On the day Robert McBride secured a nod in Parliament to lead police watchdog Ipid – and while more denials were heard by the Farlam Commission – news broke that officers in Limpopo shot dead two more protesters in a chaotic stand-off. This brings to eight the number of protesters killed this month alone. ALEX ELISEEV asks what it will take to make the police realise that its relationship with communities across South Africa is in a fiery tailspin.
The numbers are as mad as the story is startling: One satellite police station in the Relela village outside of Tzaneen, Limpopo. Twenty officers defending the outpost. Between 1,500 and 2,000 protesters “attacking” the station with stones and petrol bombs. Some 2,050 rounds of rubber bullets fired before the switch-over to live ammunition. Fifteen officers injured in the battle. Three of them left in a critical condition. Nineteen police cars damaged or destroyed. Two protesters shot and killed during the clash.
The images flooding your mind right now are probably closer to what South African soldiers endured in the Central African Republic rather than what police officers should be dealing with in a war-free, democratic country.
The question that pierces through all those figures is: how angry does a community have to be – what kind of hatred must be festering – for hundreds of people to come together and overrun, by force, their local police station? To try to obliterate the place that houses men and women who’ve taken an oath to protect you. We know too well the evil that lurks inside a mob, but this was an outright storming of a sacred castle.
Unlike with the Marikana bloodbath, there were probably few or no cameras filming the latest clash. The details still have to be investigated by the same organisation that Robert McBride – one of the country’s most controversial policemen – will soon be leading. But even on the police’s own version, what happened in Relela does not belong in post-Apartheid South Africa.
Granted, what happened there was not a routine service delivery protest over water or electricity that spiralled out of control. The circumstances were different. A local woman was killed and mutilated and the community wanted those responsible to be arrested. Police took a couple of suspects in for questioning but when they were released, their neighbours went on the rampage, burning down their homes. When the police intervened, a teenage boy was shot and killed. His death, in turn, became the magnet that drew the crowd to the Relela police station on Tuesday night.
Limpopo police claim that anyone in the same situation (the situation the officers were in) would have done the exact same thing. The crowd had broken through into the station’s courtyard and were out for revenge. Judging by the damage, there’s every reason to believe that the officers may have been genuinely terrified and thought their lives were in danger. They probably were. Those attacking the station were committing a criminal act. There’s also evidence that the police officers did their best to push back the mob, using thousands of rounds of rubber bullets.
But the issues here run much deeper, the main one being: how did it get to this? How did we reach a crisis which the police, and police minister Nathi Mthethwa, think they can talk their way out of? (Which, of course, they can’t).
Too much blood has been spilled. Too much horror witnessed. The list has been mentioned over and over again: Marikana, Tatane, Macia, Mothutlung, Durban Deep… For way too many people the police have become the enemy.
The cold, hard truth is that the level of violence we are seeing now is the consequence of earlier decisions. Decisions which ranged from bad to catastrophic. Remember the “shoot to kill!” and “maximum force” rhetoric spewing out of Bheki Cele’s mouth (which went viral). Or the decision by Jackie Selebi to reconfigure the Public Order Policing, leaving it in shambles. And, as a show of force, the re-introduction of military ranks.
But worst of all have been the decisions, one after the next, to send in civilians (political appointments) to lead the police. The latest, by President Jacob Zuma, was Riah Phiyega, who has so far had a disastrous run (some of it was not her fault, and some of it was).
The Institute for Security Studies – the think tank which the police loves to ignore – says all indicators show that police brutality is rising, public trust in the service is deteriorating and there doesn’t seem to be any real plan to reverse either of these trends.
Asked whether we can expect more bloodshed, the ISS’s Gareth Newham says: “I hope not. But we will continue to see growing anger and discontent and a breakdown of the relationship.”
He adds: “Warnings were ignored and now we’re seeing the consequences.”
The reality on the ground is complex. The balance between crushing violent crime or policing tense protests while respecting human rights is a delicate one. No one is saying it’s easy. Then there’s the politics, corruption, shadowy alliances and the unholy mess in units like Crime Intelligence (which Phiyega is now trying to clean up).
The time has come for drastic action. Possibly a complete overhaul of the Public Order Policing (POP). The unit needs an injection of officers and strong, accountable commanders. A message needs to cascade through the ranks that says that anyone who steps out of line, who loads up their shotgun with buckshot or fires without an order, will be punished. Officers need to be better trained. And all of this needs to be communicated to the public so that perceptions can begin to change. Maybe even hold a public commission of inquiry into the POP, diagnose the problem and fix it.
It’s time for Mthethwa to go beyond sending out media statements and praying with families of victims. He needs to take meaningful action. It’s time for President Jacob Zuma to step up. If he can find the time to congratulate Ladysmith Black Mambazo on a Grammy or the Bantu Church of Christ on its centenary, spur on the Matrics or defend eTolling, he can get stuck into this crisis. And by that we mean do something more than establish a task team. After all, the storming of a police station is about as close as you can come to true lawlessness.
Newham describes what happened in Relela as a “new development”. It’s much more than that. It’s a wake-up call, a short in the circuit of democracy. A signal that the relationship between police and civilians can’t be that of a state of war or a violent occupation. History teaches us how people, countries, respond to that.
When Phiyega visited the community on Wednesday, angry residents were shouting at her, demanding to know who gave the order to kill? She did her best to restore calm to the area, but she was up against a hostile crowd.
The police may be under attack, but they have to start earning back the trust. Showing the public that they are not the enemy. When what happened in Relela becomes a reality, you’ve waited too long to act. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Ukraine's president offers opposition leaders top govt posts
The Saturday meeting between Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovich and the opposition yielded unexpected results. Top government posts were offered to protest leaders and a review of the constitution was promised, in order to give parliament more power. Yanukovich has proposed the post of prime minister to the head of the “Batkivschina” (Fatherland) opposition party, Arseny Yatsenyuk, the justice minister said after the president’s meeting with opposition leaders.
"The president offered the post of prime minister to Arseny Yatsenyuk. In the case of the latter's consent to take the post, the president of Ukraine will decide on the resignation of the government,” Minister Elena Lukash said.
Vitaly Klitchko, head of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform party, was offered the post of deputy prime minister for humanitarian affairs.
The current prime minister, Nikolay Azarov, has been in office since March 11, 2010. He is the leader of the Ukrainian Party of Regions. Azarov also served as acting prime minister in the first Yanukovich government, from November 2002 to January 2005.
The president’s offer came after Saturday talks with opposition leaders, as the government is struggling to cope with protests and violence that have gripped the entire country amid the political crisis.
Yanukovich also agreed to review the constitution and establish a working group for the transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic, First Deputy of the Presidential Administration Andrey Portnov said.
Arseny Yatsenyuk is the parliamentary leader of the country's second largest party and an ally of jailed ex-PM Yulya Tymoshenko. Vitaly Klitschko is a former professional boxer and former WBC, WBO and Ring Magazine heavyweight champion.
The possibility of returning to the constitution which was adopted as part of the Orange Revolution in 2004 was brought forth at the meeting. At that time, the constitution was changed in order to shift powers from the presidency to the parliament.
“We have determined that we can create a group and work on amendments to the constitution through adopting it in parliament , or through the mechanism of the All-Ukrainian referendum, " Portnov said in comments posted on the presidential website.
He added that opposition leaders stressed the need to change the law on referendums.
In another consensus, the two sides agreed to gradually clear the streets of central Kiev from protesters and police forces.
The Ukrainian president said that he will consider the possibility of granting amnesty to the protesters arrested during the political crisis if they vacate all seized buildings around the country and Independence Square in Kiev.
Unrest in Kiev entered its seventh day on Saturday, with protesters pelting police cordons with stones while officers retaliated with flash grenades and rubber bullets. Hundreds have been injured and dozens others detained or arrested in the violent clashes across the country.
Source: RT
"The president offered the post of prime minister to Arseny Yatsenyuk. In the case of the latter's consent to take the post, the president of Ukraine will decide on the resignation of the government,” Minister Elena Lukash said.
Vitaly Klitchko, head of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform party, was offered the post of deputy prime minister for humanitarian affairs.
The current prime minister, Nikolay Azarov, has been in office since March 11, 2010. He is the leader of the Ukrainian Party of Regions. Azarov also served as acting prime minister in the first Yanukovich government, from November 2002 to January 2005.
The president’s offer came after Saturday talks with opposition leaders, as the government is struggling to cope with protests and violence that have gripped the entire country amid the political crisis.
Yanukovich also agreed to review the constitution and establish a working group for the transition to a parliamentary-presidential republic, First Deputy of the Presidential Administration Andrey Portnov said.
Arseny Yatsenyuk is the parliamentary leader of the country's second largest party and an ally of jailed ex-PM Yulya Tymoshenko. Vitaly Klitschko is a former professional boxer and former WBC, WBO and Ring Magazine heavyweight champion.
The possibility of returning to the constitution which was adopted as part of the Orange Revolution in 2004 was brought forth at the meeting. At that time, the constitution was changed in order to shift powers from the presidency to the parliament.
“We have determined that we can create a group and work on amendments to the constitution through adopting it in parliament , or through the mechanism of the All-Ukrainian referendum, " Portnov said in comments posted on the presidential website.
He added that opposition leaders stressed the need to change the law on referendums.
In another consensus, the two sides agreed to gradually clear the streets of central Kiev from protesters and police forces.
The Ukrainian president said that he will consider the possibility of granting amnesty to the protesters arrested during the political crisis if they vacate all seized buildings around the country and Independence Square in Kiev.
Unrest in Kiev entered its seventh day on Saturday, with protesters pelting police cordons with stones while officers retaliated with flash grenades and rubber bullets. Hundreds have been injured and dozens others detained or arrested in the violent clashes across the country.
Source: RT
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
The global plutocracy
On the eve of the annual spectacle of parasitic wealth and power that is the World Economic Forum in the Alpine resort town of Davos, Switzerland, the Oxfam charity has issued a report warning of the unprecedented growth of social inequality throughout the world.
Describing a planet in the malevolent grip of a handful of plutocrats, the report states that the richest 85 people in the world control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the world's population—3.5 billion people! It notes that the richest 1 percent today controls 46 percent of the world’s wealth. Oxfam writes: “The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion… 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.”
The report includes a chart showing that since 2008, the United States has had the largest increase in social inequality of any developed country.
The impoverishment of the working class on the one side and further enrichment of the financial elite on the other have accelerated since the Wall Street crash of that year. While the wealth of the world’s billionaires has doubled, there are today over 1 billion people living on less than a dollar per day, and nearly half the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, subsist on less than $2.50 per day.
The same day Oxfam issued its study, the International Labor Organization reported that the number of unemployed people worldwide grew by 5 million in 2013, to 202 million. The ILO predicted that the ranks of the unemployed would continue to rise in 2014.
There is no parallel in human history to the immense concentration of wealth that exists today, nor to the extremes of parasitism and decadence that constitute the “new normal.” Contemporary capitalism—what the ruling class and its political and media flunkies call the “free enterprise system”—has created a world in which every policy decision is dictated by the need to protect and increase the wealth of an infinitesimal portion of the world’s population.
This global plutocracy—by definition, a society governed by the wealthy—generates a huge and ever-increasing portion of the ruling elite’s wealth not from the production of useful products and expansion of society’s productive capacities, but from the manipulation of money, speculation and outright swindling—essentially criminal activities that are destructive of the productive forces.
A few hundred people, backed by an army of bribed politicians, academic apologists, intelligence spooks, experts of all sorts and the repressive force of the military and police, hold civilization by the throat and threaten to destroy it to satisfy their insatiable greed.
This social—or, to be more precise, anti-social—element is virulently hostile to the people, contemptuous of democratic rights, and militaristic.
In its effort to expand its personal wealth, it relentlessly attacks the living standards of the working class—the vast majority of the population. All over the world, governments controlled by the plutocrats impose ever more painful austerity, cutting wages, slashing jobs, dismantling social programs, closing schools, gutting health care. State treasuries are emptied to provide bailouts to the banks and corporations and central banks pump trillions into the financial markets to drive up stock prices, corporate profits and CEO pay. All legal restrictions on profit-making are lifted.
To deal with the opposition of the workers, governments are systematically criminalizing organized resistance by the working class. In countries across Europe, every significant strike is met with legal bans and police violence.
Petrified at the prospect of social revolution, they are putting in place the infrastructure of a global totalitarian police state, as revealed by the revelations of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Competing cliques of plutocrats, using their national states as bases of operation, invade weaker countries and occupy and plunder them without mercy, inflicting death and destruction. In the struggle against their rivals for control of territories, markets, resources and cheap labor, they turn the planet into an armed camp and threaten to plunge mankind into a third world war, this time with the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
The rich and the super-rich will be on display this week at Davos, the yearly event at which government officials and leaders of global agencies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund come to pay obeisance to billionaire bankers and corporate CEOs.
The global financial elite is preparing, in the words of one commentator, “to jet to the World Economic Forum 5,000 feet up in the Swiss Alps in their helicopters, mink-clad trophy wives in tow.” The cost of attending the conference, estimated by CNN at around $40,000 per person, is about 50 percent greater than what a typical worker in the US makes in a year.
This conference has announced that the “problem” of social inequality will be a central topic of discussion.
The masses all over the world are becoming increasingly outraged over this criminal layer, which they hate and despise. It is only a matter of time before that anger is transformed into action.
The moneyed elite is haunted by the specter of social upheaval and revolution. They received a taste of it three years ago in the mass working class uprising that brought down the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. They have seen social explosions in Europe and anticipations of coming upheavals in the United States.
That they have been able to hold onto power is above all due to the treachery of the trade union bureaucracies, aided by their apologists in the right-wing organizations that call themselves “left,” such as the International Socialist Organization in the United States, the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, the Left Party in Germany, and Syriza in Greece.
The more perceptive and far-sighted defenders of the capitalist system are warning that the present situation is unsustainable. Last week, the Financial Times ’ chief economic commentator Martin Wolf penned a comment entitled, “Failing elites threaten our future,” in which he warned of the growing threat of social revolution.
Citing the 100th anniversary of World War I, the first global catastrophe that signaled the death agony of capitalism and precipitated the Russian revolution three years later, Wolf warned that the “globalized economic and financial elite … have become ever more detached from the countries that produced them …The narrow distribution of the gains of economic growth greatly enhances this development. This, then, is ever more a plutocracy.”
Since the financial breakdown of 2008, he wrote, the “economic, financial, intellectual and political elites” have discredited themselves. “If elites continue to fail,” he concluded, “we will go on watching the rise of angry populists. The elites need to do better. If they do not, rage may overwhelm us all.”
The people of the world are confronted with the question: What is to be done with this anti-social and criminal layer that is strangling the planet? Nothing can be changed by appealing to the “better angels” of the plutocracy, as Oxfam would do. Nor by appealing to the elite’s rational faculties, as Wolf seeks to do.
As a matter of social hygiene and basic survival, the wealth of this parasitic layer must be expropriated. The working class, organized as an independent political force, must seize it and use it to meet crying social needs—jobs, health care, education, housing, nutrition, access to culture and art.
The death-grip of the plutocrats over finance and industry must be broken. The banks and corporations must be taken out of private hands and placed under public ownership and democratic control. There is only one way this can be done: by means of the revolutionary transformation of society and the establishment of socialism.
Andre Damon and Barry Grey
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Describing a planet in the malevolent grip of a handful of plutocrats, the report states that the richest 85 people in the world control as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the world's population—3.5 billion people! It notes that the richest 1 percent today controls 46 percent of the world’s wealth. Oxfam writes: “The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion… 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.”
