WORLD: An interview with Noam Chomsky — Nothing can justify torture

Professor Noam Chomsky is an Institute Professor and Professor (Emeritus) in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was educated at the University of Philadelphia and at Harvard University as a Harvard Junior Fellow. He earned his PhD in Linguistics from the University of Philadelphia in 1955. He has spent the 57 years since then teaching at MIT. In addition to his academic work in linguistics, Professor Chomsky has been a noted political activist and philosopher, gaining national recognition in 1967 over his opposition to the Vietnam War and since then has regularly spoken out against US foreign and domestic policies and mainstream American mass media. Between his academic career and his work as a political activist and dissident, he has published over 100 books. Here with Eric Bailey and on the eve of the 2012 US presidential election, he discusses America’s human rights record under the administration of President Obama and the military intervention policies that have seen increased use during the Arab Spring. Prof. Chomsky recently communicated with Eric Bailey of Torture Magazine.

EB: The US presidential elections are almost upon us and the last four years have seen significant changes in American Federal policy in regards to human rights. One of the few examples of cooperation between the Democratic and Republican Parties over the last four years has been the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. This bill has given the United States military the power to arrest American citizens, indefinitely, without charge, trial, or any other form of due process of law and the Obama Administration has and continues to fight a legal battle in Federal Court to prevent that law from being declared unconstitutional. Obama authorized the assassination of three American citizens, including Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son, admittedly all members of Al Qaeda, – all without judicial review. Additionally, the Guantanamo Bay prison remains open, the Patriot Act has been extended, and the TSA has expanded at breakneck speeds. What is your take on America’s human rights record over the past four years and can you contrast Obama’s policies with those of his predecessor, George W. Bush?

NC: Obama’s policies have been approximately the same as Bush’s, though there have been some slight differences, but that’s not a great surprise. The Democrats supported Bush’s policies. There were some objections on mostly partisan grounds, but for the most part, they supported his policies and it’s not surprising that they have continued to do so. In some respects Obama has gone even beyond Bush. The NDAA, which you mentioned, was not initiated by Obama, (when it passed Congress, he said he didn’t approve of it and wouldn’t implement it) but he nevertheless did sign it into law and did not veto it. It was pushed through by hawks, including Joe Lieberman and others. In fact, there hasn’t been that much of a change. The worst part of the NDAA is that it codified – or put into law – what had already been a regular practice. The practices hadn’t been significantly different. The one part that received public attention is what you mentioned, the part that permits the indefinite detention of American citizens, but why permit the indefinite detention of anybody? It’s a gross violation of fundamental human rights and civil law, going all the way back to the Magna Carta in the 13th  Century, so it’s a very severe attack on elementary civil rights, both under Bush and under Obama. It’s bipartisan!

As for the killings, Obama has sharply increased the global assassination campaign. While it was initiated by Bush, it has expanded under Obama and it has included American citizens, again with bipartisan support and very little criticism other than some minor criticism because it was an American. But then again, why should you have the right to assassinate anybody? For example, suppose Iran was assassinating members of Congress who were calling for an attack on Iran. Would we think that’s fine? That would be much more justified, but of course we’d see that as an act of war. The real question is, why assassinate anyone? The government has made it very clear that the assassinations are personally approved by Obama and the criteria for assassination are very weak. If a group of men are seen somewhere by a drone who are, say, loading something into a truck, and there is some suspicion that maybe they are militants, then it’s fine to kill them and they are regarded as guilty unless, subsequently, they are shown to be innocent. That’s the wording that the United States used and it is such a gross violation of fundamental human rights that you can hardly talk about it.

The question of due process actually did arise, since the US does have a constitution and it says that no person shall be deprived of their rights without due process of law – again, this goes back to 13th Century England – so the question arose, “What about due process?” The Obama Justice Department’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, explained that there was due process in these cases because they are discussed first at the Executive Branch. That’s not even a bad joke! The British kings from the 13th Century would have applauded. “Sure, if we talk about it, that’s due process.” And that, again, passed without controversy.

In fact, we might ask the same question about the murder of Osama Bin Laden. Notice I use the term “murder”. When heavily armed elite troops capture a suspect, unarmed and defenseless, accompanied by his wives, and then shoot him, kill him, and dump his body into the ocean without an autopsy, that’s shear assassination. Also notice that I said “suspect”. The reason is because of another principle of law, that also goes back to the 13th Century – that a man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Before that, he’s a suspect. In the case of Osama Bin Laden, the United States had never formally charged him with 9/11 and part of the reason was that they didn’t know that he was responsible. In fact, eight months after 9/11 and after the most intensive inquiry in history, the FBI explained that it suspected that the 9/11 plot was hatched in Afghanistan, (didn’t mention Bin Laden) and was implemented in the United Arab Emirates, Germany, and of course the United States. That’s eight months after the attack and there’s nothing substantive that they’ve learned since then that does more than increase the suspicion. My own assumption is that the suspicion is almost certainly correct, but there’s a big difference between having a very confident belief and showing someone to be guilty. And even if he’s guilty, he was supposed to be apprehended and brought before a court. That’s British and American law going back eight centuries. He’s not supposed to be murdered and have his body dumped without an autopsy, but support for this is very nearly universal. Actually, I wrote one of the few critical articles on it and my article was bitterly condemned by commentators across the spectrum, including the Left, because the assassination was so obviously just, since we suspected him of committing a crime against us. And that tells you something about the significant, I would say, “moral degeneration” running throughout the whole intellectual class. And yes, Obama has continued this and in some respects extended it, but it hardly comes as a surprise.
The rot is much deeper than that.

EB: It has been just over 10 years since the publication of the Bush Administration’s “Torture Memos”. These memos provided a legal justification for the torture of detainees held by the CIA in connection with the “War on Terror.” The contents of the memos are chilling and have created new debate on torture internationally. Despite all of the promises given by President Obama to close those illegal detention centers, it seems that “black site” activities still occur. What are your views on these detention centers and CIA torture? Also, what do you think about Obama’s promise of CIA reforms in 2008 and how has the reality of his presidency stacked up to those promises?

NC: There have been some presidential orders expressing disapproval of the most extreme forms of torture, but Bagram remains open and uninspected. That’s probably the worst in Afghanistan. Guantanamo is still open, but it’s unlikely that serious torture is going on at Guantanamo. There is just too much inspection. There are military lawyers present and evidence regularly coming out so I suspect that that’s not a torture chamber any more, but it still is an illegal detention chamber, and Bagram and who knows how many others are still functioning. Rendition doesn’t seem to be continuing at the level that it did, but it has been until very recently.

Rendition is just sending people abroad to be tortured. Actually, that’s barred as well by the Magna Carta – the foundation of Anglo-American law. It’s explicitly barred to send somebody across the seas to be punished and tortured. It’s not just done by the United States, either. It’s done all over Western Europe. Britain has participated in it. Sweden has participated. It’s one of the reasons for a lot of the concerns about extraditing Julian Assange to Sweden. Canada has been implicated as was Ireland, but to Ireland’s credit it was one of the few places where there was mass popular protests against allowing the Shannon Airport to be used for CIA rendition. In most countries there has been very little protest or not a word. I don’t know of any recent cases so maybe that policy is no longer being implemented, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was still in effect.

EB: Moving beyond the US, the Middle East has always been rife with human rights abuses, but the turmoil of the Arab Spring has intensified such abuses in many countries. While the dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt were toppled without resorting to civil war, countries like Libya, Syria, and Yemen have seen heavy fighting. For America and NATO’s part, there has been yet another military intervention with the Libyan Civil War and only the stubbornness of Russia and China have prevented a similar  ntervention in Syria. In both cases, rebel forces have asked, even begged, for American and European help in their war efforts, but have proven to be absolutely uninterested in negotiated settlements with their dictatorial adversaries, even when outside help is not forthcoming. What is your take on military interventions, both the intervention that did occur in Libya and the one that is being called for in Syria?  Is it morally justifiable to send Texans and Louisianans into harm’s way to fight in the internal conflicts of Libyans and Syrians? Conversely, can refusing to intervene be justified when entire cities, such as Misrata, Benghazi, Aleppo, and Homs were or are being threatened with utter destruction and tens of thousands of civilians are being killed?

