to be the world’s largest economy within 10 to 20 years – having imperial ambitions, but racked with many internal contradictions. China is the single biggest holder of the US’ debt, in the form of federal bonds. Its rise is offset by its dependence on the US for its exports and on US companies that are its biggest foreign investors. Moreover, holding dollar-denominated US treasury bonds also means that China can't simply watch the dollar decline or risk a US bond default.
So China and the US are like two adversaries manacled together, taking wild pot shots at each other, but unable to strike the decisive blow. For some while now the US has been attacking the Chinese for what it calls a form of protectionism by keeping its currency, the Renminbi, allegedly, artificially low.
The November 2010 meeting of the G20 countries in Seoul was supposed to be an attempt at resolving the currency wars between the US and China. But in the midst of the G20 diplomacy and fine rhetoric about solving trade imbalances, the US decided to indulge in another round of quantitative easing – to the tune of US$600b – essentially a form of printing money by buying back bonds from private banks and then crediting their balance sheets with money.
If any other country were to print money in this way the consequences would be devastating in terms of inflation and the collapse of the currency in world markets. But the US’ currency is the world’s currency, so it doesn’t incur inflation, nor does anyone dump dollars because global trade is conducted in dollars. So the US can get away with it.
This certainly raised the hackles, not only of China, but also of Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa, who are all consequently attracting hot money from low US interest rates and quantitative easing, which overvalues their currencies and makes their exports more expensive.
At the BRICS meeting, President Zuma joined his counterparts in calling for greater independence from the dollar.
The BRICS meeting echoed comments made by the governor of the Chinese Central Bank in 2009, in the midst of the global financial crisis, that the dollar’s role, as the global reserve currency and medium of international trade was placing the world at risk, given the scale of the US’ debt and the fact that the crisis was centred on the US.
This is no mere arcane technical spat between economists. This is about economic clout and the political power that comes with having one’s currency both the global reserve currency and the medium of global exchange. The fight over the dollar is also a fight over who is to be the main political force in the 21st century, and who is the fulcrum around which all foreign policy matters of nation states will turn -- with all the implications for domestic issues.
So the currency wars have direct meaning for what our lives will be like in the next while.
Meanwhile the world’s attention is focussed on the Libyan crisis and the evil perpetrated by Muammar Gaddafi. Having armed Gaddafi, invested in his oil fields and welcomed him back into the fold of the “international community,” the US, Britain and France, are now arming his adversaries and bombing his air force in the name of a “humanitarian mission.”
All of this while there are people’s uprisings against dictators throughout North Africa and the Arab world in Yemen, Algeria, Syria and Bahrain (and, of course, the successful insurrections in Tunisia and Egypt).
So why are the US, Britain and France now supporting what they call “pro-democracy groups” in Libya, while taking the opposite stance in Bahrain and Yemen by arming the dictator’s forces, which are killing the pro-democracy forces in those countries?
And why did the BRICS countries take a different view on Libya to that of the West?
Maybe there is an additional explanation to the theory that this is about Libya’s oil. There appears to be a currency war at stake here as well.
Recently, US financial journalists, speaking to their investor community, have begun highlighting some little-reported developments in Libya. Several writers have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their rebellion in March to create their own central bank. This before they even had a government.
Robert Wenzel wrote in the Economic Policy Journal, “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences.”
In a statement, the Libyan rebels reported on the results of a meeting held on March 19. Among other things, the supposed “pro-democracy forces” announced the "designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."
US senior financial editor, John Carney, has asked, "Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era."
Clearly there is something different about Libya.
Earlier in the twentieth century Libya was a colony of Italy. But Italy was a losing power in World War II and ceded power to Britain. Unlike Italian colonialism, Britain was happy to exercise power indirectly through a Libyan king -- King Idris, who ruled from 1949.
However, a wave of nationalism spread after World War II and Gamal Nasser and army officers seized power in Egypt in 1952 proclaiming themselves nationalists and Arab socialists. The region became notable for the clash between Arab nationalism and imperialist interests in the centre of the world’s oil reserves. So when a Libyan army officer – Muammar Gaddafi – seized power from King Idris in 1969 and proclaimed his movement as Arab socialist and pan-Africanist, he was immediately declared the enemy of the West.
Gaddafi, in return, ruled Libya through the army and through a system of alliances with tribal lords. Internationally, he manoeuvred to play competing imperial interests off against one another.
Inside Libya he combined the suppression of the people with claiming that he was merely a “brother leader” using the growing oil revenue to strengthen the Libyan army and establish a high standard of living for the Libyan middle classes. As a result, Libya has the highest human development index (HDI) in Africa and the fourth highest GDP per capita. Libya also has the 10th-largest oil reserves of any country in the world and the 17th-highest petroleum production.
And critically for current events, Gaddafi also set up a Libyan Central Bank that was 100% state-owned. That in itself was not so unusual, but what is unique amongst the major oil producers is the fact that the Libyan Central Bank is not a member of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) (the BIS is the international clearing house for global trade and conducts its transactions in dollars).
As a result, the Libyan government, up to now, could create its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank and insist that trade in oil must take place in its national currency (and not in dollars, as is the case with all the other major oil producers).
This has placed Libya in the same advantageous position as the US, who, as custodian of the global currency of trade, the dollar, can merely print money to expand its trade capacity without, as in the case of Zimbabwe, incurring disastrous inflationary consequences. In order to do business with Libya, banking cartels, oil barons and so on, have had to go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency.
So Gaddafi’s Libya was indeed special -- a small player, but suddenly a significant player given the global power plays over the dollar, as the world’s reserve currency and medium of exchange.
In the new Libya being crafted, the “pro-democracy forces” in Eastern Libya around Benghazi are being pulled into the West’s economic orbit in the currency wars, to the trepidation of China and her allies. This is an additional reason why the BRICS countries have been so critical of the West’s latest military adventure.
In this, South Africa’s precariousness in the imperial wars – with its BRICS allies in raging against the dollar, yet voting with the US to bomb Libya, heading an AU delegation to seek peace with Gaddafi and then being brushed aside by NATO – is so apparent.
But how did the initial stirrings of a people’s movement in Libya become something else?
When the Arab uprisings began in Tunisia and spread throughout North Africa and the Middle East many people in Libya also became inspired to confront Gaddafi’s tyranny. They gathered in the main square in Tripoli – the Green Square – defied Gaddafi, and called for democracy. From Tripoli the mood spread out to the South and East of the country.
But other forces were at play…Tribal leaders reading the shifting currents in the region and seeking to position themselves accordingly, old King Idris loyalists seeking to bring back the monarchy, and some of Gaddafi’s own lieutenants trying to guarantee their future careers by jumping ship to the West. Some of these began waving the old Kingdom of Libya flags.
All these forces have completely swamped the original movement, which began in Tripoli and today the “pro-democracy forces” are clearly these, rather than the original Libyan uprising. Tripoli is no longer a centre of rebellion and the whole thing has degenerated into a civil war where one side is being backed by Western special forces, NATO air strikes and arms supplied by whomsoever wants to swing events their way.
And what has been the priority of these forces?
To get the oil terminals at Benghazi to flow and to get a new Central Bank of Libya up and running.
Before the conflict has even ended, the Benghazi-based Transitional National Council (TNC), led by Mustafa Abdul Jalil, an ex-finance minister of Gaddafi, has already met with Sarkozy in France and attended the London meeting on Libya convened by Britain’s David Cameron. At the meeting, the TNC promised to respect all international treaties, including Libya joining the BIS, and guarantying private sector investment.
It is these anti-democracy opportunists who are calling for NATO air strikes and seeking the blessing of the West before the Libyan people can decide for themselves.