The report includes a chart showing that since 2008, the United States has had the largest increase in social inequality of any developed country.
The impoverishment of the working class on the one side and further enrichment of the financial elite on the other have accelerated since the Wall Street crash of that year. While the wealth of the world’s billionaires has doubled, there are today over 1 billion people living on less than a dollar per day, and nearly half the world’s population, more than 3 billion people, subsist on less than $2.50 per day.
The same day Oxfam issued its study, the International Labor Organization reported that the number of unemployed people worldwide grew by 5 million in 2013, to 202 million. The ILO predicted that the ranks of the unemployed would continue to rise in 2014.
There is no parallel in human history to the immense concentration of wealth that exists today, nor to the extremes of parasitism and decadence that constitute the “new normal.” Contemporary capitalism—what the ruling class and its political and media flunkies call the “free enterprise system”—has created a world in which every policy decision is dictated by the need to protect and increase the wealth of an infinitesimal portion of the world’s population.
This global plutocracy—by definition, a society governed by the wealthy—generates a huge and ever-increasing portion of the ruling elite’s wealth not from the production of useful products and expansion of society’s productive capacities, but from the manipulation of money, speculation and outright swindling—essentially criminal activities that are destructive of the productive forces.
A few hundred people, backed by an army of bribed politicians, academic apologists, intelligence spooks, experts of all sorts and the repressive force of the military and police, hold civilization by the throat and threaten to destroy it to satisfy their insatiable greed.
This social—or, to be more precise, anti-social—element is virulently hostile to the people, contemptuous of democratic rights, and militaristic.
In its effort to expand its personal wealth, it relentlessly attacks the living standards of the working class—the vast majority of the population. All over the world, governments controlled by the plutocrats impose ever more painful austerity, cutting wages, slashing jobs, dismantling social programs, closing schools, gutting health care. State treasuries are emptied to provide bailouts to the banks and corporations and central banks pump trillions into the financial markets to drive up stock prices, corporate profits and CEO pay. All legal restrictions on profit-making are lifted.
To deal with the opposition of the workers, governments are systematically criminalizing organized resistance by the working class. In countries across Europe, every significant strike is met with legal bans and police violence.
Petrified at the prospect of social revolution, they are putting in place the infrastructure of a global totalitarian police state, as revealed by the revelations of former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Competing cliques of plutocrats, using their national states as bases of operation, invade weaker countries and occupy and plunder them without mercy, inflicting death and destruction. In the struggle against their rivals for control of territories, markets, resources and cheap labor, they turn the planet into an armed camp and threaten to plunge mankind into a third world war, this time with the prospect of nuclear annihilation.
The rich and the super-rich will be on display this week at Davos, the yearly event at which government officials and leaders of global agencies such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund come to pay obeisance to billionaire bankers and corporate CEOs.
The global financial elite is preparing, in the words of one commentator, “to jet to the World Economic Forum 5,000 feet up in the Swiss Alps in their helicopters, mink-clad trophy wives in tow.” The cost of attending the conference, estimated by CNN at around $40,000 per person, is about 50 percent greater than what a typical worker in the US makes in a year.
This conference has announced that the “problem” of social inequality will be a central topic of discussion.
The masses all over the world are becoming increasingly outraged over this criminal layer, which they hate and despise. It is only a matter of time before that anger is transformed into action.
The moneyed elite is haunted by the specter of social upheaval and revolution. They received a taste of it three years ago in the mass working class uprising that brought down the Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt. They have seen social explosions in Europe and anticipations of coming upheavals in the United States.
That they have been able to hold onto power is above all due to the treachery of the trade union bureaucracies, aided by their apologists in the right-wing organizations that call themselves “left,” such as the International Socialist Organization in the United States, the New Anti-capitalist Party in France, the Left Party in Germany, and Syriza in Greece.
The more perceptive and far-sighted defenders of the capitalist system are warning that the present situation is unsustainable. Last week, the Financial Times ’ chief economic commentator Martin Wolf penned a comment entitled, “Failing elites threaten our future,” in which he warned of the growing threat of social revolution.
Citing the 100th anniversary of World War I, the first global catastrophe that signaled the death agony of capitalism and precipitated the Russian revolution three years later, Wolf warned that the “globalized economic and financial elite … have become ever more detached from the countries that produced them …The narrow distribution of the gains of economic growth greatly enhances this development. This, then, is ever more a plutocracy.”
Since the financial breakdown of 2008, he wrote, the “economic, financial, intellectual and political elites” have discredited themselves. “If elites continue to fail,” he concluded, “we will go on watching the rise of angry populists. The elites need to do better. If they do not, rage may overwhelm us all.”
The people of the world are confronted with the question: What is to be done with this anti-social and criminal layer that is strangling the planet? Nothing can be changed by appealing to the “better angels” of the plutocracy, as Oxfam would do. Nor by appealing to the elite’s rational faculties, as Wolf seeks to do.
As a matter of social hygiene and basic survival, the wealth of this parasitic layer must be expropriated. The working class, organized as an independent political force, must seize it and use it to meet crying social needs—jobs, health care, education, housing, nutrition, access to culture and art.
The death-grip of the plutocrats over finance and industry must be broken. The banks and corporations must be taken out of private hands and placed under public ownership and democratic control. There is only one way this can be done: by means of the revolutionary transformation of society and the establishment of socialism.
Andre Damon and Barry Grey
Source: World Socialist Web Site
Friday, January 10, 2014
President Proclaims Civilian Secretariat Commencement
The remaining sections of the Civilian Secretariat for Police Service Act of 2011 that did not come into effect in December 2011 will now come into force on 1 April 2014.
The act seeks to give effect to section 208 of the Constitution by establishing a civilian secretariat tasked with monitoring, assessing and evaluating the performance of the South African Police Service (SAPS).
The minister of police will be responsible for the new secretariat.
Provincial police secretariats will be expected to align their planning and operations with the new national secretariat.
The civilian secretariat will be expected to:
• Exercise civilian oversight over the SAPS
• Advise the minister on developing and implementing policies
• Provide administrative support to the minister
• Communicate with stakeholders
• Form a partnership with stakeholders to improve service delivery by SAPS
• Improve relations between itself and the independent police investigative directorate
In terms of the sections that are to now come into effect, section 4(2) refers to the establishing of the secretariat as a national department while 4(3) deals with the secretary as the accounting officer of the secretariat.
Section 14 focuses on the responsibilities of the secretary in terms of finances and accountability.
The proclamation notice was published in Government Gazette 37151.
Prior to the notice, the presidency had indicated in a statement at the beginning of December that the remaining sections were to commence on 1 April.
Source: SABINET
The act seeks to give effect to section 208 of the Constitution by establishing a civilian secretariat tasked with monitoring, assessing and evaluating the performance of the South African Police Service (SAPS).
The minister of police will be responsible for the new secretariat.
Provincial police secretariats will be expected to align their planning and operations with the new national secretariat.
The civilian secretariat will be expected to:
• Exercise civilian oversight over the SAPS
• Advise the minister on developing and implementing policies
• Provide administrative support to the minister
• Communicate with stakeholders
• Form a partnership with stakeholders to improve service delivery by SAPS
• Improve relations between itself and the independent police investigative directorate
In terms of the sections that are to now come into effect, section 4(2) refers to the establishing of the secretariat as a national department while 4(3) deals with the secretary as the accounting officer of the secretariat.
Section 14 focuses on the responsibilities of the secretary in terms of finances and accountability.
The proclamation notice was published in Government Gazette 37151.
Prior to the notice, the presidency had indicated in a statement at the beginning of December that the remaining sections were to commence on 1 April.
Source: SABINET
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Japan PM Shinzo Abe to pledge $14bn to Africa
Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is expected to pledge more than $14bn (£8.5bn) in aid and trade deals during his week-long visit to Africa.
He is also hoping to secure energy resources and increase exports.
Mr Abe's first stop is Oman, before he visits three fast-growing economies - Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Mozambique.
BBC Africa Business Report's Lerato Mbele says the visit is seen as a step by Japan to compete with China, in the new scramble for African resources.
In Ethiopia, he is to announce plans for a geo-thermal plant, which reinforces the country's growing renewable energy profile.
Mozambique recently made huge gas and coal discoveries and Japan is one of many investors scouting deals there.
Although Ivory Coast is recovering after the end of a long period of conflict and political instability, it provides a gateway into French-speaking Africa, a region that's still relatively untapped by most foreign players.
Our reporter says the backdrop to this visit, is of course China, which has become the largest investor in Africa, with five times as much trade with the continent as the Japanese.
In the past week, China's foreign minister has also been visiting the continent to reinforce diplomatic and economic ties.
But one of Mr Abe's senior officials, Hiroshigo Seko, sought to downplay the rivalry in an interview with the AP news agency
"Wherever he goes, Prime Minister Abe is asked if he is there to compete against China, but that's not our intention at all, as far as the African nations are concerned, they are important regardless of China," he said.
Last year, Mr Abe hosted a three-day conference on African development, at which he pledged $32bn (£21bn) in aid, including money to tackle militant Islamists.
At the time, he said that African countries would be at the centre of global economic growth in the coming years and so Japan should increase its economic ties to the continent.
Source: BBC
He is also hoping to secure energy resources and increase exports.
Mr Abe's first stop is Oman, before he visits three fast-growing economies - Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Mozambique.
BBC Africa Business Report's Lerato Mbele says the visit is seen as a step by Japan to compete with China, in the new scramble for African resources.
In Ethiopia, he is to announce plans for a geo-thermal plant, which reinforces the country's growing renewable energy profile.
Mozambique recently made huge gas and coal discoveries and Japan is one of many investors scouting deals there.
Although Ivory Coast is recovering after the end of a long period of conflict and political instability, it provides a gateway into French-speaking Africa, a region that's still relatively untapped by most foreign players.
Our reporter says the backdrop to this visit, is of course China, which has become the largest investor in Africa, with five times as much trade with the continent as the Japanese.
In the past week, China's foreign minister has also been visiting the continent to reinforce diplomatic and economic ties.
But one of Mr Abe's senior officials, Hiroshigo Seko, sought to downplay the rivalry in an interview with the AP news agency
"Wherever he goes, Prime Minister Abe is asked if he is there to compete against China, but that's not our intention at all, as far as the African nations are concerned, they are important regardless of China," he said.
Last year, Mr Abe hosted a three-day conference on African development, at which he pledged $32bn (£21bn) in aid, including money to tackle militant Islamists.
At the time, he said that African countries would be at the centre of global economic growth in the coming years and so Japan should increase its economic ties to the continent.
Source: BBC
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
China's oil fears over South Sudan fighting
The stakes could not be higher for China, the largest investor in South Sudan's oil sector, as fierce fighting continues between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those of his former deputy. Some of the largest oil fields China operates are in areas controlled by fighters backing Riek Machar, the country's vice-president until he was sacked in July.
Oil production has already dropped by 20% since the onset of the conflict three weeks ago and more than 300 Chinese workers have been evacuated. The spectre of their Libyan experience also weighs heavily on the Chinese minds - project after project now lies deserted because of heavy fighting during the Arab Spring uprising of 2011, inflicting huge losses on China.
It is no surprise then that China is putting its full weight behind the peace talks in Addis Ababa. Foreign Minister Wang Yi was in the Ethiopian capital on Monday and made it clear that China wanted both sides to stop fighting and seek a reasonable and rational way out.
According to media reports, he was even willing to mediate personally between the warring sides. It is unclear if Mr Wang has been able to do this, but his message was important, reports the BBC's Emmanuel Igunza from Addis Ababa. It demonstrates how seriously the international community is taking the crisis - with many diplomats present at the talks, he says.
Apart from China's Africa envoy Zhong Jianhua, US special envoy Donald Booth and EU special representative Alexander Rondos are also attending.
Fraught with risk
China invested some $20bn (£12bn) in Sudan before it split into two countries in 2011, according to Chinese media reports. Another $8bn was pledged to President Kiir during his visit to China the year following secession, to be used for infrastructure projects and the oil sector.
The heavy investment seems to have borne fruit, as in the first 10 months of 2013, China imported 1.9 million tonnes of oil (nearly 14 million barrels) from South Sudan, twice as much as China imports from Nigeria each year.
Though amounting to less than 1% of China's total oil imports, it makes up roughly two-thirds of oil exported by the world's youngest nation and is expected to increase.
Two years ago, China suffered heavy losses in its Libyan projects, including infrastructure, telecommunications and oil. Many constructions were halted and sites looted or destroyed during the revolution which toppled long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The total loss was estimated by several Chinese media reports to be in the region of $20bn, although no official figures exist.
Compensation talks with the new Libya government stalled as their priority was very much on nation-building and improving the living conditions of the Libyan people.
Continue reading the main story
Economic boom
Experts point out that China has taken tremendous risks in its search for oil.
This is because the country's economic boom continues to require a great deal of oil - home production is limited and reliance on exports reached 56% in 2012.
But all the known global markets have been dominated by Western companies or have been off-limits because of sanctions, leaving China with little choice but to adopt high-risk strategies.
Nowadays, more than half of China's investment in the overseas oil sector is found in areas which are considered unstable, including Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, South Sudan and Venezuela.
Chinese workers have been caught in the conflicts for control of oil by various forces in Sudan.
In 2008, five Chinese oil workers kidnapped by rebels in Sudan's South Kordofan province were killed during a rescue attempt. Four years later, another 29 Chinese construction workers were abducted in the same province and were only released 11 days later after intense negotiations.
The Sudanese rebels were quoted as saying that they did not want to harm the workers, but they aimed to send a signal to the Chinese government that they did not want them to be involved in the conflict over oil in Sudan.
But what is currently happening in South Sudan seems far more serious than kidnappings.
China must be praying for a quick end to the trouble so life on the oil fields can return to normal.
In the meantime, some experts also predict that China might be forced into re-thinking its high-risk oil strategy
Source: BBC
Oil production has already dropped by 20% since the onset of the conflict three weeks ago and more than 300 Chinese workers have been evacuated. The spectre of their Libyan experience also weighs heavily on the Chinese minds - project after project now lies deserted because of heavy fighting during the Arab Spring uprising of 2011, inflicting huge losses on China.
It is no surprise then that China is putting its full weight behind the peace talks in Addis Ababa. Foreign Minister Wang Yi was in the Ethiopian capital on Monday and made it clear that China wanted both sides to stop fighting and seek a reasonable and rational way out.
According to media reports, he was even willing to mediate personally between the warring sides. It is unclear if Mr Wang has been able to do this, but his message was important, reports the BBC's Emmanuel Igunza from Addis Ababa. It demonstrates how seriously the international community is taking the crisis - with many diplomats present at the talks, he says.
Apart from China's Africa envoy Zhong Jianhua, US special envoy Donald Booth and EU special representative Alexander Rondos are also attending.
Fraught with risk
China invested some $20bn (£12bn) in Sudan before it split into two countries in 2011, according to Chinese media reports. Another $8bn was pledged to President Kiir during his visit to China the year following secession, to be used for infrastructure projects and the oil sector.
The heavy investment seems to have borne fruit, as in the first 10 months of 2013, China imported 1.9 million tonnes of oil (nearly 14 million barrels) from South Sudan, twice as much as China imports from Nigeria each year.
Though amounting to less than 1% of China's total oil imports, it makes up roughly two-thirds of oil exported by the world's youngest nation and is expected to increase.
Two years ago, China suffered heavy losses in its Libyan projects, including infrastructure, telecommunications and oil. Many constructions were halted and sites looted or destroyed during the revolution which toppled long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi.
The total loss was estimated by several Chinese media reports to be in the region of $20bn, although no official figures exist.