NC: Well, let’s start with Syria. The one thing I disagree with in what you said is that I doubt very much that Russia and China had anything to do with the lack of US or Western military intervention in Syria. In fact my strong suspicion is that the United States, Britain, and France welcomed the Russian veto because that gave them a pretext not to do anything. Now they can say, “How can we do anything? The Russians and the Chinese have vetoed it!” In fact, if they wanted to intervene, they wouldn’t have cared one way or the other about a Russian or Chinese veto. That’s perfectly obvious from history, but they didn’t want to intervene and they don’t want to intervene now. The military and intelligence strategic command centers are just strongly opposed to it. Some oppose it for technical, military, reasons and others because they don’t see anyone they can support in their interests. They don’t particularly like Assad, although he was more or less conformed to US and Israeli interests, but they don’t like the opposition either, especially their Islamist elements, so they just prefer to stay on the side lines. It’s kind of interesting that Israel doesn’t do anything. They wouldn’t have to do much. Israel could easily  obilize forces in the Golan Heights (Syrian territory that Israel illegally annexed). They could mobilize forces there, which are only about 40 miles from Damascus, which would compel Assad to send military forces to the border,  drawing them away from areas where the rebels are operating. So that would be direct  support for the rebels, but without firing a shot and without moving across the border.

But there is no talk of it and I think what that indicates is that Israel, the United States, and their allies just don’t want to take moves that will undermine the regime, just out of self-interest. There is no humanitarian interest involved.

As far as Libya is concerned, we have to be a little cautious, because there were two interventions in Libya. The first one was under the auspices of the United Nations. That’s UN Resolution 1973. That resolution called for a no-fly zone, a ceasefire, and the start of negotiations and diplomacy.

EB: That was the intervention for which the justification was claimed to be the prevention of the destruction of Benghazi?

NC: Well, we don’t know if Benghazi was going to be destroyed, but it was called to prevent a possible attack on Benghazi. You can debate how likely the attack was, but personally, I felt that was legitimate – to try to stop a possible atrocity. However, that intervention lasted about five minutes. Almost immediately, the NATO powers (France and Britain in the lead and the United States following) violated the resolution, radically, and became the air force of the rebels. Nothing in the resolution justified that. It did call for “all necessary steps” to protect civilians, but there’s a big difference between protecting civilians and being the air force for the rebels.

Maybe we should have been in favor of the rebelling forces. That’s a separate question, but this was pretty clearly in violation of the resolution. It certainly wasn’t done for a lack of alternative options. Gaddafi offered a ceasefire. Whether he meant it or not, nobody knows, because it was at once rejected.

Incidentally, this pact was strongly opposed by most of the world. There was virtually no support for it. The African Union (Libya is, after all, an African country) strongly opposed it, right away, called for a ceasefire, and even suggested the introduction of African Union forces to try and reduce the conflict.

The BRICS countries, the most important of the developing countries, (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) happened to be having a conference at the time and they strongly opposed the NATO intervention and called for moves towards diplomacy, negotiations, and a ceasefire. Egypt, next door, didn’t participate. Within NATO, Germany refused to participate. Italy refused too, in the beginning, though later they joined the intervention. Turkey held back. Later on they joined, but initially they opposed intervention. Generally speaking, it was almost unilateral. It was the traditional imperial powers (France, Britain, and the United States) which intervened.

In fact it did lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Maybe it would have happened anyway, but it certainly led to that, especially in the end with the attacks on BaniWalid and Sirte, the last pro-Gadaffi holdouts. They are the main center of Libya’s largest tribe, the Warfalla tribe. Libya is a highly divided tribal society, they are a major tribe, and this was their home center. Many of them were pretty bitter about that. Could it have been resolved through diplomacy and negotiations the way the African Union and BRICS countries suggested? We don’t know.

It’s also worthy of note that the International Crisis Group, which is the main, non-state element that deals with continuing conflicts and crises throughout the world, and is very  highly respected, opposed intervention too. They strongly supported negotiations and diplomacy. However, the African Union and others’ positions were barely reported on in the West. Who cares what they say? In fact, if they were reported on at all, they were disparaged on the grounds that these countries had had close relations with Gaddafi. In fact, they did, but so did Britain and the United States, right to the end.

In any event, the intervention did take place and now one hopes for the best, but it’s not a very pretty picture. You can read an account of it in the current issue of the London Review of Books by Hugh Roberts, who was, at the time, the North African Director of the International Crisis Group and a specialist on the region. He opposed the intervention and described the outcome as pretty hopeless chaos that is undercutting the hopes for an eventual rise of a sort of sensible, democratic, nationalism.

So that wasn’t very pretty, but what about the other countries? Well, the countries that are most significant to the United States and the West, generally, are the oil dictatorships and they remain very stable. There were efforts to try and join the Arab Spring, but they were crushed, very harshly, with not a word from the Western powers. Sometimes it was quite violent, as in eastern Saudi Arabia and in Bahrain, which were Shiite areas, mostly, but it resulted in at most a tap on the wrist by the Western Powers. They clearly wanted the oil dictatorships to remain. That’s the center of their power.

In Tunisia, which had mostly French influence, the French supported the dictatorship until the very end. In fact, they were still supporting it after demonstrations were sweeping the country. Finally, at the last second, they conceded that their favorite dictator had to go. In Egypt, where the United States and Britain were the main influences, it was the same. Obama supported the dictator Mubarak until virtually the last minute – until the army turned against him. It became impossible to support him anymore so they urged him to leave and make a transition to a similar system.

All of that is quite routine. That’s the standard operating procedure for dealing with a situation where your favorite dictator is getting into trouble. There is case after case like that. What you do in that case is support the dictator to the very end, regardless of how vicious and bloody the he is. Then when it becomes impossible, say because the army or the business classes have turned against him, then ease him out somewhere, (sometimes with half the government’s treasury in his pocket) declare your love for democracy, and try to restore the old system. That’s pretty much what’s happening in Egypt.

Source: The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)

Zim government seizes former PM Smith's farm

The Zimbabwe government has seized the farm of late former white minority leader Ian Smith, listing it "for compulsory acquisition for resettlement."

Owen Jarman, manager at the cattle ranch Gwenoro in the central Zimbabwean district of Shurugwi said he was winding up affairs at the farm after being told by government officials in late September that it had been "listed for compulsory acquisition for resettlement."

Smith was prime minister of Rhodesia, as it was formerly known, from 1964 until 1978, defying international condemnation over his refusal to relinquish white rule.

A five-year guerilla war led by black nationalists ended in 1979 with a settlement which allowed Robert Mugabe to win elections. He has remained in power since.

In 2000, Mugabe launched a campaign to seize white-owned land and redistribute it to black farmers. While most white farmers lost almost everything they owned, the main section of Smith's farm had remained untouched.

"We understand that the farm was left alone out of (Mugabe's) respect for Mr Smith," said Jarman. "We have farmed here without interruption since 2000. But there seems to have been a change of heart and they have now decided to take it."

It was being handed to a local technical college, he said. No compensation is to be paid.

Smith bought the farm in 1948, lived on it throughout the pre-independence guerilla war but finally left in 2005 to go to South Africa as he became infirm with age. He died there in 2007 aged 88, the same age as Mugabe is now. His ashes were scattered at Gwenoro.

Jarman has been running the farm for Smith's step children since his death. "It'll take me perhaps the next couple of months to clear out," he said. "They are giving us time. They don't seem to be in a huge hurry to get us off."

The World Bank and other major international financial institutions have accused Mugabe of destroying what was once regarded as "the breadbasket of Africa" with the land seizures.

They say it led to the collapse of the rest of the economy in 2008. The World Food Programme says Zimbabwe is facing one of its worst "hunger periods" this year, with 1.7-million people facing starvation.

Source: Mail & Guardian

Land redistribution proposals to be implemented

Proposals for the redistribution of land found in the government's land reform green paper would come into effect as early as March next year.

"All these new land reform policies will come into effect during the first quarter of the year next year", Rural Development and Land Reform Minister Gugile Nkwinti said.

He was speaking to the Transformation of Certain Rural Areas Act and the Rural Areas Act (Trancaa) consultative workshop in Cape Town.

The new policies included a four-tier land tenure system, which accounted for leased land to farmers, land redistribution, foreign ownership of land and the implementation of a democratic communal land system.

Nkwinti said cabinet had approved the proposal to establish the office of the valuer-general, which would control land prices involving government land purchases for public interest.

He emphasised that the willing-buyer-willing-seller principle would continue for individual citizens who would be selling land to each other.

A land rights management board along with its district committees would also be set up next year to protect farm workers against unfair evictions.

The land management commission would be responsible for all registration of private and public land. – Sapa.

Source: Mail & Guardian

FBI probe grant firm in SA

The American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is looking into the rot that has plagued South Africa’s country’s social grant payouts in recent months.

In the Western Cape, 1.3 million people alone depend on grant payouts every month.