Libya is providing an opportunity for imperialism to both crush an old enemy and co-opt the Arab uprising, turning calls for independence, freedom and democracy into calls for independence for central banks, greater free markets and imperial domination.
But the world has changed. The Arab uprisings are themselves a sign that there are weak links in the imperialist chain.
The current capitalist crisis is of such proportions that the space to finance a major war, commit troops to occupation and administer such an occupation is severely limited. The US is already carrying the can for occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and is simply incapable of sustaining another one at the time of its biggest debt. This is why Obama wants a UN/NATO coalition to share the political and economic cost of the war on Libya. And even within NATO, member country, Turkey, has its own domestic reasons for not wanting to be part of an attack on a Muslim country.
What is being played out are contestations within imperialism – largely between China and the US - on the one hand, and a new tide of popular rebellion against domination – a tide that began in Latin America over the last 10 years, but which has now exploded across North Africa and the Middle East - on the other. The key is the strength of the people on the ground in Yemen, Syria and even Saudi Arabia, but above all, in Tunisia and Egypt, where they are still directly engaged in determining the outcome of events.
Our world will be shaped by which social forces prove triumphant over the next few years.
Read more articles by Leonard Gentle. Director of the International Labour and Research Information Group.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Arresting a Few Policemen will not Solve South Africa`s Violent Policing Problem
The brutal death of unarmed protestor and father of two, Andries Tatane, at the hands of the South African police in Ficksburg on 13 April would have gone largely unnoticed except that it was captured on film and shown as headline news on national television. South Africans and people around the world were rightly outraged at the senseless and disproportionate violence directed at Mr. Tatane by a mob of policemen. The harsh reality is that many police officials who watching the news would not have been shocked at seeing him beaten with batons and shot at from close range with rubber bullets. Because Tatane was fighting back at policemen attacking him, many police officials would have thought that he deserved the beating. The use of excessive violence as part of everyday policing has long been the norm in South Africa. What was different this time was not only that the victim died shortly thereafter, but that it was captured on film and broadcast on public television.
The warning signs that the police are becoming increasingly violent have been around for some time. The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) annually reports on police related deaths, assaults and other forms of serious misconduct to parliament. Statistics collected by the ICD reveal that the number of people shot dead by the police more than doubled (increasing by over 100%) between 2005/06 and 2008/09, when a record high of 568 people were killed. The number dropped slightly but remained high at 524 shot dead during 2009/10. Moreover, the ICD statistics reveal that complaints of police assault with intention to commit grievous bodily harm (GBH) increased from 825 incidents in 2008/10 to 920 in 2009/2010. Unfortunately however, these figures have not resulted in any recognition that there might be a fundamental problem in the SAPS and no steps have been taken by police leadership to obtain a better understanding as to the cause of the increase or to reduce the number of killings.
Given the national and international profile given to this incident however, the Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa immediately released a media statement in which he expressed his “…full confidence that the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) will, without fear or favour investigate an alleged killing of a striking resident by police during a march in Ficksburg.” A few days later the Minister released another statement welcoming the arrest of six policemen implicated in the killing and highlighting that he has been consistent in his stance that, “those who break the law must be punished.” It is unusual for the ICD to act so quickly in response to complaints of police brutality, but given the widespread condemnation of this incident and the directive from the Minister, it is understandable.
Unfortunately however, this approach where incidents are referred to the ICD for investigation is not going to solve this deep and ongoing problem. The investigations may or may not reveal whether the police officials involved acted within the scope of the law and police regulations. If it is found that they broke the law then the ICD will give the docket to the National Prosecuting Authority who may decide to criminally prosecute the policemen. If SAPS regulations were broken then the ICD will make recommendations to the SAPS that disciplinary action is taken against the offending officials. The SAPS generally ignore these recommendations from the ICD but even when they do act on them, the only outcome will be that a few officials will be held accountable. This will not address the underlying management, structural and cultural problems that are contributing to this growing problem.
The ANC was correct to call for a commission of inquiry into Tatane’s death, as this is exactly what is needed at this time. Rather than only focusing on the individual officials as the ICD investigation will do, such an inquiry should look at the organisational context within which these police officials were operating. If it does so it is likely to find that inadequate command and control was generally exercised over the officials and that the SAPS standing operating procedures and the code of conduct were largely ignored. It is also likely to find that the training these officials received was sub-standard and that they were not properly assessed as to the extent to which they understand their role and responsibilities in handling public protests. Further still, such an inquiry could note that poor strategic decisions taken by SAPS leadership over the past decade resulted in the closure of specialised units including half of the Public Order Policing units, although these were belatedly re-established for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Consequently, the SAPS does not possess adequate skills and capacity to professionally respond to a number of the challenges it faces including maintaining public order.
If such an inquiry correctly includes a focus on those who have the authority and responsibility to ensure that the police uphold the law, then the political context of this killing cannot be ignored. Since 2008 when Deputy Minister of Police, Susan Shabangu called for police to “shoot to kill”, the SAPS has been led down a dangerous path where political rhetoric urging police to “show no mercy” to whomever they choose to label as “criminals” has replaced a firm commitment to ensuring that the SAPS adheres to acceptable standards of police professionalism and the rule of law. The “police service” was rhetorically renamed a “police force”, military style ranks were introduced and a “war on crime” was announced. While the Minister of Police has implored the police to “…respect the principles of human dignity and rights” he also appears to justify police violence by warning civilians, “not to provoke or insult the police.” This suggests that at the most senior levels of government, police violence is not seen as a fundamental challenge that police leadership has a duty to contain as much as it is something that civilians should avoid in the way that they act towards police officials.
David Bruce from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation who has been studying violence and policing in South Africa presented a paper at an ISS Conference on Crime and Crime Prevention in December 2010 in which he highlights the urgent need, “… for policing which is carried out fairly and respectfully.” He goes on to argue that, “There is some evidence ‘that the manner in which people are treated by agents of the criminal justice system contributes not only to respect for [the criminal] justice [system] but to respect for the law itself’. Essentially this means that people are more likely to voluntarily obey the law if they believe that agents of the criminal justice system will act towards them in a fair way.” This is an insight that the current leadership would do well to heed.
The Mail & Guardian recently quoted a government insider as stating that President Jacob Zuma had appointed General Cele to show South Africans that “police must be feared and respected”. However, fear does not necessarily bring respect. If one listens to the public outrage about this killing one would be hard pressed to find many people expressing respect for the police and far more likely to hear expressions of police disdain, even hate. However, state policing can be respected only if government changes its militant approach to policing and recognises it for the professional craft that it should be. Given that many of the problems currently facing the SAPS stem from decades of poor leadership and bad strategic decisions, effective change will need to be guided by an independent commission of inquiry that specifically focuses on the managerial, structural and cultural challenges that need to be addressed to professionalise the organisation. Until this happens, the tragic killing of Andries Tatane will not be the last such policing related incident to shock South Africa.
Source: Polity
The warning signs that the police are becoming increasingly violent have been around for some time. The Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) annually reports on police related deaths, assaults and other forms of serious misconduct to parliament. Statistics collected by the ICD reveal that the number of people shot dead by the police more than doubled (increasing by over 100%) between 2005/06 and 2008/09, when a record high of 568 people were killed. The number dropped slightly but remained high at 524 shot dead during 2009/10. Moreover, the ICD statistics reveal that complaints of police assault with intention to commit grievous bodily harm (GBH) increased from 825 incidents in 2008/10 to 920 in 2009/2010. Unfortunately however, these figures have not resulted in any recognition that there might be a fundamental problem in the SAPS and no steps have been taken by police leadership to obtain a better understanding as to the cause of the increase or to reduce the number of killings.