Compensation talks with the new Libya government stalled as their priority was very much on nation-building and improving the living conditions of the Libyan people.
Continue reading the main story
Economic boom
Experts point out that China has taken tremendous risks in its search for oil.
This is because the country's economic boom continues to require a great deal of oil - home production is limited and reliance on exports reached 56% in 2012.
But all the known global markets have been dominated by Western companies or have been off-limits because of sanctions, leaving China with little choice but to adopt high-risk strategies.
Nowadays, more than half of China's investment in the overseas oil sector is found in areas which are considered unstable, including Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, South Sudan and Venezuela.
Chinese workers have been caught in the conflicts for control of oil by various forces in Sudan.
In 2008, five Chinese oil workers kidnapped by rebels in Sudan's South Kordofan province were killed during a rescue attempt. Four years later, another 29 Chinese construction workers were abducted in the same province and were only released 11 days later after intense negotiations.
The Sudanese rebels were quoted as saying that they did not want to harm the workers, but they aimed to send a signal to the Chinese government that they did not want them to be involved in the conflict over oil in Sudan.
But what is currently happening in South Sudan seems far more serious than kidnappings.
China must be praying for a quick end to the trouble so life on the oil fields can return to normal.
In the meantime, some experts also predict that China might be forced into re-thinking its high-risk oil strategy
Source: BBC
ANC at 102: when the revolution eats its own children
There are few people who can talk about the state of the ANC without sighing and shaking their heads. The transition from a liberation movement to a political party in government has not been kind – the organisation appears to be on a mission of self-destruction with lure of power and wealth tattering its fibre, and factionalism and patronage constantly diminishing its stature. The ANC has been able to reach the grand age of 102 because of the strength of its leadership and its popularity throughout its lifespan. But now it is difficult to hold up the ANC in 2014 against the organisation with a progression of heroic leaders which took power in 1994. Most bizarre is the way it has turned on itself. By RANJENI MUNUSAMY.
Lieutenant General Sean Tshabalala died of a broken heart. His body was found in his locked office at the police headquarters in Pretoria on Christmas Eve. Tributes at his memorial service and funeral tell the story of a once proud Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) soldier and one of the first line of VIP protectors when the ANC returned from exile, withering in a state of depression after being marginalised by the police management.
A furore erupted after Tshabalala’s funeral where former national police commissioner Bheki Cele revealed a list of 18 names of former MK combatants serving or formerly in the South African Police Service who were allegedly on a target list, presumably of the current national commissioner Riah Phiyega and her political bosses. Tshabalala’s name allegedly topped the list. His friends and former colleagues had earlier told of Tshabalala’s heartbreak at being shifted sideways from Protection and Security Services division of the police to the information technology division and later to a non-job at the police inspectorate.
Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa acted swiftly to meet with some of the people on the list and dismiss the claims as rubbish. Phiyega denied knowledge of the list. However, the perception exists that experienced ANC and MK members were being steadily hounded out of the security services since President Jacob Zuma won power at the ANC’s Polokwane conference.
There has been a deluge of early retirements and resignations from the Department of State Security, the military and the SAPS in recent years, most of which involved people who served in MK or ANC intelligence structures during the liberation struggle. Some of these people went into exile in their teenage years, some were involved in dangerous intelligence missions at great personal cost, some were trained in the camps under the ANC’s most iconic leaders.
Their departure from the security services has been a curious phenomenon. Zuma, formerly head of intelligence in the ANC, has always seen security and intelligence as high priority. But after the recall of Thabo Mbeki, it would seem that paranoia set in and people perceived to be loyal to the former president were systematically weeded out, irrespective of their skills, service to their country with distinction or role in the liberation struggle.
Cele is well aware of the purge because he was instrumental in implementing it while he was national commissioner. In one case, he called a high-ranking officer who was on a mission abroad immediately back to the country and informed him he was being transferred to another job. It did not take long for the officer to resign from the police service. Cele was also the one who transferred Tshabalala out of the Protection and Security Services division.
Tshabalala, unlike most of his comrades, stuck it out in the police despite being sidelined – a decision which probably eventually cost him his life. Shortly before his death, Tshabalala had received a letter transferring him to the Northern Cape province (viewed as the Siberia of deployments), and this is possibly the reason his depression became too much to bear.
Tshabalala is just one of many of people whose lives have been destroyed by the organisation they dedicated their lives to. Others have been able to move on with their lives but their disillusionment with the ANC is profound. For many of them, the ANC was not just a political organisation but a way of life, a reason for being. To see the organisation self-destruct is worse than a family feud or divorce because they had chosen the ANC over their families and their own safety when they joined the struggle.
There are various explanations for the purge. The first is that ANC people in the security services would refuse to use state institutions to fight power battles in the party. There is always the risk that loyalty to the ANC would outweigh loyalty to the individual in power, which could lead to instructions being ignored, undermined or disclosed. The theory goes that this is why Zuma and Mthethwa saw use in Richard Mdluli – as a person who worked for the apartheid era police, he has no affiliation to the ANC and is loyal only to those who pay his salary.
The second theory is that the security ministers felt threatened by the seniority, knowledge and experience of the commanders serving under them. In terms of ANC hierarchy, many of the officials were senior to the current batch of ministers and this was a source of tension, particularly when there were differences of opinion on operational issues. But while there might have been underlying resentment, it would be strange if Zuma allowed the security services to be depleted of loyal and experienced officials on the basis of his ministers' inferiority complexes.
The third theory is more complex. A former senior member of the security services says the success of South Africa’s transition was partly due to the fact that security of the country was in the hands of the “doves”.
“This ensured that national security was based on human security. Now the focus is on state security. For the first time, security is now in the hands of the ‘hawks’, just like during the Apartheid era when the hawks saw a red (communists) under every bed. So we have come full circle with the hawks again in charge,” he said.
He said the current crop of hawks are fixated on external threats to the country, such as from foreign governments, imperialist forces and lobby groups, and they trade on conspiracy theories. “The real threats to the country are unemployment, inequality and poverty, and our failure to deliver. But anyone who puts forward that view is hounded out, marginalised or made redundant.
“They do not want to hear about our own failures; they prefer nonsensical stories about plots against the president, like what was in the Mdluli report. The plot is the failure of delivery. That is the biggest threat to national security,” the retired member said.
The theory is consistent with how the state and ANC views the personal security of the president and the state as interchangeable – as exemplified by the handling of the issue of the security upgrades at Zuma’s Nkandla estate. But the retired security official says people often overlook how the Constitution defines the governing principles around national security: “National security must reflect the resolve of South Africans, as individuals and as a nation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and want and to seek a better life”.
The Constitution says nothing about the President and his Cabinet receiving special protection in their homes and cars as a principle of national security but dictates that ordinary people should be “free from fear”. It would appear that the organisation which drafted this Constitution has these days lost sight of these principles.
To the ANC at 102, it would seem, people, even their most experienced and dedicated comrades, are expendable. It has become a pattern that factional battles need to be fought till one group is hounded out and the organisation belongs only to the victors. From branch to national level, battles are fought for dominance of leadership positions, and those who lose are treated as pariahs and purged from positions in the state.
At the ANC national conferences, voting for the top six positions and the national executive committee takes place according to slates, dependent only according to loyalty to those who control the faction. As a result, the organisation is controlled by the winning faction and those outside the faction are marginalised, irrespective of their seniority, credentials or what they have to offer the party or the country.
Both Mbeki and Zuma appear to believe that the best way to protect their presidencies is to surround themselves with loyalists who tell them what they want to hear and fight off dissent on their behalf. It is this very tendency which builds resentment in the ANC and leads bad decision-making.
As the ANC celebrates its 102nd anniversary, it is also in the process of compiling its lists of representatives to serve in Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The list process is also likely to be defined by factional politics, with loyalists able to get higher on the lists and stand a better chance of becoming a member of Parliament. Those who refrain from factional battles or who campaigned against Zuma’s second term at the ANC’s Mangaung conference are less likely to be elected.
But there are also a number of people who are declining nomination because they cannot in good conscience agree to serve the ANC in its current state. “It is a bloody nightmare for us,” said one high-ranking member who has declined nomination.
He said if the party was serious about its future and that of the country, they would ask the president and other ANC leaders steeped in scandal to step aside. “But in the NEC, few can stand up and impose their integrity. The rest will be found wanting themselves,” he said.
Others, however, believe that they should remain in the fold and the ANC will self correct at its next conference in 2017. But what is the likelihood of it and how much damage would have been done by then? With the organisation a shadow of its former self now, what will it look like with four years still to go under the current leadership?
Despite the many problems in the ANC, there are only few people who are able to speak up and confront the issues besetting the organisation. The leadership seems to believe that the organisation is resilient and can withstand the scandals and strife. And those who do speak out are treated as disgruntled elements that should be disregarded. ANC and South African Communist Party veteran Ronnie Kasrils wrote in The Guardian last year: “The ANC's soul needs to be restored; its traditional values and culture of service reinstated. The pact with the devil needs to be broken”.
The ANC simply ignored him.
And so, Africa’s oldest liberation movement turns 102 on Wednesday. It is a momentous occasion for the organisation with a proud history and iconic leaders to still be going strong and enjoying the support of the majority of South Africans. While the current leaders mark the occasion with celebratory rallies, doubling as campaign events, many people will be looking on from the outside, mourning for days gone by when the ANC was a home for all.
Perhaps it is normal for any political organisation to find itself unable to keep its soul once it gets touched by the spoils of uninterrupted power. It has happened many times before, and it will happen many times in the future. What is surprising, though, is how history always fails to teach the ones at the top. At 102, the ANC is drifting into the darkness, increasingly disconnected from the lives and reality of those they are sworn to protect: the masses that continue to exist in the tough reality and fearing a hopeless future. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
Lieutenant General Sean Tshabalala died of a broken heart. His body was found in his locked office at the police headquarters in Pretoria on Christmas Eve. Tributes at his memorial service and funeral tell the story of a once proud Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) soldier and one of the first line of VIP protectors when the ANC returned from exile, withering in a state of depression after being marginalised by the police management.
A furore erupted after Tshabalala’s funeral where former national police commissioner Bheki Cele revealed a list of 18 names of former MK combatants serving or formerly in the South African Police Service who were allegedly on a target list, presumably of the current national commissioner Riah Phiyega and her political bosses. Tshabalala’s name allegedly topped the list. His friends and former colleagues had earlier told of Tshabalala’s heartbreak at being shifted sideways from Protection and Security Services division of the police to the information technology division and later to a non-job at the police inspectorate.
Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa acted swiftly to meet with some of the people on the list and dismiss the claims as rubbish. Phiyega denied knowledge of the list. However, the perception exists that experienced ANC and MK members were being steadily hounded out of the security services since President Jacob Zuma won power at the ANC’s Polokwane conference.
There has been a deluge of early retirements and resignations from the Department of State Security, the military and the SAPS in recent years, most of which involved people who served in MK or ANC intelligence structures during the liberation struggle. Some of these people went into exile in their teenage years, some were involved in dangerous intelligence missions at great personal cost, some were trained in the camps under the ANC’s most iconic leaders.
Their departure from the security services has been a curious phenomenon. Zuma, formerly head of intelligence in the ANC, has always seen security and intelligence as high priority. But after the recall of Thabo Mbeki, it would seem that paranoia set in and people perceived to be loyal to the former president were systematically weeded out, irrespective of their skills, service to their country with distinction or role in the liberation struggle.
Cele is well aware of the purge because he was instrumental in implementing it while he was national commissioner. In one case, he called a high-ranking officer who was on a mission abroad immediately back to the country and informed him he was being transferred to another job. It did not take long for the officer to resign from the police service. Cele was also the one who transferred Tshabalala out of the Protection and Security Services division.
Tshabalala, unlike most of his comrades, stuck it out in the police despite being sidelined – a decision which probably eventually cost him his life. Shortly before his death, Tshabalala had received a letter transferring him to the Northern Cape province (viewed as the Siberia of deployments), and this is possibly the reason his depression became too much to bear.
Tshabalala is just one of many of people whose lives have been destroyed by the organisation they dedicated their lives to. Others have been able to move on with their lives but their disillusionment with the ANC is profound. For many of them, the ANC was not just a political organisation but a way of life, a reason for being. To see the organisation self-destruct is worse than a family feud or divorce because they had chosen the ANC over their families and their own safety when they joined the struggle.
There are various explanations for the purge. The first is that ANC people in the security services would refuse to use state institutions to fight power battles in the party. There is always the risk that loyalty to the ANC would outweigh loyalty to the individual in power, which could lead to instructions being ignored, undermined or disclosed. The theory goes that this is why Zuma and Mthethwa saw use in Richard Mdluli – as a person who worked for the apartheid era police, he has no affiliation to the ANC and is loyal only to those who pay his salary.
The second theory is that the security ministers felt threatened by the seniority, knowledge and experience of the commanders serving under them. In terms of ANC hierarchy, many of the officials were senior to the current batch of ministers and this was a source of tension, particularly when there were differences of opinion on operational issues. But while there might have been underlying resentment, it would be strange if Zuma allowed the security services to be depleted of loyal and experienced officials on the basis of his ministers' inferiority complexes.
The third theory is more complex. A former senior member of the security services says the success of South Africa’s transition was partly due to the fact that security of the country was in the hands of the “doves”.
“This ensured that national security was based on human security. Now the focus is on state security. For the first time, security is now in the hands of the ‘hawks’, just like during the Apartheid era when the hawks saw a red (communists) under every bed. So we have come full circle with the hawks again in charge,” he said.
He said the current crop of hawks are fixated on external threats to the country, such as from foreign governments, imperialist forces and lobby groups, and they trade on conspiracy theories. “The real threats to the country are unemployment, inequality and poverty, and our failure to deliver. But anyone who puts forward that view is hounded out, marginalised or made redundant.
“They do not want to hear about our own failures; they prefer nonsensical stories about plots against the president, like what was in the Mdluli report. The plot is the failure of delivery. That is the biggest threat to national security,” the retired member said.
The theory is consistent with how the state and ANC views the personal security of the president and the state as interchangeable – as exemplified by the handling of the issue of the security upgrades at Zuma’s Nkandla estate. But the retired security official says people often overlook how the Constitution defines the governing principles around national security: “National security must reflect the resolve of South Africans, as individuals and as a nation, to live as equals, to live in peace and harmony, to be free from fear and want and to seek a better life”.
The Constitution says nothing about the President and his Cabinet receiving special protection in their homes and cars as a principle of national security but dictates that ordinary people should be “free from fear”. It would appear that the organisation which drafted this Constitution has these days lost sight of these principles.
To the ANC at 102, it would seem, people, even their most experienced and dedicated comrades, are expendable. It has become a pattern that factional battles need to be fought till one group is hounded out and the organisation belongs only to the victors. From branch to national level, battles are fought for dominance of leadership positions, and those who lose are treated as pariahs and purged from positions in the state.
At the ANC national conferences, voting for the top six positions and the national executive committee takes place according to slates, dependent only according to loyalty to those who control the faction. As a result, the organisation is controlled by the winning faction and those outside the faction are marginalised, irrespective of their seniority, credentials or what they have to offer the party or the country.
Both Mbeki and Zuma appear to believe that the best way to protect their presidencies is to surround themselves with loyalists who tell them what they want to hear and fight off dissent on their behalf. It is this very tendency which builds resentment in the ANC and leads bad decision-making.
As the ANC celebrates its 102nd anniversary, it is also in the process of compiling its lists of representatives to serve in Parliament and the provincial legislatures. The list process is also likely to be defined by factional politics, with loyalists able to get higher on the lists and stand a better chance of becoming a member of Parliament. Those who refrain from factional battles or who campaigned against Zuma’s second term at the ANC’s Mangaung conference are less likely to be elected.