But the system has descended into chaos since new operators, Net1 UEPS technologies took over.

Net1 is jointly listed on the American Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq and on the JSE.

The US Department of Justice Criminal Division and the FBI have now teamed up to investigate possible corruption in how that company secured a R10 billion tender to issue grants here.

In August, the North Gauteng High Court ruled that the process of awarding the tender was illegal and invalid.

Despite this, the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) was allowed to continue using Net1 through its subsidiary Cash Paymaster Services (CPS).

The judge decided that although the process was flawed, cancelling the contract would be disastrous and the social service would collapse.

If the American investigation is successful, Net1 could be out of business and senior managers could face arrest.

Sassa and the Social Development Department say they have not been contacted by the FBI or the US Department of Justice Criminal Division.

Social Development spokesperson Lumka Oliphant says by law, government has a constitutional duty to make sure grant monies are paid.

“We have a five-year contract with CPS and we don’t forsee any problems,” she said.

“We have not had any contact with anyone from America, everything we [are] hearing is from the media.”

Meanwhile, the previous grant payout company AllPay, a subsidiary of ABSA, is also still going ahead with its legal appeals.

They want CPS to be replaced after the court ruling that the tender awarded to them was invalid.

This case will resume next year on the Supreme Court of Appeal’s roll.

This double court action has raised concerns that Sassa must have a back-up plan to continue paying grants if Net1 is found guilty of corruption.

The Western Cape government says it is out of their hands because the money is paid by the national authority.

Western Cape Social Development spokesperson Samatha Fourie says they also had no idea about the possible payout crisis: “We have not been informed of any developments pertaining to the issue raised.”

Source: IoL

Farm in Limpopo seized

A farm in Limpopo, which is part of an investigation into On-point Engineers, has been seized after the High Court in Pretoria granted a freezing order.

"The order [was granted on Wednesday and] was served this morning [Friday]," National Prosecuting Authority spokesman Makhosini Nkosi said in a statement.

It was served on Gwama Properties, which is registered as the owner of the Schuilkraal farm, and its sole director Lesiba Gwangwa.

The Asset Forfeiture Unit made the court application for the seizure of property based on an investigation by the Hawks and two independent reports into On-Point's activities.

The reports were compiled by Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and Price Waterhouse Coopers.

The court accepted the unit's submission that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the property was acquired with the proceeds of unlawful activities perpetrated against the department of roads and transport in Limpopo.

Gwangwa is also a director of On-point Engineers and faces charges related to tender fraud and corruption in the Polokwane Regional Court.

He previously appeared in court with axed ANC Youth League Julius Malema, who faces a charge of money-laundering and racketeering.

Several others, and four companies On-Point, Gwama Properties, Segwalo Engineering and Oceanside Trading were charged along with them. Gwangwa was released on R40,000 bail.

Court papers revealed that Malema allegedly benefited from corrupt activities amounting to R4 million and had "clear business ties" with Gwangwa.

The State charged that Gwangwa and three others misrepresented themselves to the Limpopo transport department, and a R52 million tender was awarded to On-Point.

Another R1 million gratification was paid for the securing of the tender.

Bid documents submitted by On-Point Engineers to the department contained several misrepresentations. Names given as executive and senior people at On-Point were for people not employed there. On-Point entered into secret agreements with service providers and in return received sums of money for these, the papers said.

Malema allegedly benefited from the tender by using it to fund a farm worth R3.9 million and to make a payment of R382,655 for a Mercedez Viano.

"...Most of the payments... were channelled through other entities... to pay for the farm," the charge sheet said.

It said R1 million was a part payment for a portion of the Schuilkraal farm by the Ratanang Trust.

Malema's Ratanang Family Trust was an indirect shareholder in On-Point and Gwama Properties, said court papers.

In October, Madonsela found that tenders awarded to On-Point were unlawful, and that the department did not follow proper guidelines in awarding them.

Source: The New Age

Eskom, Numsa granted right to intervene in Xstrata merger hearings

ESKOM and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) have been granted the right to intervene in the Competition Tribunal’s hearings next week on the merger of the world’s largest commodity trader, Glencore, and mining group Xstrata.

Eskom has proposed that the tribunal impose conditions on the merger that could include measures such as ensuring the ratio of exports to domestic coal supply be kept constant after the merger, and that the merging parties agree to negotiate in good faith on long-term coal-supply contracts as these expire.

The utility says it does not want to stand in the way of the merger, but has to raise its concern about the future supply of coal for the domestic market.

Public hearings on the merger start on Monday.

The company says it has a public mandate to supply electricity to the entire country and is dependent on the right grade of coal at the appropriate time and at an affordable price to be able to deliver on its mandate.

In the absence of industrial policy that provides for the security of domestic supply before exports, the merger highlights Eskom’s vulnerability.

Eskom spokeswoman Hilary Joffe says: “The merged entity would account for approximately 15% of Eskom’s coal supply, with Glencore and Xstrata accounting for the bulk of the supply to the Majuba and Hendrina power stations and supplying smaller quantities to Duvha, Komati, Arnot and Matla power stations.”

Although it has secured the majority of its supply needs until 2018, Ms Joffe says Eskom needs to raise its concern about supply security beyond that.

Eskom indicated that it would propose additional conditions if necessary.

Xstrata is the world’s largest exporter of the type of coal used by power stations, and all of its mines and plants are in South Africa.

Glencore holds almost 34% of Xstrata and after this transaction — valued at $80bn — is approved, the miner will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Glencore.

It currently produces 27.4-million tons of saleable coal a year in South Africa, of which almost 30% is exported.

Source: Business Day

Zuma on nationalisation and working with Ramaphosa

PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has welcomed the prospect of working with businessman Cyril Ramaphosa as his deputy, saying "it would not be the first time" that he has worked with the man who was once tipped to take over from Nelson Mandela as president of the African National Congress (ANC).

Mr Zuma is set to be re-elected to lead the ANC at the party’s elective congress in Mangaung later this month. However, his current deputy, Kgalema Motlanthe — who has been nominated by three provinces and the youth league for the position of party president — is likely to lose out to Mr Ramaphosa.

Mr Ramaphosa has garnered more than 1,800 nominations for the position of deputy president, while Mr Motlanthe has received about 160 nominations to retain his current position in the party.

In an interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph published on Thursday, Mr Zuma praised Mr Ramaphosa when asked about the prospect of working with the business tycoon.

"It would not be the first time I worked with Cyril Ramaphosa. When he was the secretary-general, I was his deputy. So it would not be the first time, if he is elected," Mr Zuma told the paper.

He said that he was ready for a second term as president of the ANC.

The party’s elective conference in Mangaung will also be keenly watched by business — with the hope that economic policy will be clarified.

One of the burning issues up for possible debate is that of nationalisation of South Africa’s mines. Mr Zuma told the paper that the party would increase the pace of economic reform but would not "break" existing businesses to do so.

"Nationalisation is not the ANC policy," he said. "There are fundamental issues that need to be dealt with. It would be useful to do it quickly but we’ve got to balance things because we don’t want to break things in order to move forward."

Source: Business Day

Corruption Inquiry Focuses on Algerian Pipeline

Italian prosecutors are investigating possible corruption involving a natural gas pipeline project in Algeria by the energy services company Saipem, which is controlled by the Italian oil company Eni.

As the inquiry has heated up, Saipem’s chief executive resigned Wednesday evening, two other Saipem executives were suspended and the chief financial officer of Eni stepped down. None of the executives have been charged with crimes, according to the companies. Eni alluded to the investigation in statements late Wednesday, but provided no details.

But a person close to the investigation said Thursday that prosecutors were focusing on a suspicious payment of $180 million to $200 million in connection with the pipeline project. The person insisted on anonymity because the inquiry is under way.

Saipem, the largest European drilling and engineering contractor for the oil industry, won a $580 million contract to build a 350-kilometer, or 210-mile, pipeline by the state oil company, Sonatrach, in June 2009. The pipeline is known as GK3. It is not yet clear who paid or received the payment at issue, but the person close to the inquiry said the investigation of the inappropriate payment began in 2009 in Algeria and was taken up the following year by Italian prosecutors.

A Saipem spokesman declined to comment.

In statements late Wednesday, Eni said that Saipem’s chief executive, Pietro Franco Tali, was stepping down.

Eni’s chief financial officer, Alessandro Bernini, who held the same position at Saipem until 2008, also resigned Wednesday, although he “considers that his actions were right and proper,” according to an Eni release.