Given the national and international profile given to this incident however, the Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa immediately released a media statement in which he expressed his “…full confidence that the Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) will, without fear or favour investigate an alleged killing of a striking resident by police during a march in Ficksburg.” A few days later the Minister released another statement welcoming the arrest of six policemen implicated in the killing and highlighting that he has been consistent in his stance that, “those who break the law must be punished.” It is unusual for the ICD to act so quickly in response to complaints of police brutality, but given the widespread condemnation of this incident and the directive from the Minister, it is understandable.
Unfortunately however, this approach where incidents are referred to the ICD for investigation is not going to solve this deep and ongoing problem. The investigations may or may not reveal whether the police officials involved acted within the scope of the law and police regulations. If it is found that they broke the law then the ICD will give the docket to the National Prosecuting Authority who may decide to criminally prosecute the policemen. If SAPS regulations were broken then the ICD will make recommendations to the SAPS that disciplinary action is taken against the offending officials. The SAPS generally ignore these recommendations from the ICD but even when they do act on them, the only outcome will be that a few officials will be held accountable. This will not address the underlying management, structural and cultural problems that are contributing to this growing problem.
The ANC was correct to call for a commission of inquiry into Tatane’s death, as this is exactly what is needed at this time. Rather than only focusing on the individual officials as the ICD investigation will do, such an inquiry should look at the organisational context within which these police officials were operating. If it does so it is likely to find that inadequate command and control was generally exercised over the officials and that the SAPS standing operating procedures and the code of conduct were largely ignored. It is also likely to find that the training these officials received was sub-standard and that they were not properly assessed as to the extent to which they understand their role and responsibilities in handling public protests. Further still, such an inquiry could note that poor strategic decisions taken by SAPS leadership over the past decade resulted in the closure of specialised units including half of the Public Order Policing units, although these were belatedly re-established for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Consequently, the SAPS does not possess adequate skills and capacity to professionally respond to a number of the challenges it faces including maintaining public order.
If such an inquiry correctly includes a focus on those who have the authority and responsibility to ensure that the police uphold the law, then the political context of this killing cannot be ignored. Since 2008 when Deputy Minister of Police, Susan Shabangu called for police to “shoot to kill”, the SAPS has been led down a dangerous path where political rhetoric urging police to “show no mercy” to whomever they choose to label as “criminals” has replaced a firm commitment to ensuring that the SAPS adheres to acceptable standards of police professionalism and the rule of law. The “police service” was rhetorically renamed a “police force”, military style ranks were introduced and a “war on crime” was announced. While the Minister of Police has implored the police to “…respect the principles of human dignity and rights” he also appears to justify police violence by warning civilians, “not to provoke or insult the police.” This suggests that at the most senior levels of government, police violence is not seen as a fundamental challenge that police leadership has a duty to contain as much as it is something that civilians should avoid in the way that they act towards police officials.
David Bruce from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation who has been studying violence and policing in South Africa presented a paper at an ISS Conference on Crime and Crime Prevention in December 2010 in which he highlights the urgent need, “… for policing which is carried out fairly and respectfully.” He goes on to argue that, “There is some evidence ‘that the manner in which people are treated by agents of the criminal justice system contributes not only to respect for [the criminal] justice [system] but to respect for the law itself’. Essentially this means that people are more likely to voluntarily obey the law if they believe that agents of the criminal justice system will act towards them in a fair way.” This is an insight that the current leadership would do well to heed.
The Mail & Guardian recently quoted a government insider as stating that President Jacob Zuma had appointed General Cele to show South Africans that “police must be feared and respected”. However, fear does not necessarily bring respect. If one listens to the public outrage about this killing one would be hard pressed to find many people expressing respect for the police and far more likely to hear expressions of police disdain, even hate. However, state policing can be respected only if government changes its militant approach to policing and recognises it for the professional craft that it should be. Given that many of the problems currently facing the SAPS stem from decades of poor leadership and bad strategic decisions, effective change will need to be guided by an independent commission of inquiry that specifically focuses on the managerial, structural and cultural challenges that need to be addressed to professionalise the organisation. Until this happens, the tragic killing of Andries Tatane will not be the last such policing related incident to shock South Africa.
Source: Polity
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Critical weaknesses in servicers’ foreclosure governance processes
The Federal Reserve Systemn has found critical weaknesses in servicers’ foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party vendors, including foreclosure attorneys.
While it is important to note that findingsvaried across institutions, the weaknesses at each servicer,individually or collectively, resulted in unsafe and unsound practices and violations of applicable federal and state law and requirements.4
This report captures only the significant issues found across servicers reviewed, not necessarily findings at each servicer. The results elevated the agencies’ concern that widespread risks may be presented—to consumers, communities, various market participants, and the overall mortgage market. The servicers included in this review represent more than two-thirds of the servicing market. Thus, the agencies consider problems cited within this report to have widespread consequences for the national housing market and borrowers.
The interagency reviews identified significant weaknesses in several areas.
Foreclosure process governance.
Foreclosure governance processes of the servicers were underdeveloped
and insufficient to manage and control operational, compliance, legal, and reputational risk associated with an increasing volume of foreclosures.
Weaknesses included:
• •
inadequate policies, procedures, and independent control infrastructure covering all aspects of the foreclosure process;
• •
inadequate monitoring and controls to oversee foreclosure activities conducted on behalf of servicers by external law firms or other third-party vendors;
• •
lack of sufficient audit trails to show how information set out in the affidavits (amount of indebtedness, fees, penalties, etc.) was linked to the servicers’ internal records at the time the affidavits were executed;
• •
inadequate quality control and audit reviews to ensure compliance with legal requirements, policies and procedures, as well as the maintenance of sound operating environments; and
• •
inadequate identification of financial, reputational, and legal risks, and absence of internal communication about those risks among boards of directors and senior management.
• • Organizational structure and availability of staffing. Examiners found inadequate organization and staffing of foreclosure units to address the increased volumes of foreclosures.
• • Affidavit and notarization practices.
Individuals who signed foreclosure affidavits often did not personally check the documents for accuracy or possess the level of knowledge of the information that they attested to in those affidavits. In addition, some foreclosure documents indicated they were executed under oath, when no oath was administered.
Examiners also found that the majority of the servicers had improper notary practices which failed to conform to state legal requirements.
These determinations were based primarily on servicers’ self-assessments of their foreclosure processes and examiners’ interviews of servicer staff involved in the preparation of foreclosure documents.
Documentation practices.
Examiners found some— but not widespread—errors between actual fees charged and what the servicers’ internal records indicated, with servicers undercharging fees as frequently as overcharging them. The dollar amountof overcharged fees as compared with the servicers’ internal records was generally small.
Third-party vendor management.
Examiners generally found adequate evidence of physical control and possession of original notes and mortgages. Examiners also found, with limited exceptions, that notes appeared to be properly endorsed and mortgages and deeds of trust appeared properly assigned.
The agencies expect federally regulated servicers to have the necessary policies and procedures in place ensure that notes are properly endorsed mortgages assigned, so ownership can be determined at time of foreclosure.Where serve as document custodians for themselves or other investors, require controls tracking systems safeguard physical security maintenance critical loan documents.
The agencies expect federally regulated servicers to have the necessary policies and procedures in place ensure that notes are properly endorsed mortgages assigned, so ownership can be determined at time of foreclosure. Where serve as document custodians for themselves or other investors, require controls tracking systems safeguard physical security maintenance critical loan documents.