But there are also a number of people who are declining nomination because they cannot in good conscience agree to serve the ANC in its current state. “It is a bloody nightmare for us,” said one high-ranking member who has declined nomination.
He said if the party was serious about its future and that of the country, they would ask the president and other ANC leaders steeped in scandal to step aside. “But in the NEC, few can stand up and impose their integrity. The rest will be found wanting themselves,” he said.
Others, however, believe that they should remain in the fold and the ANC will self correct at its next conference in 2017. But what is the likelihood of it and how much damage would have been done by then? With the organisation a shadow of its former self now, what will it look like with four years still to go under the current leadership?
Despite the many problems in the ANC, there are only few people who are able to speak up and confront the issues besetting the organisation. The leadership seems to believe that the organisation is resilient and can withstand the scandals and strife. And those who do speak out are treated as disgruntled elements that should be disregarded. ANC and South African Communist Party veteran Ronnie Kasrils wrote in The Guardian last year: “The ANC's soul needs to be restored; its traditional values and culture of service reinstated. The pact with the devil needs to be broken”.
The ANC simply ignored him.
And so, Africa’s oldest liberation movement turns 102 on Wednesday. It is a momentous occasion for the organisation with a proud history and iconic leaders to still be going strong and enjoying the support of the majority of South Africans. While the current leaders mark the occasion with celebratory rallies, doubling as campaign events, many people will be looking on from the outside, mourning for days gone by when the ANC was a home for all.
Perhaps it is normal for any political organisation to find itself unable to keep its soul once it gets touched by the spoils of uninterrupted power. It has happened many times before, and it will happen many times in the future. What is surprising, though, is how history always fails to teach the ones at the top. At 102, the ANC is drifting into the darkness, increasingly disconnected from the lives and reality of those they are sworn to protect: the masses that continue to exist in the tough reality and fearing a hopeless future. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
How JPMorgan shorted Madoff
Big banks may not be evil. But what's becoming increasingly clear is that the bigger they are, the more evil stuff they are involved with.
Hidden in the document detailing Tuesday's settlement between the Department of Justice and JPMorgan Chase over Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was this nugget: JPMorgan was essentially shorting Madoff.
In other words, it wasn't only that JPMorgan (JPM) ignored and failed to report to authorities the numerous red flags its employees encountered over the 20 years it served as the main banker to the largest financial fraud in history. To be sure, JPMorgan did that. But on top of that, the bank was actually betting that Madoff was a fraud, and presumably expecting to collect when others found out.
Given that fact, it's not much of a surprise that JPMorgan decided to settle for $1.7 billion rather than fight the charges.
JPMorgan is essentially being penalized for being Madoff's banker. But the big bank did a lot of business with Madoff over the years. It had the Madoff funds' main bank account. It also invested in Madoff through feeder funds. And it created derivatives that it sold to people who couldn't get into a Madoff fund but still wanted to profit from the performance of Madoff's hedge fund. The derivatives were supposed to rise and fall with Madoff's performance. But since it was all faked, the derivatives only rose. And people wanted them.
That last bit is how JPMorgan got into the messy business of shorting Madoff, which actually was the right call, but now looks pretty bad.
It is normally very hard to short a hedge fund. Most don't have shares that trade. And when they do, they are for the parent company and not the fund. But when you create a derivative based on a hedge fund, as JPMorgan did, you create the opportunity for a short. The buyer of the derivative is going "long," and the seller is going "short." And in this case, it was JPMorgan that was the seller of Madoff-linked derivatives, at one point as much as a few hundred million.
For a time, JPMorgan hedged its bet, in part by putting some of the bank's own money into Madoff-related funds. But in the fall of 2008, JPMorgan suddenly pulled nearly 80% of that money out. That left it essentially short Madoff.
But it didn't get its short right either. According to the settlement, JPMorgan bankers were worried that they were "exposed to substantial risk in the event that Madoff Securities continue to perform successfully." Madoff, even if it was a fraud, could continue to fake his returns for a while longer. That would mean losses for JPMorgan's short position.
So they eventually decided just to get out of Madoff completely. In late 2008, the bank spent nearly $75 million canceling all the equity derivatives it had left related to Madoff, except for $5 million. It held onto that position even after finally reporting in mid-October 2008 to British authorities that it feared Madoff was a fraud.
In late November 2008, just two weeks before Bernie was arrested, JPMorgan, according to the Justice Department's settlement, got an offer to rip up that last $5 million short bet against Madoff. The bank declined, with a trader replying that they thought the short bet was "as of today ... very valuable."
That was the best Madoff trade JPMorgan made; that is, until Tuesday.
Source: CNN Money
Hidden in the document detailing Tuesday's settlement between the Department of Justice and JPMorgan Chase over Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was this nugget: JPMorgan was essentially shorting Madoff.
In other words, it wasn't only that JPMorgan (JPM) ignored and failed to report to authorities the numerous red flags its employees encountered over the 20 years it served as the main banker to the largest financial fraud in history. To be sure, JPMorgan did that. But on top of that, the bank was actually betting that Madoff was a fraud, and presumably expecting to collect when others found out.
Given that fact, it's not much of a surprise that JPMorgan decided to settle for $1.7 billion rather than fight the charges.
JPMorgan is essentially being penalized for being Madoff's banker. But the big bank did a lot of business with Madoff over the years. It had the Madoff funds' main bank account. It also invested in Madoff through feeder funds. And it created derivatives that it sold to people who couldn't get into a Madoff fund but still wanted to profit from the performance of Madoff's hedge fund. The derivatives were supposed to rise and fall with Madoff's performance. But since it was all faked, the derivatives only rose. And people wanted them.
That last bit is how JPMorgan got into the messy business of shorting Madoff, which actually was the right call, but now looks pretty bad.
It is normally very hard to short a hedge fund. Most don't have shares that trade. And when they do, they are for the parent company and not the fund. But when you create a derivative based on a hedge fund, as JPMorgan did, you create the opportunity for a short. The buyer of the derivative is going "long," and the seller is going "short." And in this case, it was JPMorgan that was the seller of Madoff-linked derivatives, at one point as much as a few hundred million.
For a time, JPMorgan hedged its bet, in part by putting some of the bank's own money into Madoff-related funds. But in the fall of 2008, JPMorgan suddenly pulled nearly 80% of that money out. That left it essentially short Madoff.
But it didn't get its short right either. According to the settlement, JPMorgan bankers were worried that they were "exposed to substantial risk in the event that Madoff Securities continue to perform successfully." Madoff, even if it was a fraud, could continue to fake his returns for a while longer. That would mean losses for JPMorgan's short position.
So they eventually decided just to get out of Madoff completely. In late 2008, the bank spent nearly $75 million canceling all the equity derivatives it had left related to Madoff, except for $5 million. It held onto that position even after finally reporting in mid-October 2008 to British authorities that it feared Madoff was a fraud.
In late November 2008, just two weeks before Bernie was arrested, JPMorgan, according to the Justice Department's settlement, got an offer to rip up that last $5 million short bet against Madoff. The bank declined, with a trader replying that they thought the short bet was "as of today ... very valuable."
That was the best Madoff trade JPMorgan made; that is, until Tuesday.
Source: CNN Money
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Why the matric pass rate is not a reliable benchmark of education quality
Jacob Zuma has hailed the matric pass rate as a “significant improvement”. But is the education system “on the right track”? As we discovered, matric results are not a reliable barometer of education quality.
For the fifth year in a row, South Africa’s education authorities have announced dramatic improvements in the matric pass rate.
“[W]e are sending a strong message that basic education under the new administration has the capacity to improve the quality of education in South Africa,” Angie Motshekga, the Minister of Basic Education, said this week as she made the announcement.
“[T]his is the best matric class since 1994,” South African president Jacob Zuma enthused. “We are…pleased to note this consistently upward trend in the matric results, with the pass rate going from 62.6% in 2008, dipping to 60.6% in 2009, only to rise to 67.8% in 2010, 70.2% in 2011 and 73.9% in 2012.” (Note: It hasn’t been entirely consistent. As Zuma himself pointed out, the pass rate fell by two percent in 2009)
A ‘massive fraud’
South African children attend school on March 13, 2009 under a tree in the Eastern Cape village of Libode. Others have been far less complimentary.
In a scathing opinion piece, Jonathan Jansen, the vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State and a prominent commentator on education, wrote that the country’s education system was a “massive fraud”.
Government “wrongly, but conveniently” used the matric results as “a barometer of the state of the school system” when all other data “reveal we have been stagnating, or doing worse”, Jansen argued.
The opposition Democratic Alliance has called on Motshekga to “institute a full-scale independent audit of the 2013 results”, citing concerns over the quality of the markers, the process of moderation and the high dropout rate.
‘On the right track’
While conceding that there is “still a lot of work that needs to be done”, Motshekga remains adamant that education in South Africa is on the “right track”.
Addressing a business briefing hosted by The New Age newspaper yesterday, Motshekga said that the pass rate – which has improved from 60.9% in 2009 to 78.2% in 2013 – is “an indication that indeed the system is on the right track”.
She also claimed that “[t]here is overwhelming evidence that we are improving learner performance”.
Is the system really on the right path? And has the quality of education in South Africa improved along with the pass rate?
Minister contradicted by her own department
South African Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga with President Jacob Zuma at the European Union headquarters in Brussels. For starters, Motshekga’s claim that the increase in the pass rate “is an indication that indeed the system is on the right track” is contradicted by her own department.
The department of basic education states on its website that “[c]ontrary to popular belief, the matric pass rate on its own is not a good measure of academic achievement in the schooling system, nor was the pass rate ever designed for this”. Rather, the pass rate serves as a “measure of the opportunities open to our youths”.
It goes on to add: “Comparing pass rates in different years is in fact not like comparing apples to apples… Examinations like our matric are simply not designed to compare the performance of the schooling system across years. They are designed to test whether the individual learner qualifies for a certificate, based on the subjects the learner has chosen.”
The department suggests that “[i]f one wants to compare how well the system is doing, one should turn to testing systems like the international TIMSS and SACMEQ programmes, where South Africa has participated for some years.”
High dropout rate skews results
A further flaw in using the matric pass rate as a barometer of national performance is that thousands of school pupils drop out long before they reach their final year. The dropout rate is not taken into account in the final pass rate.
For example, when the 2013 matric class started grade one in 2002, there were 1,261,827 pupils. But by the time they came to sit for their final exams, their numbers had fallen to 562,112.
Nicholas Spaull, a researcher at Stellenbosch University who focuses on primary education, says that “students are pushed through the system until grade 10, and then schools realise that if they put these kids through, they are not going to pass grade 12”.
“Getting low pass rates in matric is problematic for schools, so they weed out these students.”
The ‘culling process’
A group of schoolchildren in central Pretoria. Photo: AFP/Alexander JoeThe matric rate is thus bumped up and gives no indication of how the 50% that fall by the wayside are doing. Jansen, in his opinion piece, called it a “culling process” that has left behind half a million people with little or no proper education.
Mary Metcalfe, former head of the Wits University School of Education and a former provincial government minister for education in South Africa’s Gauteng province, echoes these concerns. “[The pass rate] doesn’t tell us about the large number of children who didn’t make matric, who didn’t pass grade ten, who didn’t pass grade 11 and who failed at grade 12,” she said.
The dropout rate has had a significant impact. A 2011 report revealed that “60% of youths are left with no qualification at all beyond the Grade 9 level”.
Pupils are choosing easier subjects
Whether as a result of school pressure or individual choice, pupils are increasingly taking easier subjects.
In 2010, 263,034 full-time pupils wrote mathematics. This decreased to 241,509 pupils in 2013. Conversely, numbers of full-time pupils writing mathematical literacy, the easier subject, increased from 280,836 in 2010 to 324,097 in 2013.
The department of basic education acknowledges the impact this has on the final pass rate. “A key factor is the spread of learners across subjects. When this changes, the pass rate can change, even if performance in individual subjects remains the same. In particular, if learners move to easier subjects, more learners pass.”
Good performances skew the average
The matric results also conceal the underperformance of the majority of pupils who write the examination. Strong performances in a minority of schools will mask the poor performance of the majority of schools that are judged as dysfunctional.
This skews the average, and does not present a true reflection of the mean for most pupils. This point was also highlighted in Jansen’s criticism of the matric results. “[I]f you removed the top 20% of schools – mainly former white, privileged schools – from the national averages, then a very dark picture emerges of a mainly black and poor school system performing far below what the combined results show,” he wrote.
Conclusion – Matric pass rate doesn’t mean education is on the right track
The improvement in the matric pass rate is good news for those concerned, but it is not a sign that the “system is on the right track”, nor that the quality of the education system is improving. An Africa Check report looking at claims made about the 2012 matric results came to the same conclusions.
The matric results are not a good measure of academic achievement in the education system. As the department has acknowledged, they are not designed for yearly comparison or to be a reflection of academic achievement in the education system. The good performance of a minority of schools can also skew the results, as can pupils electing to take easier subjects.
The results only account for about half of those who entered school together. South Africa’s high dropout rate means that many young people will never get the chance to write their matric examinations, let alone pass them.
Source: Africa Check
For the fifth year in a row, South Africa’s education authorities have announced dramatic improvements in the matric pass rate.
“[W]e are sending a strong message that basic education under the new administration has the capacity to improve the quality of education in South Africa,” Angie Motshekga, the Minister of Basic Education, said this week as she made the announcement.
“[T]his is the best matric class since 1994,” South African president Jacob Zuma enthused. “We are…pleased to note this consistently upward trend in the matric results, with the pass rate going from 62.6% in 2008, dipping to 60.6% in 2009, only to rise to 67.8% in 2010, 70.2% in 2011 and 73.9% in 2012.” (Note: It hasn’t been entirely consistent. As Zuma himself pointed out, the pass rate fell by two percent in 2009)
A ‘massive fraud’
South African children attend school on March 13, 2009 under a tree in the Eastern Cape village of Libode. Others have been far less complimentary.
In a scathing opinion piece, Jonathan Jansen, the vice-chancellor of the University of the Free State and a prominent commentator on education, wrote that the country’s education system was a “massive fraud”.
Government “wrongly, but conveniently” used the matric results as “a barometer of the state of the school system” when all other data “reveal we have been stagnating, or doing worse”, Jansen argued.
The opposition Democratic Alliance has called on Motshekga to “institute a full-scale independent audit of the 2013 results”, citing concerns over the quality of the markers, the process of moderation and the high dropout rate.
‘On the right track’
While conceding that there is “still a lot of work that needs to be done”, Motshekga remains adamant that education in South Africa is on the “right track”.
Addressing a business briefing hosted by The New Age newspaper yesterday, Motshekga said that the pass rate – which has improved from 60.9% in 2009 to 78.2% in 2013 – is “an indication that indeed the system is on the right track”.
She also claimed that “[t]here is overwhelming evidence that we are improving learner performance”.
Is the system really on the right path? And has the quality of education in South Africa improved along with the pass rate?
Minister contradicted by her own department
South African Basic Education Minister Angie Motshekga with President Jacob Zuma at the European Union headquarters in Brussels. For starters, Motshekga’s claim that the increase in the pass rate “is an indication that indeed the system is on the right track” is contradicted by her own department.
The department of basic education states on its website that “[c]ontrary to popular belief, the matric pass rate on its own is not a good measure of academic achievement in the schooling system, nor was the pass rate ever designed for this”. Rather, the pass rate serves as a “measure of the opportunities open to our youths”.