Eni, which holds nearly 43 percent of Saipem’s shares, wrote in its 2011 annual report that it was asked by the Milan Public Prosecutor in February 2011 to supply documentation “in relation to the crime of alleged international corruption” on the GK3 contract, as well as another gas pipeline project called Galsi. The company said it turned over the documents.

An Eni spokeswoman said Thursday that the company had not been aware “of any further development” in the investigation until being notified on Nov. 22 that Saipem had received “a notice of inquiry” from prosecutors. Eni itself is not a subject of the investigation, she said.

Algeria is known as a difficult place to do business. In 2010 most of the top management at Sonatrach, including the chief executive, Mohamed Meziane, departed amid a corruption investigation by the Algerian government.

Algeria, in the 1960s, was the first Middle Eastern country to develop a gas export industry and continues to supply about 10 percent of Europe’s natural gas imports, according to Leila Benali, an analyst at IHS Cera in Paris. Italy is Algeria’s largest customer, mostly through Eni.

Saipem has been key to helping Sonatrach develop the country’s oil and gas infrastructure, over the years working on Algerian oil and gas projects worth billions of dollars. It had about 2,600 employees in the country in 2010.

Rob Mundy, an analyst at Liberum Capital in London, said in a research note that because of the Algeria situation, Saipem’s “ability to competitively bid on future contracts may be affected.”

Trading in Saipem’s shares was suspended in Milan midday Wednesday before Eni publicly disclosed the problems, after being down 4 percent. They resumed trading on Thursday, ending the day down an additional 6.7 percent in heavy volume.

The investigation is a blow to Eni, which under its chief executive, Paolo Scaroni, is working to establish itself as a premier exploration and production company. Earlier on Wednesday, Eni announced a new natural gas discovery off the coast of Mozambique, where the company has become an early leader in staking a position in that country’s promising gas reserves.

Eni’s stake in Saipem has provided the oil company with a steady source of earnings. On Sept. 30, Saipem reported net profits of €722 million for the first nine months of the year, an increase of nearly 9 percent from the comparable period a year earlier.

Saipem also provides Eni with an in-house source of drilling and engineering services, bolstering bidding efforts on oil and gas projects like the proposed South Stream pipeline that will bring gas from Russia to Southern and Central Europe.

Saipem “has certainly been an asset in terms of providing stable and growing earnings in recent years, and it does give them access to all the services it covers,” said Iain Pyle, an analyst at Bernstein Research in London.

“In terms of winning access, it is more likely it is a reason why they are involved in projects like South Stream, as Saipem will most likely lay the pipe for that,” Mr. Pyle said.

Eni is scrambling to limit the damage from the Saipem investigation. The company, based in Milan, held an emergency board meeting Wednesday evening. In a statement, Eni said that in recent days it had urged Saipem “to take immediate remedial actions in managing the situation.”

On Wednesday evening, Saipem’s board named the chief operating officer of Eni’s gas and power division, Umberto Vergine, to replace Mr. Tali as Saipem’s chief.

The company also suspended Pietro Varone, chief operating officer of Saipem’s engineering and construction unit, following a notice of inquiry from the prosecutor related to the same investigation. Saipem’s board also ordered an internal audit using external consultants. The person close to the investigation said that so far it was limited to Mr. Varone and another unnamed executive but could spread to other persons.

“Saipem believes that its business activities have been conducted in compliance with applicable, internal procedures” and its code of ethics, the company said, and has offered its full cooperation to the prosecutor’s office. It also stated that its board “does not believe that the investigation will have a material effect on the company’s economic results.”

Although Eni has emphasized that Saipem is independently managed, the two companies are intertwined. During an interview on Nov. 19, Mr. Scaroni said that while the company was divesting other noncore assets, he considered Saipem “a major asset.”

He said that Saipem was “managed at arm’s length” because Eni was only “one of the customers” of the engineering company. He said Saipem was the top candidate to build the portion of the proposed South Stream natural gas pipeline from Russia to Eastern and Western Europe, under the Black Sea.

Eni, along with Gazprom, is a crucial backer of the project.

Stanley Reed reported from London and Gaia Pianigiani from Rome.

Source: New York Times

Africa: The Landgrabbers - the New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth

In his recent book, Fred Pearce examines the dynamics behind large-scale land acquisitions and their social, environmental and developmental effects.

"Buy land. They are not making it anymore."

This statement uttered more than one hundred years ago by Mark Twain still holds a sad and powerful truth and makes a telling start for Fred Pearce's account in The Landgrabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns the Earth about the struggle over the Earth's most precious resources: land and water.

In the book, the reader is taken on a whirlwind tour around the globe to witness, through Pearce's eyes, a new kind of colonialism driven not by countries, but by powerful private capitalists.

We encounter figures such as George Soros and Richard Branson; we learn about the effects of the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia; we find out why President Robert Mugabe's land seizures in Zimbabwe were not so bad after all for small-scale farmers; and we see how the global financial crisis and the intricate mechanisms of stock market speculations in commodities exacerbate the problem.

Pearce's passion and outrage about the selling off of communal resources shines through the book.

Each chapter is dedicated to a certain country, where protagonists change, yet the storyline stays the same: governments around the globe grant large concessions to wily investors in the hope of advancing their economies but displace and disadvantage large parts of their own population in the process.

As Mike Ogg, an agriculture specialist from Swaziland, told Think Africa Press: "I fundamentally believe that agriculture can lead development in Africa. The quandary is: How do you create a win-win situation where investors and the community benefit?"

Pearce's dystopia

Pearce presents a bleak picture of increasingly prevalent 'land grabs' by corporations for agriculture or resource exploitation as well as by well-meaning environmentalists for so-called "green grabs".

This is, Pearce argues, encircling the last remaining habitats of indigenous peoples and the landless poor, destroying their past and forever altering their future.

Pearce mixes this narrative with historical references to imperialism and colonialism giving the impression of a continuous cycle of exploitation. But his greatest achievement in the book is to give those exploited a voice.

He recounts their stories in numerous interviews, as well as talking to those involved in the land acquisitions and a variety of experts.

Pearce concludes that the bulk of the blame rests with foreign buyers though it is crucial to recognise that most deals are also pursued by respective governments which may give out large land concessions, tax breaks and other incentives to draw foreign capital into their country in the first place. And politicians are not only accomplices, but often also carve out deals in return for money or land for themselves.

This is enabled by an environment in which laws are either non-existent or easily circumvented. As Graziano da Silva, director-general of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, notes: "It appears to be like the Wild West and we need a sheriff and law in place."

Proposing solutions

Although Pearce does not go so far as to propose possible solutions, there is a range of opinion and ideas as to how to begin to tackle the problem.

Olivier De Schutter, UN special rapporteur on the right to food, has suggested that when national governments are unable or unwilling to devise regulations, the international community should step in to monitor whether the rights of land users are being respected. Oxfam's recent report 'Our Land, Our Lives' highlights the pivotal role of the World Bank as an advisor to governments in reforming their laws.

But this is easier said than done. As a representative from USAID in Dar es Salaam admitted to Think Africa Press, "Land tenure, we know, is at the heart of many problems as it is difficult for poor people to feed themselves with limited and insecure access to land, but we are not touching this subject, because it's too contentious and complicated".

Another way the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions could be mitigated is through emerging sustainability standards.

The World Bank and its private sector funding arm, the International Finance Corporation, have strict regulations regarding social and environmental sustainability. These include standards on development-induced displacement and there are growing calls for wider implementation of such regulations.

An example of a private sector-driven initiative is Bonsucro, a certification scheme which aims to ensure companies involved in the production of sugar and ethanol from sugarcane meet environmental, social and business standards.

With consumers believed to be increasingly concerned about the impacts of the goods they buy, the Bonsucro certification is meant to reassure buyers that companies are acting in sustainable ways and taking account of human rights and pollution control.

Moving forwards

Pearce acknowledges these developments in his last chapter where he analyses some of the attempts at solutions though he does not put forward his own. Nevertheless, Pearce's book is a worthwhile read. His writing style is highly engaging and reveals the duplicity of investors and interest groups.

He not only presents complicated and contentious issues such as the correlation of Wall Street speculations and rising food prices in an accessible manner, but also masterfully interweaves stories and issues across countries and continents achieving a well-researched, logical and informative account.

Although Pearce's focus lies on the problems at hand rather than solutions, the book certainly contributes to a growing awareness about the issues and will hopefully inspire others to find suitable ways to move forwards.

Katharina Neureiter holds an MSc in History of International Relations from the London School of Economics specialising in African colonial history and war cultures. She is currently working as a consultant in East Africa and blogs at hearabout.wordpress.com.