The review did find that, in some cases, the third-party law firms hired by the servicers were nonetheless filing mortgage foreclosure complaints or lost-note affidavits even though proper documentation existed.
• • Quality control (QC) and audit.
Examiners found weaknesses in quality control and internal auditing procedures at all servicers included in the review.
Source: Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
While it is important to note that findingsvaried across institutions, the weaknesses at each servicer,individually or collectively, resulted in unsafe and unsound practices and violations of applicable federal and state law and requirements.4
This report captures only the significant issues found across servicers reviewed, not necessarily findings at each servicer. The results elevated the agencies’ concern that widespread risks may be presented—to consumers, communities, various market participants, and the overall mortgage market. The servicers included in this review represent more than two-thirds of the servicing market. Thus, the agencies consider problems cited within this report to have widespread consequences for the national housing market and borrowers.
The interagency reviews identified significant weaknesses in several areas.
Foreclosure process governance.
Foreclosure governance processes of the servicers were underdeveloped
and insufficient to manage and control operational, compliance, legal, and reputational risk associated with an increasing volume of foreclosures.
Weaknesses included:
• •
inadequate policies, procedures, and independent control infrastructure covering all aspects of the foreclosure process;
• •
inadequate monitoring and controls to oversee foreclosure activities conducted on behalf of servicers by external law firms or other third-party vendors;
• •
lack of sufficient audit trails to show how information set out in the affidavits (amount of indebtedness, fees, penalties, etc.) was linked to the servicers’ internal records at the time the affidavits were executed;
• •
inadequate quality control and audit reviews to ensure compliance with legal requirements, policies and procedures, as well as the maintenance of sound operating environments; and
• •
inadequate identification of financial, reputational, and legal risks, and absence of internal communication about those risks among boards of directors and senior management.
• • Organizational structure and availability of staffing. Examiners found inadequate organization and staffing of foreclosure units to address the increased volumes of foreclosures.
• • Affidavit and notarization practices.
Individuals who signed foreclosure affidavits often did not personally check the documents for accuracy or possess the level of knowledge of the information that they attested to in those affidavits. In addition, some foreclosure documents indicated they were executed under oath, when no oath was administered.
Examiners also found that the majority of the servicers had improper notary practices which failed to conform to state legal requirements.
These determinations were based primarily on servicers’ self-assessments of their foreclosure processes and examiners’ interviews of servicer staff involved in the preparation of foreclosure documents.
Documentation practices.
Examiners found some— but not widespread—errors between actual fees charged and what the servicers’ internal records indicated, with servicers undercharging fees as frequently as overcharging them. The dollar amountof overcharged fees as compared with the servicers’ internal records was generally small.
Third-party vendor management.
Examiners generally found adequate evidence of physical control and possession of original notes and mortgages. Examiners also found, with limited exceptions, that notes appeared to be properly endorsed and mortgages and deeds of trust appeared properly assigned.
The agencies expect federally regulated servicers to have the necessary policies and procedures in place ensure that notes are properly endorsed mortgages assigned, so ownership can be determined at time of foreclosure.Where serve as document custodians for themselves or other investors, require controls tracking systems safeguard physical security maintenance critical loan documents.
The agencies expect federally regulated servicers to have the necessary policies and procedures in place ensure that notes are properly endorsed mortgages assigned, so ownership can be determined at time of foreclosure. Where serve as document custodians for themselves or other investors, require controls tracking systems safeguard physical security maintenance critical loan documents.
The review did find that, in some cases, the third-party law firms hired by the servicers were nonetheless filing mortgage foreclosure complaints or lost-note affidavits even though proper documentation existed.
• • Quality control (QC) and audit.
Examiners found weaknesses in quality control and internal auditing procedures at all servicers included in the review.
Source: Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
US blocks UN torture investigator from seeing Bradley Manning
The US government has blocked the United Nations’ special rapporteur on torture from visiting Army Private Bradley Manning, who has been held in solitary confinement at Quantico Marine base since July.
Manning has yet to appear in court. The 23-year-old faces 34 charges of leaking classified material to the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, including evidence of numerous US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the charges is that of “aiding the enemy,” which carries a sentence of life in prison or execution.
In addition to living in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in a small, empty cell, Manning has been subjected to forced nudity, deprived of personal possessions including his glasses, denied the ability to exercise or sleep during the day in his cell, and is continually harassed and intimidated by military guards. The soldier issued a letter through his lawyer last month detailing his abuse.
The severity of his charges and the hellish conditions to which he is being subjected make clear that Manning is being held as a political prisoner by the Obama administration.
The UN envoy, Juan Mendez, said Monday, “I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning.” The US “has not been receptive to a confidential meeting with Mr. Manning,” Mendez said in a statement. Military officials stated that the meeting could proceed only with a guard present, meaning that its content could be used against Manning in his court-martial trial.
Mendez issued a reprimand against the US—a measure only rarely undertaken by the UN, and usually in response to the conduct of small, dictatorial regimes—after being repeatedly stonewalled and denied entrance to the Virginia military base by the Obama administration since December.
Commenting to news agency Reuters, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan insisted that only lawyers were allowed unmonitored meetings with Quantico prisoners. Lapan added that there was “considerable misinformation” about Manning’s treatment, dismissing charges of cruelty and abuse. “There is no such thing at Quantico. … These facts are simply not true.”
Manning’s treatment has drawn condemnations from human rights groups and legal experts around the world. The British government, facing a mounting outcry over the mistreatment of the soldier, whose mother is Welsh, last week announced it would press US officials to moderate Manning’s conditions. (See, “British government presses US over treatment of Bradley Manning”)
On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published an open letter from prominent legal scholars to President Barack Obama describing the young soldier’s confinement as “degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.”
The open letter, written by law professors Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard and published under the headline “Private Manning’s Humiliation,” states that the conditions in which Manning is being held are a violation of both the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual treatment and the Fifth Amendment protection against punishment without trial.
“If continued,” the letter states, Manning’s treatment “may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, ‘the administration or application … of … procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.’…
“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”
Nearly 300 lawyers, professors, and authors have signed the letter, including Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law to Obama and served as an advisor on legal access issues at the Justice Department until three months ago.
Tribe told the British Guardian that Manning’s detention was “not only shameful but unconstitutional … in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offenses, not to mention someone merely accused of such offenses.”
When asked during a press conference last month about Manning’s abuse, Obama asserted that he knew nothing directly about the case but that the soldier was being treated well. “With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”
Obama also absurdly presented Manning’s strip-downs and other indignities as matters of personal protection. “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns,” he stated, “but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.”
After coming to power in part on the basis of pledges to reverse some of the worst abuses of democratic rights by the Bush administration, the Obama administration has overseen an expansion of these illegal policies, including the recent resumption of military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees. The White House has been particularly cut-throat in its pursuit of whistleblowers inside the government and military.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Manning has yet to appear in court. The 23-year-old faces 34 charges of leaking classified material to the whistleblower organization WikiLeaks, including evidence of numerous US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the charges is that of “aiding the enemy,” which carries a sentence of life in prison or execution.
In addition to living in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in a small, empty cell, Manning has been subjected to forced nudity, deprived of personal possessions including his glasses, denied the ability to exercise or sleep during the day in his cell, and is continually harassed and intimidated by military guards. The soldier issued a letter through his lawyer last month detailing his abuse.
The severity of his charges and the hellish conditions to which he is being subjected make clear that Manning is being held as a political prisoner by the Obama administration.
The UN envoy, Juan Mendez, said Monday, “I am deeply disappointed and frustrated by the prevarication of the US government with regard to my attempts to visit Mr. Manning.” The US “has not been receptive to a confidential meeting with Mr. Manning,” Mendez said in a statement. Military officials stated that the meeting could proceed only with a guard present, meaning that its content could be used against Manning in his court-martial trial.