It goes on to add: “Comparing pass rates in different years is in fact not like comparing apples to apples… Examinations like our matric are simply not designed to compare the performance of the schooling system across years. They are designed to test whether the individual learner qualifies for a certificate, based on the subjects the learner has chosen.”
The department suggests that “[i]f one wants to compare how well the system is doing, one should turn to testing systems like the international TIMSS and SACMEQ programmes, where South Africa has participated for some years.”
High dropout rate skews results
A further flaw in using the matric pass rate as a barometer of national performance is that thousands of school pupils drop out long before they reach their final year. The dropout rate is not taken into account in the final pass rate.
For example, when the 2013 matric class started grade one in 2002, there were 1,261,827 pupils. But by the time they came to sit for their final exams, their numbers had fallen to 562,112.
Nicholas Spaull, a researcher at Stellenbosch University who focuses on primary education, says that “students are pushed through the system until grade 10, and then schools realise that if they put these kids through, they are not going to pass grade 12”.
“Getting low pass rates in matric is problematic for schools, so they weed out these students.”
The ‘culling process’
A group of schoolchildren in central Pretoria. Photo: AFP/Alexander JoeThe matric rate is thus bumped up and gives no indication of how the 50% that fall by the wayside are doing. Jansen, in his opinion piece, called it a “culling process” that has left behind half a million people with little or no proper education.
Mary Metcalfe, former head of the Wits University School of Education and a former provincial government minister for education in South Africa’s Gauteng province, echoes these concerns. “[The pass rate] doesn’t tell us about the large number of children who didn’t make matric, who didn’t pass grade ten, who didn’t pass grade 11 and who failed at grade 12,” she said.
The dropout rate has had a significant impact. A 2011 report revealed that “60% of youths are left with no qualification at all beyond the Grade 9 level”.
Pupils are choosing easier subjects
Whether as a result of school pressure or individual choice, pupils are increasingly taking easier subjects.
In 2010, 263,034 full-time pupils wrote mathematics. This decreased to 241,509 pupils in 2013. Conversely, numbers of full-time pupils writing mathematical literacy, the easier subject, increased from 280,836 in 2010 to 324,097 in 2013.
The department of basic education acknowledges the impact this has on the final pass rate. “A key factor is the spread of learners across subjects. When this changes, the pass rate can change, even if performance in individual subjects remains the same. In particular, if learners move to easier subjects, more learners pass.”
Good performances skew the average
The matric results also conceal the underperformance of the majority of pupils who write the examination. Strong performances in a minority of schools will mask the poor performance of the majority of schools that are judged as dysfunctional.
This skews the average, and does not present a true reflection of the mean for most pupils. This point was also highlighted in Jansen’s criticism of the matric results. “[I]f you removed the top 20% of schools – mainly former white, privileged schools – from the national averages, then a very dark picture emerges of a mainly black and poor school system performing far below what the combined results show,” he wrote.
Conclusion – Matric pass rate doesn’t mean education is on the right track
The improvement in the matric pass rate is good news for those concerned, but it is not a sign that the “system is on the right track”, nor that the quality of the education system is improving. An Africa Check report looking at claims made about the 2012 matric results came to the same conclusions.
The matric results are not a good measure of academic achievement in the education system. As the department has acknowledged, they are not designed for yearly comparison or to be a reflection of academic achievement in the education system. The good performance of a minority of schools can also skew the results, as can pupils electing to take easier subjects.
The results only account for about half of those who entered school together. South Africa’s high dropout rate means that many young people will never get the chance to write their matric examinations, let alone pass them.
Source: Africa Check
Africa Loses Billions in Potential Trade Earnings, Falls Short of Vast Promise in Cross-Border Business
Press Release No:2012/239/AFR
Washington, February 7, 2012 – With African leaders now calling for a continental free trade area by 2017 to boost trade within the continent, a new World Bank report shows how African countries are losing out on billions of dollars in potential trade earnings every year because of high trade barriers with neighboring countries, and that it is easier for Africa to trade with the rest of the world than with itself.
According to the new report―De-Fragmenting Africa: Deepening Regional Trade Integration in Goods and Services―regional fragmentation could become even more costly for the continent with new World Bank forecasts suggesting that economic slowdown in the Eurozone could shave Africa’s growth by up to 1.3 percentage points this year. As the authors write, “while uncertainty surrounds the global economy and stagnation is likely to continue in traditional markets in Europe and North America, enormous opportunities for cross-border trade within Africa in food products, basic manufactures and services remain unexploited.”
The reports says this situation deprives the continent of new sources of economic growth, new jobs, and sharply falling poverty, factors which accompanied significant trade integration in East Asia and other regions. The cross-border production networks that have spurred economic dynamism in other regions, especially East Asia, have yet to materialize in Africa.
“It is clear that Africa is not reaching its potential for regional trade, despite the fact that its benefits are enormous—they create larger markets, help countries diversify their economies, reduce costs, improve productivity and help reduce poverty.” says Obiageli "Oby" Ezekwesili, The World Bank’s Vice President for Africa, and a former Nigerian Minister of Extractive Industries. “Yet trade and non-trade barriers remain significant and fall most heavily and disproportionately on poor traders, most of whom are women. African leaders must now back aspiration with action and work together to align the policies, institutions and investments needed to unblock these barriers and to create a dynamic regional market on a scale worthy of Africa’s one billion people and its roughly $2 trillion economy."
In a special World Bank video produced for the report, women traders on the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and neighboring countries in the Great Lakes region describe how they routinely encounter violence, threats, demands for bribes, and sexual harassment, at the hands of the large numbers of customs and other government officials at the border. As one egg and sugar trader from Goma says on the video: “I buy my eggs in Rwanda; as soon as I cross to Congo I give one egg to every official who asks me. Some days I give away more than 30 eggs!”
Barriers blunt trade in goods as well as services
The report says that until the onset of the financial crisis, most sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries grew rapidly and often at much higher rates than the world average. Economic growth in these countries was robust and driven by the boom in commodity prices, which led to very high growth in export values, especially for minerals, to new fast-growing markets such as India and China.
While exports have grown strongly over the last decade, and the region’s trade has recovered well from the global crisis, the impact on unemployment and poverty has been disappointing in many countries. Unemployment remains around 24 percent in South Africa. In Tanzania, extreme income-poverty appears to have remained broadly constant at around 35 percent of the population. This shows that export growth has typically been fueled by a small number of mineral and primary products with limited impacts on the wider economy and that formal sectors remain small in many countries.
As a result, the report suggests that Africa will have to diversify its exports from depending solely on precious metals and other commodities and encourage more people to trade goods and professional services in accounting, law, education, healthcare, among others. The region’s large number of young people also calls for significant numbers of new jobs, intensive trade, and growth.
“Imagine the benefits of allowing African doctors, nurses, teacher, engineers and lawyers to practice anywhere in the continent, but responsibility for making this happen lies with countries first and foremost,” says Marcelo Giugale, the World Bank’s Africa Director for Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. “The final prize is clear: helping Africans trade goods and services with each other. Few contributions carry more development power than that.”
Changes are needed in three areas
To escape the current straightjacket of trade fragmentation, the report says that African leaders, need to pursue changes in three key areas.
1. Improving cross-border trade, especially by small poor traders, many of whom are women, by simplifying border procedures, limiting the number of agencies at the border and increasing the professionalism of officials, supporting traders associations, improving the flow of information on market opportunities, and assisting in the spread of new technologies such as cross-border mobile banking that improve access to finance.
2. Removing a range of non-tariff barriers to trade, such as restrictive rules of origin, import and export bans, and onerous and costly import and export licensing procedures
3. Reforming regulations and immigration rules that limit the substantial potential for cross-border trade and investment in services.
In one notable example of trade barriers, report co-editors Paul Brenton and Gozde Isik of the World Bank describe how the South African supermarket chain Shoprite spends US$20,000 a week on import permits to distribute meat, milk, and plant-based goods to its stores in Zambia alone. For all countries it operates in, approximately 100 (single entry) import permits are applied for every week; this can rise up to 300 per week in peak periods. As a result of these and other requirements, there can be up to 1,600 documents accompanying each truck Shoprite sends with a load that crosses a border in the region.
As the co-editors write, “lack of coordination across government ministries and regulatory authorities also causes significant delays, particularly in authorizing trade for new products. Another South African retailer took three years to get permission to export processed beef and pork from South Africa to Zambia.”
How the World Bank supports regional integration
Trade and regional integration are core elements of the Bank’s new Africa strategy, launched in March 2011, to help countries create opportunities for their transformation and sustained growth. The Bank has doubled its investment in regional integration from US$2.1 billion in 2008 to US$4.2 billion in July 2011, and it will rise to $5.7 billion by July 2012.
Source: World Bank
Washington, February 7, 2012 – With African leaders now calling for a continental free trade area by 2017 to boost trade within the continent, a new World Bank report shows how African countries are losing out on billions of dollars in potential trade earnings every year because of high trade barriers with neighboring countries, and that it is easier for Africa to trade with the rest of the world than with itself.
According to the new report―De-Fragmenting Africa: Deepening Regional Trade Integration in Goods and Services―regional fragmentation could become even more costly for the continent with new World Bank forecasts suggesting that economic slowdown in the Eurozone could shave Africa’s growth by up to 1.3 percentage points this year. As the authors write, “while uncertainty surrounds the global economy and stagnation is likely to continue in traditional markets in Europe and North America, enormous opportunities for cross-border trade within Africa in food products, basic manufactures and services remain unexploited.”
The reports says this situation deprives the continent of new sources of economic growth, new jobs, and sharply falling poverty, factors which accompanied significant trade integration in East Asia and other regions. The cross-border production networks that have spurred economic dynamism in other regions, especially East Asia, have yet to materialize in Africa.
“It is clear that Africa is not reaching its potential for regional trade, despite the fact that its benefits are enormous—they create larger markets, help countries diversify their economies, reduce costs, improve productivity and help reduce poverty.” says Obiageli "Oby" Ezekwesili, The World Bank’s Vice President for Africa, and a former Nigerian Minister of Extractive Industries. “Yet trade and non-trade barriers remain significant and fall most heavily and disproportionately on poor traders, most of whom are women. African leaders must now back aspiration with action and work together to align the policies, institutions and investments needed to unblock these barriers and to create a dynamic regional market on a scale worthy of Africa’s one billion people and its roughly $2 trillion economy."
In a special World Bank video produced for the report, women traders on the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and neighboring countries in the Great Lakes region describe how they routinely encounter violence, threats, demands for bribes, and sexual harassment, at the hands of the large numbers of customs and other government officials at the border. As one egg and sugar trader from Goma says on the video: “I buy my eggs in Rwanda; as soon as I cross to Congo I give one egg to every official who asks me. Some days I give away more than 30 eggs!”
Barriers blunt trade in goods as well as services
The report says that until the onset of the financial crisis, most sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries grew rapidly and often at much higher rates than the world average. Economic growth in these countries was robust and driven by the boom in commodity prices, which led to very high growth in export values, especially for minerals, to new fast-growing markets such as India and China.
While exports have grown strongly over the last decade, and the region’s trade has recovered well from the global crisis, the impact on unemployment and poverty has been disappointing in many countries. Unemployment remains around 24 percent in South Africa. In Tanzania, extreme income-poverty appears to have remained broadly constant at around 35 percent of the population. This shows that export growth has typically been fueled by a small number of mineral and primary products with limited impacts on the wider economy and that formal sectors remain small in many countries.
As a result, the report suggests that Africa will have to diversify its exports from depending solely on precious metals and other commodities and encourage more people to trade goods and professional services in accounting, law, education, healthcare, among others. The region’s large number of young people also calls for significant numbers of new jobs, intensive trade, and growth.
“Imagine the benefits of allowing African doctors, nurses, teacher, engineers and lawyers to practice anywhere in the continent, but responsibility for making this happen lies with countries first and foremost,” says Marcelo Giugale, the World Bank’s Africa Director for Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. “The final prize is clear: helping Africans trade goods and services with each other. Few contributions carry more development power than that.”
Changes are needed in three areas
To escape the current straightjacket of trade fragmentation, the report says that African leaders, need to pursue changes in three key areas.
1. Improving cross-border trade, especially by small poor traders, many of whom are women, by simplifying border procedures, limiting the number of agencies at the border and increasing the professionalism of officials, supporting traders associations, improving the flow of information on market opportunities, and assisting in the spread of new technologies such as cross-border mobile banking that improve access to finance.
2. Removing a range of non-tariff barriers to trade, such as restrictive rules of origin, import and export bans, and onerous and costly import and export licensing procedures
3. Reforming regulations and immigration rules that limit the substantial potential for cross-border trade and investment in services.
In one notable example of trade barriers, report co-editors Paul Brenton and Gozde Isik of the World Bank describe how the South African supermarket chain Shoprite spends US$20,000 a week on import permits to distribute meat, milk, and plant-based goods to its stores in Zambia alone. For all countries it operates in, approximately 100 (single entry) import permits are applied for every week; this can rise up to 300 per week in peak periods. As a result of these and other requirements, there can be up to 1,600 documents accompanying each truck Shoprite sends with a load that crosses a border in the region.
As the co-editors write, “lack of coordination across government ministries and regulatory authorities also causes significant delays, particularly in authorizing trade for new products. Another South African retailer took three years to get permission to export processed beef and pork from South Africa to Zambia.”
How the World Bank supports regional integration
Trade and regional integration are core elements of the Bank’s new Africa strategy, launched in March 2011, to help countries create opportunities for their transformation and sustained growth. The Bank has doubled its investment in regional integration from US$2.1 billion in 2008 to US$4.2 billion in July 2011, and it will rise to $5.7 billion by July 2012.
Source: World Bank
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
The Foreclosure Crisis
What happened to all the homes foreclosed on when the housing bubble burst? Millions of people lost their homes and most of their life savings when the value of their homes plummeted during the most recent financial collapse. Many found they could not keep up with mortgage payments, either because they lost their jobs during the recession or because they were overextended financially for some other reason. Some would say many never should have been offered the loans in the first place. The fact remains that many people went from pursuing the “American Dream” of home ownership to struggling just to keep a roof over their heads by renting in a very short span of time.
The banks lost tons of money on loans that would never be paid in full, but they did have something very tangible in place of the money – the property. The real estate still belonged to them. Home buyers were left with nothing after pouring thousands of dollars into the effort to purchase a home, only to be turned out when they simply did not have the resources to complete the transaction. The banks were promptly bailed out by the taxpayers, despite questionable lending practices that ultimately resulted in sizable settlements. Little of the proceeds of these settlements ultimately made it into the hands of the people actually wronged. Some of the states used large chunks of the settlement money to fill budget holes instead of compensating former homeowners for their losses.
Many contend that being able to just pay some money, often obtained by questionable means to begin with, without admitting any guilt on the part of the lending institutions or any of their executives was inadequate punishment for the serious nature of the wrongs perpetrated. That the companies were willing to spend that much money to avoid criminal prosecution or admission of any guilt indicates our government may have let them off too lightly. Certainly many of those most affectedly believe that is the case.
The result of all the foreclosure activity was the availability of enormous numbers of homes to be resold, often in bulk, for vastly reduced prices. Who better to step into the void created by the individuals forced into foreclosure than large institutional buyers – hedge funds and other private equity companies capable of raising large amounts of capital to invest in the family home market. This happened to a large degree. particularly in areas of the country where the housing market became the most depressed in terms of property values. The idea was often to turn these properties into rental units until such time as property values returned to levels that would allow them to be sold at a tidy profit. The result could then end up being that people who had lost their homes to foreclosure would end up renting similar property from one of these large institutional owners. They would have a place to live, but be unable to accumulate any equity in the property to be used in the future as a cushion against possible financial difficulties, or to pass on to heirs.