Source: All Africa

In South Africa, Lethal Battles for Even Smallest of Political Posts

OSHABENI, South Africa — It was, by all accounts, an ordinary small-town political meeting. The leaders of the local branch of the African National Congress gathered in September at a convent here to discuss candidates for a newly vacated seat on the ward council, the lowest-level elected position in South Africa.

When it was over, Dumisani Malunga, the local party chairman and the front-runner for the seat, stopped at a friend’s house for a late meal of chicken curry. As he and another party official, Bheko Chiliza, drove home at 9:30 p.m., a gunman fired into their car. Their bloody, bullet-riddled bodies were later found sprawled on the ground beside the white Toyota hatchback.

Mr. Malunga and Mr. Chiliza were the latest casualties in an increasingly bloody battle for local political posts in South Africa. Dozens of officials, including ward councilors, party leaders and mayors, have been killed in what has become a desperate, deadly struggle for power and its spoils.

The killings threaten to tarnish the image of the so-called rainbow nation, whose largely bloodless transition from white minority rule to nonracial democracy has made it a beacon of peace, tolerance and forgiveness.

Amid rising corruption and waning economic opportunities, political killings are on the rise. Here in KwaZulu-Natal Province, nearly 40 politicians have been killed since 2010 in battles over political posts, more than triple the number in the previous three years, according to government figures. Over the past few years, dozens more have been killed in provinces like Mpumalanga, North West and Limpopo.

The A.N.C., once a banned liberation movement engaged in one of the 20th century’s most important struggles for justice and human rights, is now in power, and it has come under harsh scrutiny for the rampant poverty, deep inequality and widespread unemployment plaguing the country. A wave of wildcat strikes that began in August, and the lethal crackdown against them, has fueled anger at a party seen as increasingly out of touch and whose leaders appear only to seek to fill their pockets.

That is a stark change from the A.N.C.’s early days, when people risked their lives and freedom to join the party and its fight to end apartheid. But in recent years, the party has sharply increased recruitment of new members, with little consideration for who joins and why.

Many new members come in search of wealth and power. Fewer than half of South African’s young black adults have jobs, and many lack the basic skills to find work after years of attending substandard schools in townships and rural areas. For these youths, politics is a seemingly certain route out of poverty. The rise in corruption has fed the belief that political posts mean kickbacks and contracts.

In the ranks of public servants, the post of rural ward council member in a speck of a town like this one would seem no great prize. The job pays about $150 a month, and its occupant must digest a steady diet of complaints from residents about the most fundamental ailments afflicting South Africa: schools that do not teach, taps that do not deliver water, crime that the police seem helpless to stop, jobs that are impossible to find.

But ward councilors are also a conduit for development projects in their areas, and they can influence the awarding of government contracts. The potential upside — earnings from bribes or surreptitious deals — is high.

“Due to the high rate of unemployment, people look for any opportunity to create an income and capitalize on it,” said Mzwandile Mkhwanazi, the regional chairman of the A.N.C. in the area that includes Oshabeni. “They are influenced by levels of poverty. They come up with any ways and means of getting money.”

Such changes in fortune explain why the post of ward councilor in Oshabeni, an impoverished town nestled in rolling hills about 15 miles inland from the Indian Ocean, was so hotly contested. When the woman who held the post died of illness in August, many local politicians were eager to throw their hats into the ring.

One of them was a young taxi driver named Sfiso Khumalo, the leader of the local branch of the A.N.C.’s Youth League. But Mr. Khumalo did not have a very good reputation, fellow Youth League members said. He was hotheaded, they said, and had spent nine years in prison for theft.

“We knew him as a stealer,” said Gcinile Duma, the secretary of the Youth League. “He had been in jail and was with the wrong kind of people.”

Other members of the local A.N.C. branch’s executive committee said they were worried that Mr. Khumalo was not a suitable candidate.

“Some people get into politics for the wrong reason, only for money,” said one local party leader who did not want to be named discussing party business. “Sfiso Khumalo was not looking to help people, only to help himself.”

Standing in his way was Mr. Malunga, 42, the party chairman and a popular local figure.

“People liked Dumisani and saw him as a good leader,” Ms. Duma said.

On Sept. 9, Mr. Khumalo attended the meeting at the Daughters of St. Francis of Assisi Convent to declare his candidacy. There was no open confrontation between Mr. Malunga and Mr. Khumalo, people who attended the meeting said. But when Mr. Malunga was found shot to death near his house, few doubted who was the prime suspect.

“We told the police, ‘We know who did this. It was Sfiso Khumalo,’ ” Ms. Duma said.

After two days of investigations, the police arrested Mr. Khumalo, who promptly confessed that he had conspired with a local businessman to have Mr. Malunga killed. On Sept. 18, Mr. Khumalo was sentenced to 22 years in prison. The person accused of being his co-conspirator is still in court.

In a statement, the leader of the A.N.C. in KwaZulu-Natal condemned the violence and the culture it springs from.

“The A.N.C. can ill afford the development of the culture of the underworld, criminality and violent elimination of opponents,” said the provincial chairman, Zweli Mkhize. “Neither can the A.N.C. afford the association of political appointment to self-enrichment where ascendancy to office is not linked with capacity, competence and dedicated service to our people.”

Party officials paid for Mr. Malunga’s burial, and his brick and stucco grave looks lavish next to the unadorned earthen mounds in the family graveyard that hold his father, brother and nephew.

Mr. Malunga’s mother, Sizakele Malunga, has already buried 5 of her 11 children, but losing her youngest son was a special blow, she said. Mr. Malunga lived with her and kept her company in her widowhood.

“I am lonely, but nothing will bring him back,” Mrs. Malunga said. “I just try to make the time pass without him.”

Mukelwa Hlatshwayo contributed reporting.

Source: New York Times

Murder attempt signals ugly turn in North West

THE murder attempt on African National Congress (ANC) North West provincial secretary Kabelo Mataboge on Thursday night signalled an ugly turn of events in the embattled province, amid the possibility of a parallel provincial nominations conference on Friday, in preparation for the ANC’s national elective conference in Mangaung next month.

The SABC reported on Friday morning that unknown gunmen opened fire on Mr Mataboge when he arrived at his home in Mafikeng on Thursday night.

ANC North West spokesman Kenny Morolong said in a statement on Friday that police were "investigating a case of attempted murder".

The incident followed controversy on Thursday after the two opposing ANC factions in the province — one led by Mr Mataboge and another by provincial chairman Supra Mahumapelo — disagreed on the venue for Friday’s provincial nominations conference.

The group led by Mr Mahumapelo preferred a hall at Hartbeespoort Dam, while those supporting Mr Mataboge were pushing for the gathering to be held at the Civic Centre in Mafikeng.

Mr Mahumapelo has been the chief campaigner for President Jacob Zuma’s second-term bid in Mangaung, while Mr Mataboge has been associated with the group campaigning for Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe to replace Mr Zuma.

Mr Morolong on Friday called on "members of the public with information to approach the law enforcement agencies", and for police to expedite their investigation "so that culprits of this hideous act are brought to book".

Source: Business Day

Bluster is no cover for state’s excess and drift

TO EVADE detailed explanations over gargantuan government spending on his rural hacienda, President Jacob Zuma and his acolytes have evoked everything from state secrecy and executive dignity to emotive claims about rural tradition and white prejudice. It’s a scatter-gun approach. Inconsistency seems to be developing into a defensive Cabinet habit. This succeeds only in tying the government into ever knottier complications.

When ministers begin to contradict each other, and sometimes even themselves, it betrays an increasing lack of central direction and conviction. Recently the government, despite a preoccupation with the "secrecy bill" and snooping foreign agents, has successfully exposed its own worst blunders. Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa resorted to court in an attempt to prevent an inquiry into policing in Khayelitsha, instituted by Western Cape premier Helen Zille at the request of community organisations. Mthethwa dismissed Zille’s commission as "politicking" and claimed there was no problem with vigilante murders in Khayelitsha.

Yet a report by national police commissioner Riah Phiyega, ironically lodged with Mthethwa’s own court papers, revealed there have been 78 vigilante killings in Khayelitsha in less than a year: an average of six a month. You don’t really need a vexatious official opposition when the government itself is quite capable of exposing its own "politicking" — and even provides the irrefutable evidence.

This was followed by a heated dispute about how many Gulfstream jet flights, at a cost of R200,000 a trip, Lindiwe Sisulu took when she was defence minister. Democratic Alliance MP David Maynier alleged she had taken 200 such flights between Cape Town and Pretoria. Sisulu, who is now the Minister of Public Service and Administration, replied that she used the luxury jet only 35 times and accused Maynier of having "a flea-infested body".