Mendez issued a reprimand against the US—a measure only rarely undertaken by the UN, and usually in response to the conduct of small, dictatorial regimes—after being repeatedly stonewalled and denied entrance to the Virginia military base by the Obama administration since December.
Commenting to news agency Reuters, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan insisted that only lawyers were allowed unmonitored meetings with Quantico prisoners. Lapan added that there was “considerable misinformation” about Manning’s treatment, dismissing charges of cruelty and abuse. “There is no such thing at Quantico. … These facts are simply not true.”
Manning’s treatment has drawn condemnations from human rights groups and legal experts around the world. The British government, facing a mounting outcry over the mistreatment of the soldier, whose mother is Welsh, last week announced it would press US officials to moderate Manning’s conditions. (See, “British government presses US over treatment of Bradley Manning”)
On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published an open letter from prominent legal scholars to President Barack Obama describing the young soldier’s confinement as “degrading and inhumane conditions that are illegal and immoral.”
The open letter, written by law professors Bruce Ackerman of Yale and Yochai Benkler of Harvard and published under the headline “Private Manning’s Humiliation,” states that the conditions in which Manning is being held are a violation of both the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual treatment and the Fifth Amendment protection against punishment without trial.
“If continued,” the letter states, Manning’s treatment “may well amount to a violation of the criminal statute against torture, defined as, among other things, ‘the administration or application … of … procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality.’…
“The administration has provided no evidence that Manning’s treatment reflects a concern for his own safety or that of other inmates,” the letter states. “Unless and until it does so, there is only one reasonable inference: this pattern of degrading treatment aims either to deter future whistleblowers, or to force Manning to implicate WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a conspiracy, or both.”
Nearly 300 lawyers, professors, and authors have signed the letter, including Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law to Obama and served as an advisor on legal access issues at the Justice Department until three months ago.
Tribe told the British Guardian that Manning’s detention was “not only shameful but unconstitutional … in the way it violates his person and his liberty without due process of law and in the way it administers cruel and unusual punishment of a sort that cannot be constitutionally inflicted even upon someone convicted of terrible offenses, not to mention someone merely accused of such offenses.”
When asked during a press conference last month about Manning’s abuse, Obama asserted that he knew nothing directly about the case but that the soldier was being treated well. “With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are.”
Obama also absurdly presented Manning’s strip-downs and other indignities as matters of personal protection. “I can’t go into details about some of their concerns,” he stated, “but some of this has to do with Private Manning’s safety as well.”
After coming to power in part on the basis of pledges to reverse some of the worst abuses of democratic rights by the Bush administration, the Obama administration has overseen an expansion of these illegal policies, including the recent resumption of military tribunals for Guantánamo detainees. The White House has been particularly cut-throat in its pursuit of whistleblowers inside the government and military.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Pattern of misconduct and negligence related to deficient practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing
The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday announced formal enforcement actions requiring 10 banking organizations to address a pattern of misconduct and negligence related to deficient practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. These deficiencies represent significant and pervasive compliance failures and unsafe and unsound practices at these institutions.
The Board is taking these actions to ensure that firms under its jurisdiction promptly initiate steps to establish mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processes that treat customers fairly, are fully compliant with all applicable law, and are safe and sound.
The 10 banking organizations are: Bank of America Corporation; Citigroup Inc.; Ally Financial Inc.; HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; MetLife, Inc.; The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; U.S. Bancorp; and Wells Fargo & Company. Collectively, these organizations represent 65 percent of the servicing industry, or nearly $6.8 trillion in mortgage balances. All 10 actions require the parent holding companies to improve holding company oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing conducted by bank and nonbank subsidiaries.
In addition, the enforcement actions order the banking organizations that have servicing entities regulated by the Federal Reserve (Ally Financial, SunTrust, and HSBC) to promptly correct the many deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. Those deficiencies were identified by examiners during reviews conducted from November 2010 to January 2011.
The Federal Reserve believes monetary sanctions in these cases are appropriate and plans to announce monetary penalties. These monetary penalties will be in addition to the corrective actions that the banking organizations are expected to take pursuant to the enforcement actions.
The enforcement actions complement the actions under consideration by the federal and state regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and do not preclude those agencies from taking additional enforcement action. The Federal Reserve continues to work with other federal and state authorities to resolve these matters.
The actions taken Wednesday require each servicer to take a number of actions, including to make significant revisions to certain residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing practices. Each servicer must, among other things, submit plans acceptable to the Federal Reserve that:
strengthen coordination of communications with borrowers by providing borrowers the name of the person at the servicer who is their primary point of contact;
ensure that foreclosures are not pursued once a mortgage has been approved for modification, unless repayments under the modified loan are not made;
establish robust controls and oversight over the activities of third-party vendors that provide to the servicers various residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, or foreclosure-related support, including local counsel in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings;
provide remediation to borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of wrongful foreclosures or other deficiencies identified in a review of the foreclosure process; and
strengthen programs to ensure compliance with state and federal laws regarding servicing, generally, and foreclosures, in particular.
The Federal Reserve will closely monitor progress at the firms in addressing these matters and will take additional enforcement actions as needed.
In addition to the actions against the banking organizations, the Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced formal enforcement actions against Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a domestic provider of default-management services and other services related to foreclosures, and against MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS), which provides services related to tracking and registering residential mortgage ownership and servicing, acts as mortgagee of record on behalf of lenders and servicers, and initiates foreclosure actions. These actions address significant compliance failures and unsafe and unsound practices at LPS and its subsidiaries, and at MERS and its subsidiary. The action requires LPS to address deficient practices related primarily to the document execution services that LPS, through its subsidiaries DocX, LLC, and LPS Default Solutions, Inc., provided to servicers in connection with foreclosures. MERS is required to address significant weaknesses in, among other things, oversight, management supervision, and corporate governance. The LPS action is being taken jointly with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, while the MERS action is being taken jointly with those agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The Federal Reserve Board based its enforcement actions on the findings of the interagency reviews of the major mortgage servicers, LPS, and MERS. A summary of the findings from the reviews of the mortgage servicers is available in the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices, which is simultaneously being released by the Federal Reserve Board and the other agencies.
Attachments:
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
The Board is taking these actions to ensure that firms under its jurisdiction promptly initiate steps to establish mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processes that treat customers fairly, are fully compliant with all applicable law, and are safe and sound.
The 10 banking organizations are: Bank of America Corporation; Citigroup Inc.; Ally Financial Inc.; HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; MetLife, Inc.; The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.; SunTrust Banks, Inc.; U.S. Bancorp; and Wells Fargo & Company. Collectively, these organizations represent 65 percent of the servicing industry, or nearly $6.8 trillion in mortgage balances. All 10 actions require the parent holding companies to improve holding company oversight of residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing conducted by bank and nonbank subsidiaries.
In addition, the enforcement actions order the banking organizations that have servicing entities regulated by the Federal Reserve (Ally Financial, SunTrust, and HSBC) to promptly correct the many deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing. Those deficiencies were identified by examiners during reviews conducted from November 2010 to January 2011.
The Federal Reserve believes monetary sanctions in these cases are appropriate and plans to announce monetary penalties. These monetary penalties will be in addition to the corrective actions that the banking organizations are expected to take pursuant to the enforcement actions.
The enforcement actions complement the actions under consideration by the federal and state regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and do not preclude those agencies from taking additional enforcement action. The Federal Reserve continues to work with other federal and state authorities to resolve these matters.