In effect, this trend has resulted in even further redistribution of wealth in this country upward – from the poor and particularly the middle working class people to the wealthy. Investors in private equity companies and hedge funds on this scale do not, for the most part, supplement their low wage incomes with food stamps or social security checks. People who live from paycheck to paycheck (believe me, there are many more of us than the Wall Street crowd would like us to believe) do not have spare change to put into a hedge fund waiting for the profits to start rolling in.
So the banks either get their money back from the bailout, or from the proceeds from reselling the repossessed real estate. The large investors get their money back with a profit for just collecting rent or repairing and reselling the properties. The only people who have little or nothing to show for their efforts are those who toiled to earn enough money to start trying to purchase a home, only to see it all evaporate in a sudden economic downturn. Their money ended up in the hands of the flimflam artists who sold them the rotten loans in the first place, along with those wealthy enough to buy the properties at rock bottom prices and further profit from them upon a resurgence in the real estate market.
Something is drastically wrong with a system such as ours which enables a very small percentage of the population to profit greatly at the expense of so many more others. The notion that only minimal amounts of money (in terms of the enormous wealth gained in the process) are seen by the powers that be to be adequate recompense for the misery created by these transactions is appalling. These companies and people produced far more economic damage to far more people than Bernie Madoff ever dreamed of. He was sentenced to 150 years in prison. They received bonuses. Attempts begun at effectively regulating the responsible financial institutions to ensure that a repeat performance can be avoided have been stymied at every turn by politicians, many of whom are beholden to the very interests they claim to want to regulate.
Some say we have the best government money can buy. It certainly serves the moneyed interests far better than rest of us. There are some elected officials willing to stand up to them and fight for rest of us. Unfortunately, they are currently a small minority in Congress and the legislatures of most states. Until we get effective regulation of the financial services industry to prevent future robbery of this sort, the economic inequality and impoverishment of ever more members of our society will continue. We need to back those who are willing to stand up for us and increase their numbers and influence in our government at every opportunity. Never again should this sort of disaster be allowed to be perpetrated on such a large segment of the American people with absolutely no accountability on the part of those responsible for it. Never again should the victims (in this case, the American taxpayers) be held responsible for financing this sort of economic chicanery, while those responsible stash their take in tax shelters and pay not a dime of their own money in fines or spend as much as a day in prison. This is a case where the punishment has to this point fallen far short of the seriousness of the crime.
Further Suggested Readings:
Wall Street Hedge Funds Buy Up Rental Properties
Hedge Funds As Landlords? In Search of Returns, Wall Street Buys Up Foreclosed Homes
Hedge Fund Blackstone Buying $100 Million in Foreclosed Homes Every Week
Hedge Funds Crowd First-Time Buyers Out of Housing Market
Foreclosure Bulk Sales Program Allows Banks and Hedge Funds to Buy Low After Selling High
Hedge Funds Are Fueling Foreclosure Inflation
Private Equity Has Too Much Money to Spend on Homes
Source: Rcooley123's Blog
The banks lost tons of money on loans that would never be paid in full, but they did have something very tangible in place of the money – the property. The real estate still belonged to them. Home buyers were left with nothing after pouring thousands of dollars into the effort to purchase a home, only to be turned out when they simply did not have the resources to complete the transaction. The banks were promptly bailed out by the taxpayers, despite questionable lending practices that ultimately resulted in sizable settlements. Little of the proceeds of these settlements ultimately made it into the hands of the people actually wronged. Some of the states used large chunks of the settlement money to fill budget holes instead of compensating former homeowners for their losses.
Many contend that being able to just pay some money, often obtained by questionable means to begin with, without admitting any guilt on the part of the lending institutions or any of their executives was inadequate punishment for the serious nature of the wrongs perpetrated. That the companies were willing to spend that much money to avoid criminal prosecution or admission of any guilt indicates our government may have let them off too lightly. Certainly many of those most affectedly believe that is the case.
The result of all the foreclosure activity was the availability of enormous numbers of homes to be resold, often in bulk, for vastly reduced prices. Who better to step into the void created by the individuals forced into foreclosure than large institutional buyers – hedge funds and other private equity companies capable of raising large amounts of capital to invest in the family home market. This happened to a large degree. particularly in areas of the country where the housing market became the most depressed in terms of property values. The idea was often to turn these properties into rental units until such time as property values returned to levels that would allow them to be sold at a tidy profit. The result could then end up being that people who had lost their homes to foreclosure would end up renting similar property from one of these large institutional owners. They would have a place to live, but be unable to accumulate any equity in the property to be used in the future as a cushion against possible financial difficulties, or to pass on to heirs.
In effect, this trend has resulted in even further redistribution of wealth in this country upward – from the poor and particularly the middle working class people to the wealthy. Investors in private equity companies and hedge funds on this scale do not, for the most part, supplement their low wage incomes with food stamps or social security checks. People who live from paycheck to paycheck (believe me, there are many more of us than the Wall Street crowd would like us to believe) do not have spare change to put into a hedge fund waiting for the profits to start rolling in.
So the banks either get their money back from the bailout, or from the proceeds from reselling the repossessed real estate. The large investors get their money back with a profit for just collecting rent or repairing and reselling the properties. The only people who have little or nothing to show for their efforts are those who toiled to earn enough money to start trying to purchase a home, only to see it all evaporate in a sudden economic downturn. Their money ended up in the hands of the flimflam artists who sold them the rotten loans in the first place, along with those wealthy enough to buy the properties at rock bottom prices and further profit from them upon a resurgence in the real estate market.
Something is drastically wrong with a system such as ours which enables a very small percentage of the population to profit greatly at the expense of so many more others. The notion that only minimal amounts of money (in terms of the enormous wealth gained in the process) are seen by the powers that be to be adequate recompense for the misery created by these transactions is appalling. These companies and people produced far more economic damage to far more people than Bernie Madoff ever dreamed of. He was sentenced to 150 years in prison. They received bonuses. Attempts begun at effectively regulating the responsible financial institutions to ensure that a repeat performance can be avoided have been stymied at every turn by politicians, many of whom are beholden to the very interests they claim to want to regulate.
Some say we have the best government money can buy. It certainly serves the moneyed interests far better than rest of us. There are some elected officials willing to stand up to them and fight for rest of us. Unfortunately, they are currently a small minority in Congress and the legislatures of most states. Until we get effective regulation of the financial services industry to prevent future robbery of this sort, the economic inequality and impoverishment of ever more members of our society will continue. We need to back those who are willing to stand up for us and increase their numbers and influence in our government at every opportunity. Never again should this sort of disaster be allowed to be perpetrated on such a large segment of the American people with absolutely no accountability on the part of those responsible for it. Never again should the victims (in this case, the American taxpayers) be held responsible for financing this sort of economic chicanery, while those responsible stash their take in tax shelters and pay not a dime of their own money in fines or spend as much as a day in prison. This is a case where the punishment has to this point fallen far short of the seriousness of the crime.
Further Suggested Readings:
Wall Street Hedge Funds Buy Up Rental Properties
Hedge Funds As Landlords? In Search of Returns, Wall Street Buys Up Foreclosed Homes
Hedge Fund Blackstone Buying $100 Million in Foreclosed Homes Every Week
Hedge Funds Crowd First-Time Buyers Out of Housing Market
Foreclosure Bulk Sales Program Allows Banks and Hedge Funds to Buy Low After Selling High
Hedge Funds Are Fueling Foreclosure Inflation
Private Equity Has Too Much Money to Spend on Homes
Source: Rcooley123's Blog
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Antony Jenkins admits 'it could take 10 years to rebuild trust in Barclays'
Barclays’ chief executive, Antony Jenkins, has said that it could take up to a decade for the bank to regain public trust in the aftermath of a series of scandals.
Mr Jenkins made the comment in a speech to students at Brooke House Sixth Form College in East London.
In the chat, which was broadcast on this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Mr Jenkins said: “Trust is a very easy thing to lose, and a very hard thing to win back.
"In my view it will takes several years - probably five to ten - to rebuilt trust in Barclays."
Barclays was the first bank to be implicated in the Libor scandal, in which traders rigged the London inter-banking rate, leading to a £290 million fine in June 2012, and the bank was also involved in the PPI mis-selling scandal.
Mr Jenkins vowed to restore Barclay’s reputation when he was made CEO in August last year, after the Libor scandal brought down his predecessor, Bob Diamond. In February he revealed his plan to overhaul the bank by fundamentally changing the culture under which its traders operate.
He added in his speech that he hoped the future actions of Barclays would help rebuild confidence in the wider banking sector.
Mr Jenkins chose as his theme “the importance of long-term thinking and planning, and proper leadership”.
“Trust is lost in weeks and months, and regained in years and decades,” he said.
"My point is not that short term markets are bad or inaccurate. They serve a very useful purpose. It is susceptible to elevator analysis – this is up this is down. In addition to looking at the short term and what that tells us how do we focus on longer term drivers of the economy."
British economist John Kay told the Today programme, which Mr Jenkins was guest editing, that bankers' now spend more time than religious leaders telling the public that they are ethical, while simultaneously working in an industry that has acted anything but ethically.
“Over the last 20 years banks have systematically destroyed their relationship with their customers,” Mr Kay said, adding that he was not very optimistic that things would improve.
Mr Jenkins responded by saying that that the cure to a rotten culture is proper leadership from the top, but that the process is a slow one.
"In my view leadership sets the culture in big organisations and culture drives organisational performance. If you want a different sort of organisational performance, a more ethical business, you’re going to have to change culture. Culture takes time to change and it comes back to leadership. If you take a long term perspective you’ll build the right culture," he said.
Mr Jenkins added that he was setting a target for Barclays to be more trusted than not by 2018.
It is one of eight commitments Jenkins will make to staff, customers, shareholders and what he calls society in a few months.
Source: Independent
Mr Jenkins made the comment in a speech to students at Brooke House Sixth Form College in East London.
In the chat, which was broadcast on this morning's Today programme on BBC Radio 4, Mr Jenkins said: “Trust is a very easy thing to lose, and a very hard thing to win back.
"In my view it will takes several years - probably five to ten - to rebuilt trust in Barclays."
Barclays was the first bank to be implicated in the Libor scandal, in which traders rigged the London inter-banking rate, leading to a £290 million fine in June 2012, and the bank was also involved in the PPI mis-selling scandal.
Mr Jenkins vowed to restore Barclay’s reputation when he was made CEO in August last year, after the Libor scandal brought down his predecessor, Bob Diamond. In February he revealed his plan to overhaul the bank by fundamentally changing the culture under which its traders operate.
He added in his speech that he hoped the future actions of Barclays would help rebuild confidence in the wider banking sector.
Mr Jenkins chose as his theme “the importance of long-term thinking and planning, and proper leadership”.
“Trust is lost in weeks and months, and regained in years and decades,” he said.
"My point is not that short term markets are bad or inaccurate. They serve a very useful purpose. It is susceptible to elevator analysis – this is up this is down. In addition to looking at the short term and what that tells us how do we focus on longer term drivers of the economy."
British economist John Kay told the Today programme, which Mr Jenkins was guest editing, that bankers' now spend more time than religious leaders telling the public that they are ethical, while simultaneously working in an industry that has acted anything but ethically.
“Over the last 20 years banks have systematically destroyed their relationship with their customers,” Mr Kay said, adding that he was not very optimistic that things would improve.
Mr Jenkins responded by saying that that the cure to a rotten culture is proper leadership from the top, but that the process is a slow one.
"In my view leadership sets the culture in big organisations and culture drives organisational performance. If you want a different sort of organisational performance, a more ethical business, you’re going to have to change culture. Culture takes time to change and it comes back to leadership. If you take a long term perspective you’ll build the right culture," he said.
Mr Jenkins added that he was setting a target for Barclays to be more trusted than not by 2018.
It is one of eight commitments Jenkins will make to staff, customers, shareholders and what he calls society in a few months.
Source: Independent
Friday, December 13, 2013
Volcker Rule: Real Bank Regulation or Smoke and Mirrors?
U.S. regulators have approved new legislation, the Volcker Rule, which seeks to prevent the similar acts of risk-taking on Wall Street that helped trigger the 2008 financial crisis. The rule aims to limit banks’ trading bets, being bared from trading for their own profit. The legislation itself is over 900 pages long, with new narrower exemptions for legitimate trades.
Five U.S. regulatory agencies voted on the rule which seeks to ban a lucrative practice for banks, that is proprietary trading. Aside from the trading, the new legislation also limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. The rule is named for Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who was an adviser to President Obama during the financial crisis.
Banks had hoped to substantially soften the rule, but the infamous “London Whale,” JPMorgan’s $6 billion trading loss in 2012, motivated regulators to devise a tough version. The impact of the regulations will depend on how forcefully the banks are monitored in order to assure that they are not trying to mask speculative bets as permissible trades.
The rule promises surveillance of big banks’ trading operations, the majority of which will be summarized through documentation requirements which force banks to justify trades and strategies, basically the banks will have to monitor themselves, and report their actions honestly and accurately. Regulators will be responsible for checking the banks’ self-reporting.
“The rule is so conceptual it’s all about the implementation,… The regulators didn’t draw really bright lines for hedging or market-making. This thing is one giant loophole if it’s badly implemented.” – Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, a group that represents more than 250 organizations.
The public will be placing their trust in regulators once again, who in the past failed to notice, or neglected to mention, the potential dangers facing the financial market.
“No one will really know whether regulators, who have failed so abysmally in the past, have learned from the crisis and will start regulating the banks for real by aggressively enforcing the Volcker Rule,” – Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a nonprofit group that advocates stringent rules on big banks.
The Volcker Rule is being portrayed in the media as being tough: restricting the investment decisions of the banks. In reality however, there remains no thorough outline detailing the regulation procedures, and the responsibility lays mostly on the banks to regulate themselves, and for us to trust that they are going to report their actions honestly. We are apparently also expected to trust that the regulators are going to inform the public promptly, and follow proper criminal procedures, if there are any exchanges or actions which diverge from the permitted guidelines set out in Volcker’s new rule.
“At some point someone is going to have to write up a manual for examiners on what to look for and how to enforce that stuff. That’s going to be a really important document,” – Bradley Sabel, legal counsel at Shearman and Sterling.
For now though, we just get to wonder if his is the beginning of real regulation for the banks, or new set of smoke and mirrors.
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Five U.S. regulatory agencies voted on the rule which seeks to ban a lucrative practice for banks, that is proprietary trading. Aside from the trading, the new legislation also limits banks’ investments in hedge funds and private equity funds. The rule is named for Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman who was an adviser to President Obama during the financial crisis.
Banks had hoped to substantially soften the rule, but the infamous “London Whale,” JPMorgan’s $6 billion trading loss in 2012, motivated regulators to devise a tough version. The impact of the regulations will depend on how forcefully the banks are monitored in order to assure that they are not trying to mask speculative bets as permissible trades.
The rule promises surveillance of big banks’ trading operations, the majority of which will be summarized through documentation requirements which force banks to justify trades and strategies, basically the banks will have to monitor themselves, and report their actions honestly and accurately. Regulators will be responsible for checking the banks’ self-reporting.
“The rule is so conceptual it’s all about the implementation,… The regulators didn’t draw really bright lines for hedging or market-making. This thing is one giant loophole if it’s badly implemented.” – Marcus Stanley, policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, a group that represents more than 250 organizations.
The public will be placing their trust in regulators once again, who in the past failed to notice, or neglected to mention, the potential dangers facing the financial market.