The question is: where did those irritating fleas come from? Maynier was never able to elicit particulars of Sisulu’s travel arrangements when she was in charge of defence, because she claimed such information was a state secret. Instead, he got his information from Sisulu’s Cabinet colleague. Defence Minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula said her predecessor took 203 executive-jet flights. In other words, Sisulu blamed a mere oxpecker for ticks and fleas that originated from the ox itself: another sign of a government in disarray.

It is catching. Earlier this month, the South African Democratic Teachers' Union (Sadtu) issued a "stern warning" against civil society groups that have resorted to court action over the Limpopo textbook fiasco. Sadtu, claiming it could resolve this textbook issue, denounced the groups as "imperialist neoliberal forces … used as proxies to pursue certain political agendas". Two weeks later, Sadtu in Limpopo issued a statement expressing doubt that the Department of Basic Education could deliver school textbooks in time for next year.

The champion of this hydra-headed style is Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson. During the farm unrest in the Western Cape, she sounded like rivals furiously at odds with one another: Joemat the fiery revolutionary versus Pettersson the bungling government functionary.

The strikers had "won", she thundered, because they made the government listen. And the deafest culprit? As minister responsible, herself. So if farm protests reignite next week, will Comrade Joemat chuck rocks at Minister Pettersson?

Above all, no sooner was there a row over whether Zuma had taken a bond on his rural domain than his friend and former funder, Vivian Reddy, rashly declared that Zuma should be commended for choosing Nkandla when he could pick the plushest areas in the country. That boast neatly drew attention to the fact that, at a cost of more than R250m, the president’s homestead, per square metre, probably is the nation’s plushest area.

Along Cape Town’s Atlantic seaboard, you can pick up an ocean-facing mansion with six bedrooms, staff quarters, infinity pool and similar status symbols for R20m. At the Nkandla rate, you could buy 10 of those in Bantry Bay, Camps Bay and any other bay — and still have enough left for a 1,119ha game farm in KwaZulu-Natal plus a brace of helicopters.

No amount of bluster about disrespect, foreign agents or covert agendas can make up for infighting, excess and drift.

It is no way to run a country. It is no way to end inequality.

Source: Business Day

Secrecy Bill gets NCOP approval, marches towards becoming law

The African National Congress is using its majority might to bulldoze the Protection of State Information Bill through Parliament. It now goes to the National Assembly after being passed by the upper house, where MPs were given suspicious, unmarked propaganda documents promoting the Bill’s “benefits”. By MANDY DE WAAL.

South Africa’s Protection of State Information Bill (POIB) was pushed through Parliament's National Council of Provinces (NCOP) by the ANC’s majority muscle late on Thursday 29 November 2012. The vote was 34 in favour of the draft legislation, while 16 members of Parliament voted against the Bill.

As MPs filed into Parliament’s upper house, the Right2Know campaign, a coalition formed in August 2010 to oppose the Secrecy Bill, handed out letters spelling out its concerns. “One of our campaign supporters noticed that the MPs were carrying documents themselves, and did an exchange,” says Murray Hunter, Right2Know’s spokesperson and organiser. “What we got hold of was a spin sheet with sound bites spinning certain aspects of the Bill. It was a document called “Myths about the Protection of State Information Bill” asserting that the Bill did indeed contain a public interest defence and would make it impossible to hide corruption.”

Murray says that the information used in the document – which had no source or logo on it – was filled with flawed and confused arguments. The Right2Know campaign said it wanted to know who had drafted the document and how it was funded.

Parliamentary leader for the DA, Lindiwe Mazibuko, said her biggest issue was the source of the anonymous document, and possible interference by the ministry of State Security. “We know that Siyabonga Cwele’s department has been interfering in the legislative process quite publicly by saying what NCOP members should and shouldn’t do with the legislation, which is in itself a violation of the separation of powers. That is problematic because once the law is in Parliament, it must be dealt with by MPs, and an MP’s job is not to do the bidding of government,” said Mazibuko. She added that if the document did indeed come from the ministry of State Security, it would be a “huge problem”.

“It is well known that Parliament has a research unit in every single portfolio committee, and every select committee, which has a secretariat and a researcher, and often they provide committee members with information. But there is something very suspicious about parties and MPs being given a script on their way into a debate, whether or not that script came from Parliament or a government department. It is suspicious when this document comes late in the game, when the legislation is being debated upon,” she said, and added: “At the moment we are concerned with some of the procedural problems with the Information Bill, and it is certainly one of the things we will look into.”

Earlier in the week, the controversial Bill – subject of much civil society protest – was adopted by an NCOP ad hoc Parliamentary committee which had been working on changes to the Bill for the last year. Mail & Guardian reported that opposition parties were given just 10 minutes to study the 22-page report on the ad hoc committee’s deliberations, and amendments to the Secrecy Bill. The opposition walked out and ANC members voted to send the Bill to a plenary session of the NCOP.

“It is clear that the Bll’s final process through the NCOP has been rushed and botched very badly,” said Nic Dawes, editor-in-chief of the Mail & Guardian. “Despite the initial willingness of members of all parties in the NCOP to do this properly and to try and hear the concerns that were raised by civil society, by lawyers, by the media, by activists, this potential to do a good job has been replaced by a mad rush to meet a self-imposed deadline. Serious damage has been done to the process as a result.”

Dawes said people weren’t able to properly consider the committee report earlier in the week and added it was likely that the remainder of the NCOP, and plenary session, hadn’t had a proper chance to consider the amended legislation in its entirety, nor to make an informed decision on it.

“The remaining options are for the National Assembly to do what it ought to have done all along, and that is to say that this legislation needs major revisions. It needs a proper public interest defence and a public domain defence. It needs to have an appropriate balance between freedom of information and the need to protect very narrowly and carefully defined state secrets, and it needs to be subordinate to the main piece of Constitutional legislation in this area, and that is the Promotion of Information Act,” Dawes said, adding that the National Assembly had one last chance to do the right thing.

“If they don’t, I hope a draft of MPs will send this for Constitutional review; I have been advised that they will try. Or alternatively that President Zuma does that, and then ultimately we will end up in the Constitutional Court, testing the legislation vigorously, and it is a pity that it looks like we are going to get to that place, but if need be that is what we will do,” Dawes said.

As the NCOP session got underway, State Security minister Cwele worked hard to sell the “benefits” of the Bill. Cwele, who had long pushed for the more draconian aspects of the Bill to remain intact, said the draft legislation sought to “advance the public interest by protecting certain classified information held by the state that if it became known to adversaries, would prejudice state programmes and hinder its ability to perform its duties.”

Reaching for a snappy quotable quote, Cwele addressed those scared of the implementation of the Bill into law. “To those who fear that the Bill may be abused, we say: the only thing to fear is fear itself.” (We presume Mr Cwele is FDR's fan - Ed)

BDLive reported that there was fierce opposition debate in the NCOP, with DA MP Alf Lees accusing the ANC of misleading the public by claiming extensive amendments to the Bill had ruled out the possibility of a state official using it to conceal wrongdoing. "Given the levels of corruption we see in government today, it is inevitable that the Bill will be used to cover up crime and corruption by those who risk exposure," he said, to ANC jeers.

Lees said the Bill still lacked a proper public interest defence clause to protect the media and whistle blowers, while his colleague Albert Fritz added, "This Bill is Stasi-like in its content and design."

Anton Harber, who directs the Journalism and Media Studies Programme at Wits University, agrees that there is still much to fear about the Bill. “It affects people in two ways. If one comes across information that needs to be out there in the public interest, clearly it raises the risks of being a whistle blower enormously,” said Harber.

“I have no doubt it will have a chilling effect on certain kinds of investigative journalism. It means an impact on the flow of information in the public arena. The penalties for whistle blowing potentially jump enormously here,” he added.

To understand the practical impact of the Bill, should it become law, Daily Maverick spoke to an activist in Kwazulu-Natal, a province where the political body count has been rising during recent months.

“We have a lot of political killings in the province at the moment, and in some cases even within the same political party,” said Desmond D'sa, a veteran political activist who’s currently in an organisational role for Right2Know in Kwazulu-Natal. “We believe that this is because of all the corruption that’s happening in this province. We have been asking for information related to this for a long, long time; for instance, we’ve asked for the Manase report in Durban, which reveals a lot of the shenanigans that going on.”