The actions taken Wednesday require each servicer to take a number of actions, including to make significant revisions to certain residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing practices. Each servicer must, among other things, submit plans acceptable to the Federal Reserve that:
strengthen coordination of communications with borrowers by providing borrowers the name of the person at the servicer who is their primary point of contact;
ensure that foreclosures are not pursued once a mortgage has been approved for modification, unless repayments under the modified loan are not made;
establish robust controls and oversight over the activities of third-party vendors that provide to the servicers various residential mortgage loan servicing, loss mitigation, or foreclosure-related support, including local counsel in foreclosure or bankruptcy proceedings;
provide remediation to borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of wrongful foreclosures or other deficiencies identified in a review of the foreclosure process; and
strengthen programs to ensure compliance with state and federal laws regarding servicing, generally, and foreclosures, in particular.
The Federal Reserve will closely monitor progress at the firms in addressing these matters and will take additional enforcement actions as needed.
In addition to the actions against the banking organizations, the Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced formal enforcement actions against Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a domestic provider of default-management services and other services related to foreclosures, and against MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS), which provides services related to tracking and registering residential mortgage ownership and servicing, acts as mortgagee of record on behalf of lenders and servicers, and initiates foreclosure actions. These actions address significant compliance failures and unsafe and unsound practices at LPS and its subsidiaries, and at MERS and its subsidiary. The action requires LPS to address deficient practices related primarily to the document execution services that LPS, through its subsidiaries DocX, LLC, and LPS Default Solutions, Inc., provided to servicers in connection with foreclosures. MERS is required to address significant weaknesses in, among other things, oversight, management supervision, and corporate governance. The LPS action is being taken jointly with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, while the MERS action is being taken jointly with those agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The Federal Reserve Board based its enforcement actions on the findings of the interagency reviews of the major mortgage servicers, LPS, and MERS. A summary of the findings from the reviews of the mortgage servicers is available in the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices, which is simultaneously being released by the Federal Reserve Board and the other agencies.
Attachments:
- Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices (PDF)
- Consent Order for Bank of America Corp. (97 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for Citigroup Inc. and CitiFinancial Credit Co. (140 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for Ally Financial, Inc., ResCap, GMAC Mortgage, and Ally Bank (493 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. and HSBC Finance Corp. (87 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for JPMorgan Chase & Co. and EMC Mtge. (165 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for MetLife, Inc. (25 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for PNC Financial Svs. Group, Inc. (25 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for SunTrust Banks, Inc., SunTrust Bank, and SunTrust Mortgage (76 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for U.S. Bancorp (25 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for Wells Fargo & Co. (25 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for LPS (47 KB PDF)
- Consent Order for MERS (48 KB PDF)
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Monday, April 11, 2011
Editors welcome McBride ruling
The upholding of the Citizen newspaper's appeal in a defamation case by Robert McBride is a victory for freedom of expression, Sanef said.
The Constitutional Court upholding the Citizen newspaper’s appeal in a defamation case by former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride is a victory for freedom of expression and the media, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) said on Monday.
“Sanef, which supported the Citizen‘s appeal as a friend of the court, believes that the finding will aid newspapers in their battle against defamation claims and strengthen the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of the media,” said Sanef in a statement.
“Sanef notes the important point of principle established by the Constitutional Court that published criticism was protected even if it were extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced so long as it expressed an honestly-held opinion, without malice, on a matter of public interest on facts that were true.”
On Friday, the Constitutional Court in a judgement held that the Reconciliation Act did not make the fact that McBride committed murder untrue. The court found the Act did not prohibit frank public discussion of his act as “murderer” and did not prevent his being described as a “criminal”.
The Constitutional Court said that protected comment need not be “fair or just at all” in any sense in which these terms were commonly understood.
The Citizen‘s main appeal was upheld and the court dismissed McBride’s cross-appeal, but nevertheless found the newspaper had defamed McBride by claiming falsely that he was not remorseful.
McBride was afforded R50 000 for this, reducing his damages awarded by the lower court from R150 000.
The matter relates to 2003 when the Citizen published a number of articles and editorials questioning McBride’s candidacy for the head of the Ekurhuleni metro police.
The articles said McBride was unsuitable because he was a “criminal” and a “murderer”. - Sapa
In an earlier version of this article, the South African Press Association reported that Sanef had welcomed the “unanimous” Constitutional Court ruling.
However, the judgment was not “unanimous” and the Constitutional Court justices were split 5-3 on the matter.
Source: Mail & Guardian
The Constitutional Court upholding the Citizen newspaper’s appeal in a defamation case by former Ekurhuleni metro police chief Robert McBride is a victory for freedom of expression and the media, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) said on Monday.
“Sanef, which supported the Citizen‘s appeal as a friend of the court, believes that the finding will aid newspapers in their battle against defamation claims and strengthen the principles of freedom of expression and freedom of the media,” said Sanef in a statement.
“Sanef notes the important point of principle established by the Constitutional Court that published criticism was protected even if it were extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced so long as it expressed an honestly-held opinion, without malice, on a matter of public interest on facts that were true.”
On Friday, the Constitutional Court in a judgement held that the Reconciliation Act did not make the fact that McBride committed murder untrue. The court found the Act did not prohibit frank public discussion of his act as “murderer” and did not prevent his being described as a “criminal”.
The Constitutional Court said that protected comment need not be “fair or just at all” in any sense in which these terms were commonly understood.
The Citizen‘s main appeal was upheld and the court dismissed McBride’s cross-appeal, but nevertheless found the newspaper had defamed McBride by claiming falsely that he was not remorseful.
McBride was afforded R50 000 for this, reducing his damages awarded by the lower court from R150 000.
The matter relates to 2003 when the Citizen published a number of articles and editorials questioning McBride’s candidacy for the head of the Ekurhuleni metro police.
The articles said McBride was unsuitable because he was a “criminal” and a “murderer”. - Sapa
In an earlier version of this article, the South African Press Association reported that Sanef had welcomed the “unanimous” Constitutional Court ruling.
However, the judgment was not “unanimous” and the Constitutional Court justices were split 5-3 on the matter.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
US, NATO allies join scramble for Libya’s oil
A US delegation arrived in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi Tuesday for talks with the Transitional National Council, the political arm of the so-called rebels fighting against the regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
The visit follows the announcement Monday in Rome that the Italian government has recognized the council in Benghazi as the sole legitimate government of Libya. Italy is only the third nation to take this step, following recognition of the TNC by France and Qatar, the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirate.
In announcing the recognition, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini also stated that Paolo Scaroni, the chief executive of the Italian oil and gas company, ENI, had visited Benghazi two days earlier for talks with the TNC. The foreign ministry subsequently corrected his remarks, saying that he had held a telephone conference with the leadership of the Benghazi council.
The oil executive, Frattini said, “had contacts with the Libyan National Transitional Council to restart cooperation in the energy sector and get going again the collaboration with Italy in the oil sector.”
Last month, on the eve of the US, France and Britain launching their missile and bombing attacks on Libya, Scaroni had derided economic sanctions against the Gaddafi regime as “shooting ourselves in the foot” and stressed ENI’s desire to resume operations in the North African country “whatever political system there is in the future.” The company, which has been active in Libya since 1955, is the top foreign oil operator and the country’s largest foreign investor, having reached a $28 billion deal with the Libyan government in 2007 to extend its contracts for oil production until 2042.
ENI is extremely close to the Italian government. Its turn to the “rebels” may merely be a matter of the company hedging its bets. On the other hand, it could reflect insider knowledge as to US-NATO plans either to escalate the war or to effectively partition Libya, with eastern oil fields and facilities under the nominal control of the TNC.