“No one will really know whether regulators, who have failed so abysmally in the past, have learned from the crisis and will start regulating the banks for real by aggressively enforcing the Volcker Rule,” – Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a nonprofit group that advocates stringent rules on big banks.
The Volcker Rule is being portrayed in the media as being tough: restricting the investment decisions of the banks. In reality however, there remains no thorough outline detailing the regulation procedures, and the responsibility lays mostly on the banks to regulate themselves, and for us to trust that they are going to report their actions honestly. We are apparently also expected to trust that the regulators are going to inform the public promptly, and follow proper criminal procedures, if there are any exchanges or actions which diverge from the permitted guidelines set out in Volcker’s new rule.
“At some point someone is going to have to write up a manual for examiners on what to look for and how to enforce that stuff. That’s going to be a really important document,” – Bradley Sabel, legal counsel at Shearman and Sterling.
For now though, we just get to wonder if his is the beginning of real regulation for the banks, or new set of smoke and mirrors.
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Obama's tribute to Mandela: The full speech
To Graça Machel and the Mandela family; to President Zuma and members of the government; to heads of state and government, past and present; distinguished guests – it is a singular honor to be with you today, to celebrate a life unlike any other. To the people of South Africa – people of every race and walk of life – the world thanks you for sharing Nelson Mandela with us. His struggle was your struggle. His triumph was your triumph. Your dignity and hope found expression in his life, and your freedom, your democracy is his cherished legacy.
It is hard to eulogise any man – to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person – their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.
Born during World War I, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by elders of his Thembu tribe – Madiba would emerge as the last great liberator of the 20th century. Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success. Like King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed, and the moral necessity of racial justice. He would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and reached the final days of the Cold War. Emerging from prison, without force of arms, he would – like Lincoln – hold his country together when it threatened to break apart. Like America's founding fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations - a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power.
Given the sweep of his life, and the adoration that he so rightly earned, it is tempting then to remember Nelson Mandela as an icon, smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men. But Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait. Instead, he insisted on sharing with us his doubts and fears; his miscalculations along with his victories. "I'm not a saint," he said, "unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying."
It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection – because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried - that we loved him so. He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood – a son and husband, a father and a friend. That is why we learned so much from him; that is why we can learn from him still. For nothing he achieved was inevitable. In the arc of his life, we see a man who earned his place in history through struggle and shrewdness; persistence and faith. He tells us what’s possible not just in the pages of dusty history books, but in our own lives as well.
Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals. Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, "a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness" from his father. Certainly he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, "a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments … a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people."
But like other early giants of the ANC – the Sisulus and Tambos – Madiba disciplined his anger; and channelled his desire to fight into organisation, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand-up for their dignity. Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price. "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination," he said at his 1964 trial. "I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Mandela taught us the power of action, but also ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those you agree with, but those who you don’t. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet. He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and passion, but also his training as an advocate. He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement. And he learned the language and customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depended upon his.
Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough; no matter how right, they must be chiseled into laws and institutions. He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of conditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that, "prisoners cannot enter into contracts." But as he showed in painstaking negotiations to transfer power and draft new laws, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of a larger goal. And because he was not only a leader of a movement, but a skillful politician, the Constitution that emerged was worthy of this multiracial democracy; true to his vision of laws that protect minority as well as majority rights, and the precious freedoms of every South African.
Finally, Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa – Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us. We can never know how much of this was innate in him, or how much of it was shaped and burnished in a dark, solitary cell. But we remember the gestures, large and small – introducing his jailors as honoured guests at his inauguration; taking the pitch in a Springbok uniform; turning his family’s heartbreak into a call to confront HIV and Aids – that revealed the depth of his empathy and understanding. He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.
For the people of South Africa, for those he inspired around the globe – Madiba’s passing is rightly a time of mourning, and a time to celebrate his heroic life. But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection. With honesty, regardless of our station or circumstance, we must ask: how well have I applied his lessons in my own life?
It is a question I ask myself – as a man and as a president. We know that like South Africa, the United States had to overcome centuries of racial subjugation. As was true here, it took the sacrifice of countless people – known and unknown – to see the dawn of a new day. Michelle and I are the beneficiaries of that struggle. But in America and South Africa, and countries around the globe, we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not done. The struggles that follow the victory of formal equality and universal franchise may not be as filled with drama and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important. For around the world today, we still see children suffering from hunger, and disease; run-down schools, and few prospects for the future. Around the world today, men and women are still imprisoned for their political beliefs; and are still persecuted for what they look like, or how they worship, or who they love.
We, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us who stand on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.
The questions we face today – how to promote equality and justice; to uphold freedom and human rights; to end conflict and sectarian war – do not have easy answers. But there were no easy answers in front of that child in Qunu. Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done. South Africa shows us that is true. South Africa shows us we can change. We can choose to live in a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes. We can choose a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice and opportunity.
We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again. But let me say to the young people of Africa, and young people around the world – you can make his life’s work your own. Over thirty years ago, while still a student, I learned of Mandela and the struggles in this land. It stirred something in me. It woke me up to my responsibilities – to others, and to myself – and set me on an improbable journey that finds me here today. And while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be better. He speaks to what is best inside us. After this great liberator is laid to rest; when we have returned to our cities and villages, and rejoined our daily routines, let us search then for his strength – for his largeness of spirit – somewhere inside ourselves. And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, or our best laid plans seem beyond our reach – think of Madiba, and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of a cell:
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
What a great soul it was. We will miss him deeply. May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela. May God bless the people of South Africa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
It is hard to eulogise any man – to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person – their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.
Born during World War I, far from the corridors of power, a boy raised herding cattle and tutored by elders of his Thembu tribe – Madiba would emerge as the last great liberator of the 20th century. Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success. Like King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed, and the moral necessity of racial justice. He would endure a brutal imprisonment that began in the time of Kennedy and Khrushchev, and reached the final days of the Cold War. Emerging from prison, without force of arms, he would – like Lincoln – hold his country together when it threatened to break apart. Like America's founding fathers, he would erect a constitutional order to preserve freedom for future generations - a commitment to democracy and rule of law ratified not only by his election, but by his willingness to step down from power.
Given the sweep of his life, and the adoration that he so rightly earned, it is tempting then to remember Nelson Mandela as an icon, smiling and serene, detached from the tawdry affairs of lesser men. But Madiba himself strongly resisted such a lifeless portrait. Instead, he insisted on sharing with us his doubts and fears; his miscalculations along with his victories. "I'm not a saint," he said, "unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying."
It was precisely because he could admit to imperfection – because he could be so full of good humor, even mischief, despite the heavy burdens he carried - that we loved him so. He was not a bust made of marble; he was a man of flesh and blood – a son and husband, a father and a friend. That is why we learned so much from him; that is why we can learn from him still. For nothing he achieved was inevitable. In the arc of his life, we see a man who earned his place in history through struggle and shrewdness; persistence and faith. He tells us what’s possible not just in the pages of dusty history books, but in our own lives as well.
Mandela showed us the power of action; of taking risks on behalf of our ideals. Perhaps Madiba was right that he inherited, "a proud rebelliousness, a stubborn sense of fairness" from his father. Certainly he shared with millions of black and colored South Africans the anger born of, "a thousand slights, a thousand indignities, a thousand unremembered moments … a desire to fight the system that imprisoned my people."
But like other early giants of the ANC – the Sisulus and Tambos – Madiba disciplined his anger; and channelled his desire to fight into organisation, and platforms, and strategies for action, so men and women could stand-up for their dignity. Moreover, he accepted the consequences of his actions, knowing that standing up to powerful interests and injustice carries a price. "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination," he said at his 1964 trial. "I’ve cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."
Mandela taught us the power of action, but also ideas; the importance of reason and arguments; the need to study not only those you agree with, but those who you don’t. He understood that ideas cannot be contained by prison walls, or extinguished by a sniper’s bullet. He turned his trial into an indictment of apartheid because of his eloquence and passion, but also his training as an advocate. He used decades in prison to sharpen his arguments, but also to spread his thirst for knowledge to others in the movement. And he learned the language and customs of his oppressor so that one day he might better convey to them how their own freedom depended upon his.
Mandela demonstrated that action and ideas are not enough; no matter how right, they must be chiseled into laws and institutions. He was practical, testing his beliefs against the hard surface of circumstance and history. On core principles he was unyielding, which is why he could rebuff offers of conditional release, reminding the Apartheid regime that, "prisoners cannot enter into contracts." But as he showed in painstaking negotiations to transfer power and draft new laws, he was not afraid to compromise for the sake of a larger goal. And because he was not only a leader of a movement, but a skillful politician, the Constitution that emerged was worthy of this multiracial democracy; true to his vision of laws that protect minority as well as majority rights, and the precious freedoms of every South African.
Finally, Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa – Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us. We can never know how much of this was innate in him, or how much of it was shaped and burnished in a dark, solitary cell. But we remember the gestures, large and small – introducing his jailors as honoured guests at his inauguration; taking the pitch in a Springbok uniform; turning his family’s heartbreak into a call to confront HIV and Aids – that revealed the depth of his empathy and understanding. He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.
For the people of South Africa, for those he inspired around the globe – Madiba’s passing is rightly a time of mourning, and a time to celebrate his heroic life. But I believe it should also prompt in each of us a time for self-reflection. With honesty, regardless of our station or circumstance, we must ask: how well have I applied his lessons in my own life?
It is a question I ask myself – as a man and as a president. We know that like South Africa, the United States had to overcome centuries of racial subjugation. As was true here, it took the sacrifice of countless people – known and unknown – to see the dawn of a new day. Michelle and I are the beneficiaries of that struggle. But in America and South Africa, and countries around the globe, we cannot allow our progress to cloud the fact that our work is not done. The struggles that follow the victory of formal equality and universal franchise may not be as filled with drama and moral clarity as those that came before, but they are no less important. For around the world today, we still see children suffering from hunger, and disease; run-down schools, and few prospects for the future. Around the world today, men and women are still imprisoned for their political beliefs; and are still persecuted for what they look like, or how they worship, or who they love.
We, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many of us who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us who stand on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.
The questions we face today – how to promote equality and justice; to uphold freedom and human rights; to end conflict and sectarian war – do not have easy answers. But there were no easy answers in front of that child in Qunu. Nelson Mandela reminds us that it always seems impossible until it is done. South Africa shows us that is true. South Africa shows us we can change. We can choose to live in a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes. We can choose a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and justice and opportunity.
We will never see the likes of Nelson Mandela again. But let me say to the young people of Africa, and young people around the world – you can make his life’s work your own. Over thirty years ago, while still a student, I learned of Mandela and the struggles in this land. It stirred something in me. It woke me up to my responsibilities – to others, and to myself – and set me on an improbable journey that finds me here today. And while I will always fall short of Madiba’s example, he makes me want to be better. He speaks to what is best inside us. After this great liberator is laid to rest; when we have returned to our cities and villages, and rejoined our daily routines, let us search then for his strength – for his largeness of spirit – somewhere inside ourselves. And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, or our best laid plans seem beyond our reach – think of Madiba, and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of a cell:
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
What a great soul it was. We will miss him deeply. May God bless the memory of Nelson Mandela. May God bless the people of South Africa.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
South Africans losing trust in political and business ethics
According to research by Transparency International, South Africa is perceived as being more corrupt this year than it was last year.
What is considerably alarming is that 50% of persons interviewed perceived the judiciary as corrupt; 70% perceived parliament as corrupt and a staggering 83% perceived the South African Police Service as corrupt.
In a statement on Tuesday, local civil society organization Corruption Watch (CW) said the perceptions were indicative of a public that was losing trust in political, public, and business leadership.
Source: the Sowetan
Monday, December 2, 2013
Mdluli wins bid to appeal charges ruling
Suspended police crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli, the National Prosecuting Authority and the Specialised Commercial Crime Unit may appeal against a ruling that charges against him must be reinstated, the high court in Pretoria ruled on Monday.
Freedom Under Law (FUL) did not oppose the application, and said the matter concerned issues of significant public importance which ought to be aired in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
An application by the public interest group to revive a previous interim interdict stopping Mdluli from returning to work would continue only at a later stage.
National police commissioner Riah Phiyega has agreed to give the FUL 30 days' notice if she wants to reinstate Mdluli.
The FUL said it reserved its rights to approach the court again.
Deputy Judge President of the high courts in Johannesburg and Pretoria Aubrey Ledwaba granted leave to appeal against Judge John Murphy's ruling in September in favour of the FUL.
Decision set aside
Murphy had set aside decisions to withdraw charges of money laundering and murder, and disciplinary proceedings, against Mdluli.
Ledwaba said there were compelling reasons to grant leave, and there was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion.
Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein would be the correct court to deal with the matter.
Ledwaba said Murphy was not available to hear the application. The application for leave to appeal began before Murphy in October, but due to "some unfortunate altercation" between him and William Mokhari SC, Ledwaba intervened and postponed the matter indefinitely.
The altercation started when Mokhari, who represented the police commissioner, told Murphy it was presumptuous to ask if Phiyega intended reinstating Mdluli.
Murphy repeatedly told Mokhari to sit down and when he refused, Murphy walked out of the court. Mokhari, who is the chairperson of the Johannesburg Bar Council, has since laid a formal complaint about the judge's "demeaning" remarks with the Judicial Service Commission. – Sapa
Freedom Under Law (FUL) did not oppose the application, and said the matter concerned issues of significant public importance which ought to be aired in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
An application by the public interest group to revive a previous interim interdict stopping Mdluli from returning to work would continue only at a later stage.
National police commissioner Riah Phiyega has agreed to give the FUL 30 days' notice if she wants to reinstate Mdluli.
The FUL said it reserved its rights to approach the court again.
Deputy Judge President of the high courts in Johannesburg and Pretoria Aubrey Ledwaba granted leave to appeal against Judge John Murphy's ruling in September in favour of the FUL.
Decision set aside
Murphy had set aside decisions to withdraw charges of money laundering and murder, and disciplinary proceedings, against Mdluli.
Ledwaba said there were compelling reasons to grant leave, and there was a reasonable prospect that another court might come to a different conclusion.
Considering the importance and complexity of the issues, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein would be the correct court to deal with the matter.
Ledwaba said Murphy was not available to hear the application. The application for leave to appeal began before Murphy in October, but due to "some unfortunate altercation" between him and William Mokhari SC, Ledwaba intervened and postponed the matter indefinitely.
The altercation started when Mokhari, who represented the police commissioner, told Murphy it was presumptuous to ask if Phiyega intended reinstating Mdluli.
Murphy repeatedly told Mokhari to sit down and when he refused, Murphy walked out of the court. Mokhari, who is the chairperson of the Johannesburg Bar Council, has since laid a formal complaint about the judge's "demeaning" remarks with the Judicial Service Commission. – Sapa
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Reducing Crime: Learning From The Failed Criminal Justice System
The United States holds the highest incarceration rate in the world, with over 2 million currently in America’s prisons, and millions more on parole and probation. The majority are in state prisons, around 60 percent, and roughly 10 percent are held in federal prisons. In 2011, one out of every 34 adults [7 million+] were being supervised by the criminal justice system, at that time there were over 2 million incarcerated, 854,000 on parole, and 4 million on probation.
In 2009, the US held roughly 4.5 percent of the world’s total population, but housed 23 percent of the worlds prisoners. California and Texas hold the first positions for having the most prisoners, both have over 100,000 inmates. Thousands of individuals are serving severe time for non-violent, and often victimless crimes. Timothy Jackson, an inmate from Angola prison in Louisiana, has served over 16 years, and still looking to spend the rest of his life in prison for having stolen a jacket from a department store that was valued at $159.00.