But the city refused to let activists, who report and organise against corruption, to have a copy of the report. “The city cites that whistle-blowers will lose their jobs or get killed and all of that, but that’s exactly what’s going on here in the ruling party. We believe that the Manase report is linked to these killings and will reveal a lot about what’s going on in the ANC in Kwazulu-Natal. The killings are about who is in power, who controls the resources, and who gets access to resources,” he said.

D'sa said even less “sensitive” information, like finding out about funding of housing projects, is blocked by officials who are already using the Bill (which hasn’t been passed in to law) to stop activists, the media or concerned citizens from getting information.

“If, for instance, you want to know what housing projects are being done and what funds have been made available for this in the city, you won’t get to the bottom of it. This is because the information is classified and not released. It is classified by people right at the top. It is going to make it impossible for people to find out what is really going on here in the province,” said D’sa.

The activist explained that the control of information made it impossible for civic society to do its job as a watchdog of government, and stated that the Bill was particularly threatening for whistle blowers.

“The NGOs and the civic organisations depend on whistle blowers to uncover corruption, and whistle blowers are crucial to the functioning of a democratic society and to help us get to the truth. However, the situation with whistle-blowers will get even worse because of the mounting fear. People will be fearful of being arrested, and now will be scared to release any kind of information because of the consequences,” D’sa said.

In terms of the proposed law, whistle blowers who reveal “corruption, malfeasance or wrongdoing by the State” can look at jail terms of up to 15 years. Furthermore, the Right2Know campaign also fears that whistle blowers may be charged under espionage clauses of the law which would see penalties of up to 25 years imposed.

In Kwazulu-Natal, this might be the case for activists investigating chemical fires and explosions. “In Durban the chemical cluster operates under the military, and under this new law, the military and the ‘securocrats’ in government won’t release any information at all. Even when people are getting killed or people are being affected by chemical emissions, this will not be released because they will deem it confidential and they will classify it,” D'sa told Daily Maverick.

“We have had over thirty explosions in the past few years, and fires in Durban, and we asked the department of labour to release certain forensic reports and they won’t do it. Can you imagine now if the law comes out? The flow of information with come to a standstill,” he added.

In the past, activists have been able to eke out some information through whistle blowers, but this will either dry up, or both activists and whistle blowers could face jail stiff terms. But D’sa and the Right2Know campaign are unrelenting.

“I hope that everyone realises that the democracy that everyone fought for and yearned for will be curtailed by this new law, as it is being bulldozed through Parliament. We are worried that we have gone right back, right back to the dark days of the Apartheid government, in bringing about these laws to stifle civil society, and to stifle ordinary people from standing up and asking the right questions, and getting the answers.”

“We will up the tempo of our protests. We are going to fight, even to the extent of being imprisoned. We are not going to shy away from standing up for the truth – even to the extent of being imprisoned because we need to fight this,” he added. DM

Source: Daily Maverick

The ‘big bwana’ syndrome and the state

A big man, big man syndrome, or bigmanism, within the context of political science, refers to corrupt, autocratic and often totalitarian rule of countries by a single person.

Generally associated with neopatrimonial states, where there is a framework of formal law and administration but the state is informally captured by patronage networks. The distribution of the spoils of office takes precedence over the formal functions of the state, severely limiting the ability of public officials to make policies in the general interest. While neopatrimonialism may be considered the norm where a modern state is constructed in a preindustrial context, however, the African variants often result in bigmanism in the form of a strongly presidentialist political system.
  
Examples

• Mobutu Sese Seko - President of Zaire from 1965 to 1997. He remained in office for 31.5 years. While in office, he formed a totalitarian regime in Zaire which attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence and entered wars to challenge the rise of communism in other African countries. His mismanagement of his country's economy, and personal enrichment from its financial and natural resources, makes his name synonymous with kleptocracy in Africa.

• Papa Doc Duvalier - President of Haiti from 1957 to 1971. In 1964 he made himself President for Life. He ruled until his death in 1971, in a regime marked by autocracy, corruption and state-sponsored terrorism through his private militia known as Tonton Macoutes. It has been estimated that he was responsible for 30,000 dead and exile of thousands more.

• Saparmurat Niyazov - President of Turkmenistan from 1990 until his death in 2006. Foreign media criticized him as one of the world's most totalitarian and repressive dictators, highlighting his reputation of imposing his personal eccentricities upon the country, which extended to renaming months after members of his family.

• Saddam Hussein - President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. As president, Saddam maintained power during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) and the first Persian Gulf War (1991). During these conflicts, Saddam repressed several movements, particularly Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government or gain independence, respectively. Whereas some Arabs looked upon him as a hero for his aggressive stance against foreign intervention and for his support for the Palestinians, many Arabs and western leaders vilified him for murdering scores of Kurdish people of the north and his invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was deposed by the U.S. and its allies during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

• Suharto - President of Indonesia from 1967 to 1998. The legacy of Suharto's 32-year rule is debated both in Indonesia and abroad. Under his "New Order" administration, Suharto constructed a strong, centralized and military-dominated government. An ability to maintain stability over a sprawling and diverse Indonesia and an avowedly anti-Communist stance won him the economic and diplomatic support of the West during the Cold War. For most of his presidency, Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and industrialization. Against the backdrop of Cold War international relations, Suharto's "New Order" invasion of East Timor, and the subsequent 24-year occupation, resulted in an estimated minimum of 102,800 deaths. A detailed statistical report prepared for the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor. By the 1990s, the New Order's authoritarianism and widespread corruption—estimates of government funds missappropriated by the Suharto family range from US$1.5 billion and US$35 billion was a source of much discontent, and was referred as one of the world's most corrupt leaders. Suharto tops corruption rankings. In the years since his presidency, attempts to try him on charges of corruption and genocide failed because of his poor health.

• Nicolae Ceauşescu was the General Secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party, later the Romanian Communist Party from 1965 until 1989, President of the Council of State from 1967 and President of Romania from 1974 until 1989. His rule was marked in the first decade by an open policy towards Western Europe and the United States of America, which deviated from that of the other Warsaw Pact states during the Cold War. He continued a trend first established by his predecessor, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, who had tactfully coaxed the Khrushchev regime to withdraw troops from Romania in 1958. Ceauşescu's second decade was characterized by an increasingly erratic personality cult, extreme nationalism and a deterioration in foreign relations with Western powers and also with the Soviet Union. Ceauşescu's government was overthrown in December 1989, and he was shot following a televised two-hour session by a military court.

It should be noted that every single leader above was strongly funded and supported by the United States government.

Source: Wikipedia

SAPS Crime Intelligence: frozen in the political winter of Mangaung

The spy wars in the police’s embattled crime intelligence division are at the heart of a relentless struggle for control between political factions, each fighting to get its man into the much sought-after seat of spy master. Not unlike the Apartheid regime’s security branch, crime intelligence is a notoriously powerful instrument for government, as the eyes and ears on not only the criminal activities of mob bosses, but also the politicians and businessmen with whom they are connected. As this silent battle in the murky world of spies plays itself out in the final days on the road to Mangaung, combating crime has taken a back seat, writes DE WET POTGIETER.

The police’s crime intelligence division – in theory the backbone of crime prevention and the effective combating of crime in South Africa – appear to have become so politicised with factional in-fighting that this expert unit have suffered from paralysis since the struggle for the top post as spy master intensified last year.

“The spy bosses at crime intelligence headquarters in Pretoria are sitting on their hands, too afraid to make a wrong move in the run-up to Mangaung, in case it jeopardises their future in the police.”

That’s how well-placed intelligence sources describe the sensitive circumstances surrounding them.

In the latest saga of dirty tricks in Spy versus Spy – which was a closely guarded secret until now – Daily Maverick can reveal that the Toshiba laptop of acting head of crime intelligence, Major-General Chris Ngcobo, mysteriously disappeared from the boot of his car, together with sensitive intelligence documents.

In a handwritten sworn statement, Ngcobo’s official driver, Ernest Masemola, said he stopped on 24 September with a Ford Focus in Esselen Street, in Sunnyside in Pretoria, to pick up photographs from Photo Plus. From there he travelled to the Brooklyn Mall and then drove Ngcobo to Doornpoort in the north of Pretoria.

“I parked the car outside [with] my commanding officer, Major-General Chris Ngcobo, [and we] both got out of the car. We walked together to the boot of the car and when I opened it we discovered his laptop was missing.”

Police spokesperson Brigadier Phuti Setati declined to comment on the incident.

Ngcobo, a former head of Protection and Security Services in the Free State and a former head of VIP Protection, was appointed as acting top police spy by national police commissioner Riah Phiyega “to bring stability” to crime intelligence after the position was vacated following the suspension of controversial former intelligence chief Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli.