The Italian recognition and ENI’s forging of ties to the Benghazi council came just a day before a Liberian-registered oil tanker, owned by a Greek shipping conglomerate, docked at the Libyan crude export terminal of Marsa el-Hariga, near Tobruk.
The tanker, the Equator, is capable of carrying 1 million barrels of crude, which would sell for over $100 million on the world market. Its shipment will represent the first export of oil from Libya since the country was plunged into civil war six weeks ago. The Greek shipping company carrying the oil has refused to say who is paying for it or where it is going.
There are reportedly three million barrels of crude stored at the terminal, which belongs to the Arab Gulf Oil Corporation (AGOCO), a subsidiary of Libya’s National Oil Corporation. The Transitional National Council has claimed that AGOCO’s fields in the east are producing up to 120,000 barrels a day, roughly one third of the output before the civil war broke out. Libya as a whole was producing 1.6 million barrels a day and exporting 1.3 million before the fighting.
Energy analysts are highly skeptical of these claims. As the business information company IHS noted, “the exodus of foreign skilled workers as well as most Libyan workers, who abandoned the country’s often remote desert oilfields in order not to either be caught out by fighting or left stranded as water and food supply chains broke down, this meant that production in AGOCO fields, as at all other fields in Libya, has fallen to almost zero.”
Nonetheless, the Benghazi council has announced its intention to sell what oil it has to fund its operations and to buy arms, with Qatar acting as a middleman in getting the oil onto the world market.
Asked about Qatar’s role, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Libya’s energy minister, Shukri Ghanem commented bitterly, “Rather than calling for unity and reconciliation, everyone would like to participate in the loot.”
Ghanem insisted that the priority should be a cease-fire and warned that continuation of the fighting could lead to the “strangling” of Libya’s oil industry.
Last week, the European Union’s foreign affairs representative, Catherine Ashton, stressed that “there is an oil embargo against the whole of Libya” which applied equally to areas held by the Gaddafi regime and those under control of the armed opposition.
Washington took the opposite position, insisting that so long as the money for the oil exports was not funneled into the state-owned National Oil Corporation, the exports from eastern Libya would be allowed.
The United Nations special envoy for Libya, Abdul Ilah al-Khatib, delivered a report to the Security Council April 4 in which he said that the council in Benghazi had “raised concerns about the lack of funds, as well as issues relating to the marketing and sale of oil and gas in Libya.” He also said that the council wanted to begin securing “loans guaranteed against oil and gas sales and [Libya’s] frozen overseas assets.”
By Tuesday, the EU reversed its position on the Libyan sanctions, with a foreign affairs spokesman insisting, “The oil and gas embargo is specifically targeted against the Gaddafi regime” and so long as revenues did not go to the government in Tripoli, “we have no issues with oil and gas commercial practices.”
The abrupt turnaround, combined with the discussions between the Italian oil giant ENI and the “rebels,” suggests that a scramble by the major Western powers and energy conglomerates for control of Libyan oil is well under way.
It is in this context that the visit to Benghazi by the US delegations—and by French and British ambassadors before it—is taking place. The US envoy, Chris Stevens, the former number-two official at the now-closed embassy in Tripoli, is to discuss, among other matters, “the financial needs of the council” and “how the international community can assist,” an administration official told the Associated Press. No doubt, such “assistance” will be tied to lucrative contracts for the American branch of Big Oil.
Washington, Paris and London had expected to secure unfettered control over Libyan oil by means of regime change, forcing the downfall of the Gaddafi regime. However, this task has proven more difficult and protracted than anticipated.
The “rebels” have been incapable of mobilizing forces able to defeat the military units loyal to Gaddafi. On Wednesday, they were once again driven out of Brega, site of an oil refinery and Mediterranean port, despite NATO air strikes early in the day that demolished vehicles used by the Gaddafi forces. The panicked retreat by the opposition forces took them at least 15 miles east toward Ajdabiya.
The new setbacks led to a protest by one of the commanders of the armed opposition that NATO was not supplying sufficient air cover. Abdel Fattah Younes, who was previously Gaddafi’s interior minister, condemned NATO for acting too slowly in delivering bombardments and warned, “Either NATO does its work properly or I will ask the national council to raise the matter with the Security Council.”
NATO rejected the complaint, insisting that it has maintained the same pace of operations since assuming nominal command of the Libyan intervention. “The pace of operations since NATO took over has not abated,” said a spokesman for the US-led alliance. “We have conducted 851 sorties in the past six days ... we are fulfilling our mandate.”
Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mark van Uhm, a senior NATO staff officer, said in Brussels, “The assessment is that we have taken out 30 percent of the military capacity of Gaddafi.”
Washington and NATO have claimed to be operating under the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. But the obvious implication of van Uhm’s statement is that continuous bombardments have been carried out with the aim of obliterating Libya’s military and defending the so-called rebels.
This air war, however, has proven insufficient, given the US and NATO-backed opposition’s disorganization and lack of forces.
A report from Libya by Al Jazeera reveals that covert measures are being taken in an attempt to change this situation. Citing the testimony of a member of the armed opposition, the network reported that oppositionists are being trained at a secret facility in eastern Libya by both US and Egyptian special forces units.
The “rebel” also said that weapons are being funneled in across the Egyptian border, in violation of a UN arms embargo, including “state-of-the-art” heat-seeking missiles.
The report further exposes the lies told by the Obama administration. The US president has publicly assured the American people that there will be no “boots on the ground” in Libya, and that arming the “rebels” is something that has neither been ruled in or out. It is now evident that both have already taken place as Washington escalates the predatory war.
A poll released Tuesday pointed to rising popular opposition within the United States to the war launched by the Obama administration against Libya. Only 25 percent believed that the intervention is worth the nearly $600 million spent thus far on the US military action, according to the poll, conducted for The Hill. The same poll indicated only 19 percent support for arming the so-called rebels. A separate Quinnipiac University survey found that 47 percent of registered voters are against the war compared to 41 per cent who support it.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
The visit follows the announcement Monday in Rome that the Italian government has recognized the council in Benghazi as the sole legitimate government of Libya. Italy is only the third nation to take this step, following recognition of the TNC by France and Qatar, the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirate.
In announcing the recognition, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini also stated that Paolo Scaroni, the chief executive of the Italian oil and gas company, ENI, had visited Benghazi two days earlier for talks with the TNC. The foreign ministry subsequently corrected his remarks, saying that he had held a telephone conference with the leadership of the Benghazi council.
The oil executive, Frattini said, “had contacts with the Libyan National Transitional Council to restart cooperation in the energy sector and get going again the collaboration with Italy in the oil sector.”
Last month, on the eve of the US, France and Britain launching their missile and bombing attacks on Libya, Scaroni had derided economic sanctions against the Gaddafi regime as “shooting ourselves in the foot” and stressed ENI’s desire to resume operations in the North African country “whatever political system there is in the future.” The company, which has been active in Libya since 1955, is the top foreign oil operator and the country’s largest foreign investor, having reached a $28 billion deal with the Libyan government in 2007 to extend its contracts for oil production until 2042.
ENI is extremely close to the Italian government. Its turn to the “rebels” may merely be a matter of the company hedging its bets. On the other hand, it could reflect insider knowledge as to US-NATO plans either to escalate the war or to effectively partition Libya, with eastern oil fields and facilities under the nominal control of the TNC.
The Italian recognition and ENI’s forging of ties to the Benghazi council came just a day before a Liberian-registered oil tanker, owned by a Greek shipping conglomerate, docked at the Libyan crude export terminal of Marsa el-Hariga, near Tobruk.