Both local and foreign intelligence sources voiced their concern to Daily Maverick that soon after his appointment, Ngcobo suspended – until after the Mangaung conference is done and dusted – all official authorisation of telephone tapping for agents working on deep cover operations within organised crime syndicates. This ban on surveillance was recently eased somewhat after an investigating advocate from the prosecuting authority intervened.

According to senior colleagues, Ngcobo is sitting with an explosive docket regarding one of his predecessors as acting head of intelligence – and the main rival of Mdluli to this top post, Major-General Mark Hankel – without taking any action. It has been reliably learned that the dossier recommends that action be taken against Hankel regarding the following two issues:

• The leakage of information;
• The illegal interception of telephone conversations of other government departments as well as the use of the Secret Services Account (SSA).

Hankel, the former head of crime intelligence’s operational intelligence analysis section, is a very powerful officer in the division and had always been seen as the main rival of Mdluli for the top post. He was instrumental in drafting the controversial secret report presented to the inspector general of intelligence, Faith Radebe, earlier this year, outlining the allegations of fraud and misappropriation of the slush fund against Mdluli.

The controversy surrounding crime intelligence culminated last year when, with the stroke of a pen, almost the entire top management of the police’s crime intelligence were instructed to vacate their offices and move to other sections in the SAPS. Reacting soon after the purge, police spokesperson Major-General Nonkululeko Mbatha said that “certain interventions have been done directed at the optimal functioning of the environment.” All this was done in the interest of the service, she added.

In total, 11 members of management received their walking letters, and one of them had been suspended while under investigation by the Hawks. They were redeployed to other sections in the SAPS.

“This was not a spur of the moment decision,” a senior police source close to crime intelligence explained soon after the purge. “The investigation into the activities there had been ongoing for quite some time.”

This drastic move by then-acting national police commissioner, Major-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, was a sequel to the crackdown by the Hawks on the controversial division. Mdluli was the first casualty of the purge after the Hawks chief, General Anwar Dramat, received instructions to clean out crime intelligence, starting at the top. Top Cape Town cop, Colonel Piet Viljoen, was brought up to Gauteng as part of the behind-the-scenes investigation.

For some time now, it has been possible to sense from within the ranks of crime intelligence an eerie atmosphere of distrust since Mdluli’s arrest, especially as the police spies started to panic and closed ranks. (Mdluli was recently cleared of the murder charge, but remains on suspension.)

The next to go was the controversial former Gauteng boss, Joey Mabasa, who fell from grace owing to his wife’s links with the Czech fugitive Radovan Krejcir’s wife. Mabasa took a severance package last year and left the police quietly.

In another strange move by the crime intelligence top brass, the police refused to give reasons for the massive destruction of extremely valuable and sensitive documents and surveillance material regarding the activities of international crime syndicates and local drug lords soon after Mdluli was arrested for murder last year.

It is believed that the purge of the police’s spy unit in November last year was partly the result of the bitter internal political struggle which lead to the panicky destruction of vital evidence that pointed to links by top ANC politicians and family members with crime syndicate leaders.

According to intelligence sources, Operations Dante and Snowman were two top secret intelligence-driven investigations into the links of South African crime bosses with, in particular, the dangerous crime syndicates operating from the Balkan countries – with the main focus on Serbia and Montenegro.

“There were at least 30 targets whose telephones were legally tapped in these operations,” sources closely connected to these deep cover operations said.

Some of the key “targets” the agents were eavesdropping on were, among others, the slain gangland boss, Cyril Beeka, the murdered king of sleaze, Lolly Jackson, the Czech fugitive, Radovan Krejcir, one of his Serbian business associates, Veselin “Vesco” Laganin, and convicted drug dealer, Glen Agliotti.

Asked for comment, the then Hawks spokesperson, Colonel Macintosh Polela, said: “We don’t give out information on crime intelligence operations. As such, I’m unable to respond to any of your questions.”

Since Phiyega took over as police commissioner earlier this year, Mkhwanazi was redeployed. Before she took over the reins, he had been rumoured to be the frontrunner for the intelligence post. Mkhwanazi took the decisive decision last year to suspend Mdluli from his post as intelligence boss pending the outcome of the murder trial.

According to well-placed sources, within days of Mdluli’s arrest, Hankel withdrew particular crime intelligence material from the vaults at crime intelligence head office in Pretoria, and the frantic shredding started around the clock, destroying vital evidence regarding international organised crime syndicates. Hankel, who is regarded as “very knowledgeable”, with a lot of sensitive information, including the criminal activities of influential people, declined to comment.

Showing his hand in this relentless battle for the heart of crime intelligence, soon after his arrest, Mdluli handed the so-called Ground Coverage Report to President Jacob Zuma, in which it is alleged that certain high-profile ANC leaders, including Human Settlement Minister Tokyo Sexwale, KwaZulu-Natal Premier Zweli Mkhize and Bheki Cele, plotted to overthrow Zuma. These claims of a conspiracy against Zuma were vehemently denied.

The Hawks, which relied heavily on information from the police’s crime intelligence division for its own investigations, severed all links, with crime intelligence due to the breach in trust; the working relationship soured when the super cops discovered that the phones of Hawks investigators were being illegally tapped by crime intelligence.

Only a few weeks away, the ANC’s Mangaung conference will define the winners and losers, at least for the time being. One question remains difficult to answer, however: will the police crime intelligence unit ever become what it is supposed to be – an elite department whose only true masters are the people of South Africa? DM

Source: Daily Maverick

Dalai Lama's visa delay to South Africa 'unlawful'

South Africa's government acted unlawfully in failing to give the Dalai Lama a visa in time for a planned visit last year, a court has ruled.

Tibet's spiritual leader was forced to cancel plans to attend Archbishop Desmond Tutu's 80th birthday celebrations in October 2011.

The Supreme Court of Appeal said the former home affairs minister had "unreasonably delayed her decision".

The government denied it had bowed to pressure from China to block the trip.

Stalling tactics

The Supreme Court of Appeal was hearing an appeal application by two opposition parties - the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the Congress of the People (Cope) - about the issue. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said the failure to grant the Dalai Lama a visa was a disgrace

Earlier, the Western Cape High Court had dismissed the case, the South Africa Press Association reports. Archbishop Tutu was furious about the visa delay for his fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner and accused the government of behaving "worse than the apartheid government".

According to the AFP news agency, the Supreme Court of Appeal found no evidence that the government had actually made a decision not to grant a visa, but did detect stalling tactics.

"What is justified by the evidence is an inference that the matter was deliberately delayed so as to avoid a decision," the news agency quotes the judgment as saying.

The court said that former Home Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma "was not entitled to deliberately procrastinate", South Africa's City Press newspaper reports.

Ms Dlamini-Zuma, who is President Jacob Zuma's ex-wife, now heads the Africa Union.

The Dalai Lama eventually delivered a lecture at Archbishop Tutu's birthday celebrations via a video link.

Source: BBC News

FirstRand to expand its asset management business division

FIRSTRAND plans to grow its asset management business as it widens revenues from business segments that require less regulatory capital.

Group CEO Sizwe Nxasana said on Thursday in an interview the asset management business already had assets under management and administration of about $100bn.

The plan was to progressively grow these assets in South Africa and sub-Saharan Africa over the next few years, Mr Nxasana said at the conclusion of FirstRand’s annual general meeting in Sandton.

The asset management business was being run through Ashburton Investments, a unit of FirstRand.

"We have about R100bn in assets under management or administration. It is a business we think there is opportunity to create more scale by leveraging on the internal skills we have," Mr Nxasana said. "We want to originate business in various asset classes such as equities, real estate and infrastructure in South Africa and Africa," he said.

Mr Nxasana would not say what the target value of assets under management was for Ashburton over the next few years. "We have a base from which to start growing the business but this is a journey rather than a process," he said.

Mr Nxasana also said FirstRand would next year prefer to concentrate on investing in the businesses it had or planned to establish outside South Africa.

"We have projects in Mozambique, Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia and India which gives us more than enough to focus on," he said.

Speaking at the annual meeting, FirstRand non-executive chairman Laurie Dippenaar said the group’s remuneration strategy was neither excessive nor did it reward failure.

Group executives were paid on the basis of them achieving targets such as creating shareholder value by increasing return on equity.

Mr Dippenaar said in FirstRand’s annual report released at the meeting that some global banks produced return on equity that was well below cost of capital but paid executives and staff up to 80% of the return. FirstRand’s return on equity was on the other hand about 20% and it paid out 45% of that to executives and staff.

Source: Business Day