The tanker, the Equator, is capable of carrying 1 million barrels of crude, which would sell for over $100 million on the world market. Its shipment will represent the first export of oil from Libya since the country was plunged into civil war six weeks ago. The Greek shipping company carrying the oil has refused to say who is paying for it or where it is going.
There are reportedly three million barrels of crude stored at the terminal, which belongs to the Arab Gulf Oil Corporation (AGOCO), a subsidiary of Libya’s National Oil Corporation. The Transitional National Council has claimed that AGOCO’s fields in the east are producing up to 120,000 barrels a day, roughly one third of the output before the civil war broke out. Libya as a whole was producing 1.6 million barrels a day and exporting 1.3 million before the fighting.
Energy analysts are highly skeptical of these claims. As the business information company IHS noted, “the exodus of foreign skilled workers as well as most Libyan workers, who abandoned the country’s often remote desert oilfields in order not to either be caught out by fighting or left stranded as water and food supply chains broke down, this meant that production in AGOCO fields, as at all other fields in Libya, has fallen to almost zero.”
Nonetheless, the Benghazi council has announced its intention to sell what oil it has to fund its operations and to buy arms, with Qatar acting as a middleman in getting the oil onto the world market.
Asked about Qatar’s role, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Libya’s energy minister, Shukri Ghanem commented bitterly, “Rather than calling for unity and reconciliation, everyone would like to participate in the loot.”
Ghanem insisted that the priority should be a cease-fire and warned that continuation of the fighting could lead to the “strangling” of Libya’s oil industry.
Last week, the European Union’s foreign affairs representative, Catherine Ashton, stressed that “there is an oil embargo against the whole of Libya” which applied equally to areas held by the Gaddafi regime and those under control of the armed opposition.
Washington took the opposite position, insisting that so long as the money for the oil exports was not funneled into the state-owned National Oil Corporation, the exports from eastern Libya would be allowed.
The United Nations special envoy for Libya, Abdul Ilah al-Khatib, delivered a report to the Security Council April 4 in which he said that the council in Benghazi had “raised concerns about the lack of funds, as well as issues relating to the marketing and sale of oil and gas in Libya.” He also said that the council wanted to begin securing “loans guaranteed against oil and gas sales and [Libya’s] frozen overseas assets.”
By Tuesday, the EU reversed its position on the Libyan sanctions, with a foreign affairs spokesman insisting, “The oil and gas embargo is specifically targeted against the Gaddafi regime” and so long as revenues did not go to the government in Tripoli, “we have no issues with oil and gas commercial practices.”
The abrupt turnaround, combined with the discussions between the Italian oil giant ENI and the “rebels,” suggests that a scramble by the major Western powers and energy conglomerates for control of Libyan oil is well under way.
It is in this context that the visit to Benghazi by the US delegations—and by French and British ambassadors before it—is taking place. The US envoy, Chris Stevens, the former number-two official at the now-closed embassy in Tripoli, is to discuss, among other matters, “the financial needs of the council” and “how the international community can assist,” an administration official told the Associated Press. No doubt, such “assistance” will be tied to lucrative contracts for the American branch of Big Oil.
Washington, Paris and London had expected to secure unfettered control over Libyan oil by means of regime change, forcing the downfall of the Gaddafi regime. However, this task has proven more difficult and protracted than anticipated.
The “rebels” have been incapable of mobilizing forces able to defeat the military units loyal to Gaddafi. On Wednesday, they were once again driven out of Brega, site of an oil refinery and Mediterranean port, despite NATO air strikes early in the day that demolished vehicles used by the Gaddafi forces. The panicked retreat by the opposition forces took them at least 15 miles east toward Ajdabiya.
The new setbacks led to a protest by one of the commanders of the armed opposition that NATO was not supplying sufficient air cover. Abdel Fattah Younes, who was previously Gaddafi’s interior minister, condemned NATO for acting too slowly in delivering bombardments and warned, “Either NATO does its work properly or I will ask the national council to raise the matter with the Security Council.”
NATO rejected the complaint, insisting that it has maintained the same pace of operations since assuming nominal command of the Libyan intervention. “The pace of operations since NATO took over has not abated,” said a spokesman for the US-led alliance. “We have conducted 851 sorties in the past six days ... we are fulfilling our mandate.”
Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mark van Uhm, a senior NATO staff officer, said in Brussels, “The assessment is that we have taken out 30 percent of the military capacity of Gaddafi.”
Washington and NATO have claimed to be operating under the mandate of a UN Security Council resolution authorizing “all necessary measures” to protect civilians. But the obvious implication of van Uhm’s statement is that continuous bombardments have been carried out with the aim of obliterating Libya’s military and defending the so-called rebels.
This air war, however, has proven insufficient, given the US and NATO-backed opposition’s disorganization and lack of forces.
A report from Libya by Al Jazeera reveals that covert measures are being taken in an attempt to change this situation. Citing the testimony of a member of the armed opposition, the network reported that oppositionists are being trained at a secret facility in eastern Libya by both US and Egyptian special forces units.
The “rebel” also said that weapons are being funneled in across the Egyptian border, in violation of a UN arms embargo, including “state-of-the-art” heat-seeking missiles.
The report further exposes the lies told by the Obama administration. The US president has publicly assured the American people that there will be no “boots on the ground” in Libya, and that arming the “rebels” is something that has neither been ruled in or out. It is now evident that both have already taken place as Washington escalates the predatory war.
A poll released Tuesday pointed to rising popular opposition within the United States to the war launched by the Obama administration against Libya. Only 25 percent believed that the intervention is worth the nearly $600 million spent thus far on the US military action, according to the poll, conducted for The Hill. The same poll indicated only 19 percent support for arming the so-called rebels. A separate Quinnipiac University survey found that 47 percent of registered voters are against the war compared to 41 per cent who support it.
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Friday, April 1, 2011
Côte d'Ivoire army chief holed up at SA envoy's home
Côte d'Ivoire's army chief of staff, General Philippe Mangou, is still holed up at the residence of the South African ambassador in Abidjan, a foreign affairs spokesperson said on Friday.
"General Mangou is still at the ambassador's residence. There is very little I can tell now, there is nothing new," said Clayson Monyela.
Mangou, a key ally of strongman president Laurent Gbagbo, on Wednesday fled with his wife and five children to the home of Pretoria's envoy, Zodwa Lallie, as forces aligned with the UN-recognised leader, Alassane Ouattara, moved into the main city of Abidjan. "I can't say how long he will remain there," said Monyela.
Early on Friday, gunfire erupted around the home of under-siege Gbagbo and the presidential palace, while forces loyal to Ouattara seized control of the country's RTI state television. Mangou is seen as a moderate in Côte d'Ivoire's current crisis, which erupted when Gbagbo refused to cede defeat to Ouattara following November elections.
Source: Mail & Guardian
"General Mangou is still at the ambassador's residence. There is very little I can tell now, there is nothing new," said Clayson Monyela.
Mangou, a key ally of strongman president Laurent Gbagbo, on Wednesday fled with his wife and five children to the home of Pretoria's envoy, Zodwa Lallie, as forces aligned with the UN-recognised leader, Alassane Ouattara, moved into the main city of Abidjan. "I can't say how long he will remain there," said Monyela.
Early on Friday, gunfire erupted around the home of under-siege Gbagbo and the presidential palace, while forces loyal to Ouattara seized control of the country's RTI state television. Mangou is seen as a moderate in Côte d'Ivoire's current crisis, which erupted when Gbagbo refused to cede defeat to Ouattara following November elections.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)