Other individuals have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole for crimes like siphoning gas from a truck, trying to cash a stolen cheque, selling marijuana, and stealing tools from a tool shed. Although legislation varies from between the states, the federal government has increasingly taken a zero-tolerance approach to crime, even victimless crime such as marijuana possession. The infamous three-strike rule has also proved ineffective at reducing recidivism (or repeat offenses). Surprisingly, violent crime rates have declined for the past several years, which may perhaps be due to fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals that were engaged within the system received stricter life sentencing, and they are therefore permanently caged within the criminal justice system, removing their participation as a criminal statistic.
After three decades of steady increase, crime rates have been in steady decline. Aside from stricter sentencing, rates may also be in decline in response to soaring gun ownership rates. Or, perhaps the violent crime rates are in decline because self-report is in decline, or the statistics themselves are not reliably accurate, or laws are not being strictly enforced. The answer no doubt is a myriad of factors which all contribute to the overall effect seen. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], violent crime rates have declined by roughly 25 percent. Regardless of the decline seen in crime rates though, prison population continues to soar and remain at an all time high, with alarming numbers of juveniles being detained and held in solitary confinement.
Imprisonment is a costly endeavor for society, indeed the States spend well over $45 billion in tax dollars on corrections, it costs an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone for a year, according to data from 2005, the total cost varies among the states. While the taxpayer is footing the bill to house “criminals” within the various institutions [strategically separated] within their communities, prisons are immorally profiting off the labor of their inmates.
Tens of thousands of inmates are being “generously” employed, some for as little as 20 cents an hour, within numerous prison systems. Starbucks, Nintendo, Victoria’s Secret, Wal-Mart, and JC Penny are just some of the mega corporations that are invested in, and profiting from, the labor of individuals who have become one more statistic as part of America’s soaring incarceration rates. This system encourages and creates a demand for arrests, and enables the prison industrial complex to feed off of them and continue to increase profits. With such a system in place it is reasonable to assume that incarceration rates may not decline, even if violent crime declines, as long as the prison is established in such a way that it makes a higher profit along with the increase in the rate of their incarceration.
The expectations of our justice system to both punish and rehabilitate, is a conflicting objective which leads to internal conflict and contradiction. The system aims to prevent crime by instilling fear on the offender, but recidivism remains high and states with stricter punishment still see high incarceration rates [e.g Texas]. The “fear” of prison isn’t sufficient to prevent crime, or even to reduce recidivism. Meanwhile rehabilitation, especially utilizing methods which incorporate members from the community, has a lasting effect at deterring individuals from engaging in a life of crime. Programs such as meditation have also shown to drastically help inmates cope with daily anxiety and stress.
One popular form of rehabilitation is a program of meditation for inmates referred to as Transcendental Meditation, taking part in such activities can help inmates to cope with their frustration, anxiety, and anger. Transcendental Meditation can significantly reduce crime, criminal aggression, violence, recidivism, terrorism, and even international conflict, while simultaneously developing higher levels of psychological functioning (Alexander et al., 2003). Victim-offender mediation has also proven beneficial, in some instances mediation will occur between the offender, the victim, and perhaps other family and community members. Every individual gets a chance to address their concerns over the event, how the crime made any impact on their life. This type of rehabilitation effort encourages justice, accountability, restoration, and community involvement. Even allowing the inmates to help train stray dogs seems to a highly therapeutic effect and actually saves money by extending how long the strays can be kept. Instead of locking up the offender as a caged animal, shunning them away from society and making them feel uninvolved with the community, it takes a more positive approach in encouraging the offender to be a part of that community.
A fiscally responsible nation cannot afford such a dysfunctional criminal justice system. Getting “tough” on crime doesn’t prevent crime, nor does it decrease recidivism. This mirrors how violent parenting strategies often don’t produce more able or responsible children. And the fear of prison initially is not sufficient enough to prevent crime either: fear is only effective in motivating criminals to avoid being caught as instead of avoiding the crime. When the individual is ostracized from the community, they forget how to be a part of it, this only adds to their troubles.
When inmates finally get out of prison, many don’t have a place to live or means to get a job or even to print a resume for one. Even for tasks as simple as buying groceries, many of these individuals never learned the basic skills which would enable them to create a monthly budget, or to plan out meals and necessary life costs, so that they could better manage to cover their daily needs without finding themselves short and feeling the need to resort to crime. Many individuals within the system also suffer from some mental impairment or drug addiction, and simply caging these individuals doesn’t solve any underlying problem.
Our current criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail not just the prisoners, but society overall. It conditions the guards to treat others as less than human, it creates further resentment and anger in the hearts of the prisoners, and almost no one comes out alright, let alone rehabilitated, on the other side. This is literally only “working” those investing in private prisons. Isn’t it time we focused on solving problems, on rehabilitation, and not solely on punishment at a high financial to all involved?
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
In 2009, the US held roughly 4.5 percent of the world’s total population, but housed 23 percent of the worlds prisoners. California and Texas hold the first positions for having the most prisoners, both have over 100,000 inmates. Thousands of individuals are serving severe time for non-violent, and often victimless crimes. Timothy Jackson, an inmate from Angola prison in Louisiana, has served over 16 years, and still looking to spend the rest of his life in prison for having stolen a jacket from a department store that was valued at $159.00.
Other individuals have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole for crimes like siphoning gas from a truck, trying to cash a stolen cheque, selling marijuana, and stealing tools from a tool shed. Although legislation varies from between the states, the federal government has increasingly taken a zero-tolerance approach to crime, even victimless crime such as marijuana possession. The infamous three-strike rule has also proved ineffective at reducing recidivism (or repeat offenses). Surprisingly, violent crime rates have declined for the past several years, which may perhaps be due to fact that hundreds of thousands of individuals that were engaged within the system received stricter life sentencing, and they are therefore permanently caged within the criminal justice system, removing their participation as a criminal statistic.
After three decades of steady increase, crime rates have been in steady decline. Aside from stricter sentencing, rates may also be in decline in response to soaring gun ownership rates. Or, perhaps the violent crime rates are in decline because self-report is in decline, or the statistics themselves are not reliably accurate, or laws are not being strictly enforced. The answer no doubt is a myriad of factors which all contribute to the overall effect seen. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], violent crime rates have declined by roughly 25 percent. Regardless of the decline seen in crime rates though, prison population continues to soar and remain at an all time high, with alarming numbers of juveniles being detained and held in solitary confinement.
Imprisonment is a costly endeavor for society, indeed the States spend well over $45 billion in tax dollars on corrections, it costs an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone for a year, according to data from 2005, the total cost varies among the states. While the taxpayer is footing the bill to house “criminals” within the various institutions [strategically separated] within their communities, prisons are immorally profiting off the labor of their inmates.
Tens of thousands of inmates are being “generously” employed, some for as little as 20 cents an hour, within numerous prison systems. Starbucks, Nintendo, Victoria’s Secret, Wal-Mart, and JC Penny are just some of the mega corporations that are invested in, and profiting from, the labor of individuals who have become one more statistic as part of America’s soaring incarceration rates. This system encourages and creates a demand for arrests, and enables the prison industrial complex to feed off of them and continue to increase profits. With such a system in place it is reasonable to assume that incarceration rates may not decline, even if violent crime declines, as long as the prison is established in such a way that it makes a higher profit along with the increase in the rate of their incarceration.
The expectations of our justice system to both punish and rehabilitate, is a conflicting objective which leads to internal conflict and contradiction. The system aims to prevent crime by instilling fear on the offender, but recidivism remains high and states with stricter punishment still see high incarceration rates [e.g Texas]. The “fear” of prison isn’t sufficient to prevent crime, or even to reduce recidivism. Meanwhile rehabilitation, especially utilizing methods which incorporate members from the community, has a lasting effect at deterring individuals from engaging in a life of crime. Programs such as meditation have also shown to drastically help inmates cope with daily anxiety and stress.
One popular form of rehabilitation is a program of meditation for inmates referred to as Transcendental Meditation, taking part in such activities can help inmates to cope with their frustration, anxiety, and anger. Transcendental Meditation can significantly reduce crime, criminal aggression, violence, recidivism, terrorism, and even international conflict, while simultaneously developing higher levels of psychological functioning (Alexander et al., 2003). Victim-offender mediation has also proven beneficial, in some instances mediation will occur between the offender, the victim, and perhaps other family and community members. Every individual gets a chance to address their concerns over the event, how the crime made any impact on their life. This type of rehabilitation effort encourages justice, accountability, restoration, and community involvement. Even allowing the inmates to help train stray dogs seems to a highly therapeutic effect and actually saves money by extending how long the strays can be kept. Instead of locking up the offender as a caged animal, shunning them away from society and making them feel uninvolved with the community, it takes a more positive approach in encouraging the offender to be a part of that community.
A fiscally responsible nation cannot afford such a dysfunctional criminal justice system. Getting “tough” on crime doesn’t prevent crime, nor does it decrease recidivism. This mirrors how violent parenting strategies often don’t produce more able or responsible children. And the fear of prison initially is not sufficient enough to prevent crime either: fear is only effective in motivating criminals to avoid being caught as instead of avoiding the crime. When the individual is ostracized from the community, they forget how to be a part of it, this only adds to their troubles.
When inmates finally get out of prison, many don’t have a place to live or means to get a job or even to print a resume for one. Even for tasks as simple as buying groceries, many of these individuals never learned the basic skills which would enable them to create a monthly budget, or to plan out meals and necessary life costs, so that they could better manage to cover their daily needs without finding themselves short and feeling the need to resort to crime. Many individuals within the system also suffer from some mental impairment or drug addiction, and simply caging these individuals doesn’t solve any underlying problem.
Our current criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail not just the prisoners, but society overall. It conditions the guards to treat others as less than human, it creates further resentment and anger in the hearts of the prisoners, and almost no one comes out alright, let alone rehabilitated, on the other side. This is literally only “working” those investing in private prisons. Isn’t it time we focused on solving problems, on rehabilitation, and not solely on punishment at a high financial to all involved?
Source: http://www.exposingthetruth.co
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Nkandla report: The real reasons why ministers took on Thuli
The fight between Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and the security cluster is about much more than her provisional report into state expenditure at President Jacob Zuma’s private Nkandla homestead.
It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.
Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.
In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.
What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.
Principle of secrecy
He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”
Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.
Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”
Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.
What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.
In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.
In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.
In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.
Further litigation to come?
In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”
In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.
Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”
Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.
The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.
That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.
Top secret
The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.
The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.
After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.
In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.
An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.
The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.
It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”
Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.
A sign of things to come
In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”
This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.
In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”
He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”
Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.
Source: Mail & Guardian
It signals the start of a new war between openness and accountability, on the one hand, and secrecy, cloaked in the garb of security, on the other. And it is clear that the Protection of State Information Bill – the so-called secrecy Bill – passed for the third time in the National Assembly this week, opens up a dangerous new front in that war.
Last Friday, Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa approached the Pretoria high court to interdict Madonsela from releasing the draft report, purportedly in a quest for more time.
In effect, though, he sought to block the release until the security cluster ministers were satisfied with the way she had accommodated their concerns about allegedly sensitive information.
What emerges starkly in the court papers is that the ministers believe any document that draws on classified information must itself be classified. In his founding affidavit, Mthethwa in effect threatened criminal sanction should Madonsela release an uncensored draft report to other “affected, implicated and interested parties” to obtain their responses.
Principle of secrecy
He warned: “Release of the provisional report to third parties … without prior authorisation of [the ministers] … is unlawful and carries … a criminal penalty.”
Mthethwa’s affidavit attached an earlier letter to Madonsela from Public Works Minister Thulas Nxesi, also on behalf of the defence, police and state security ministers.
Nxesi made the point explicitly: “As neither I, nor the ministers involved, have given the necessary permission to declassify the documentation relied upon by you in your provisional report, we deem it necessary to inform you that to release your provisional report without our authorisation would, in effect, result in … a contravention of section 4 of the National Key Points Act, 102 of 1980, and section 4 of the Protection of Information Act, 84 of 1982.”
Nowhere did Mthethwa refer to any specific contents of the draft report to justify the claim that the president’s security was at risk.
What really seems to be at stake is the principle of secrecy – and who gets to pronounce on it.
In her stinging reply, Madonsela said the ministers did not cite a “single fact” to illustrate how the president’s safety would be compromised by the disclosure of the draft report.
In his second affidavit, tabled on Thursday, Mthethwa sidestepped that challenge, claiming it was irrelevant to the request for more time.
In their reply, the ministers abandoned their interdict, citing the fact that Madonsela, in asking for the matter to be postponed until November 15, had in effect given them the extra time they asked for.
But it would be a mistake to see this as a final climb-down instead of a tactical retreat.
Further litigation to come?
In his second affidavit, Mthethwa foreshadows potential further litigation, stating: “It will be argued at an appropriate time, when the need arises, that the [public protector], not being an expert on matters of security, cannot be an arbiter on whether or not there exists a security breach from the contents of the provisional report … Should the respondent arrogate to herself that power to determine whether or not there is a breach of security arising from the contents of her provisional report, I am advised that she will in law be acting ultra vires her powers and the law.”
In short, ministers, not Madonsela, must decide whether the report breaches security.
Mthethwa adds: “The classified and top-secret information extracted by [the public protector] in her provisional report … is governed by the minimum information security standards, and it is those classified and top-secret documents and/or extracts that require the minister to authorise its further publication.”
Clearly, no authorisation has been granted. If Madonsela does not excise what they ask her to, there appears to be a real chance the security cluster will return to court.
The state security department itself accepts that apartheid-era laws the ministers rely on are probably unconstitutional, making the ministers’ attempt to exert their authority over Madonsela something of a reach.
That will change when the secrecy Bill is signed into law – which the president could do any day now.
Top secret
The new Act specifies that the state security minister will make regulations governing how chapter nine institutions – including the public protector and the auditor general – will be allowed to access and use classified information.
The push for a security curtain was echoed in the report of the Joint Standing Committee of Intelligence (JSCI), which released its Nkandla report on Thursday.
After the outcry over the expenditure – about R210-million – in November 2012, the public works minister appointed a government task team to investigate. Its report – classified as top secret – was delivered to Nxesi in January.
In June, the report was referred to the JSCI, which usually carries out oversight of the intelligence services.
An opinion from the parliamentary legal adviser recommended the JSCI restrict itself to matters to do with security oversight, redact sensitive information and then refer the report to the National Assembly.
The JSCI ignored this advice, endorsed the top-secret classification and even recommended that any new information uncovered should be referred back to the JSCI for consideration behind closed doors.
It notes: “Matters relating to the allocation of tenders … should be referred to the office of the auditor general for a full investigation … However, the JSCI believes that because of the classification aspects of the subject matter, the auditor general should report on this investigation to the JSCI.”
Of even more concern is how the JSCI parrots the ministers’ line in their interaction with Madonsela.
A sign of things to come
In a veiled reference to her, the JSCI notes: “Entities which have investigative powers … should not be inappropriately motivated … to launch into an investigation on a matter which has already been assigned to another entity. It is therefore recommended that the executive give urgent attention to this matter … so that unnecessary parallel investigations can be avoided.”
This was precisely the argument the ministers used to try to discourage Madonsela’s Nkandla investigation.
In a letter to Madonsela in April, the state attorney referred to her meeting with the ministers and noted: “The purpose … was to discuss with you our concerns regarding parallel investigations ...”
He said a draft proclamation for the Special Investigating Unit to take up the matter had already been sent to the president and a request for an Nkandla audit had been addressed to the auditor general. “Our clients, therefore, propose … that you hold your investigation in abeyance until the processes embarked upon have been completed.”
Madonsela said in her affidavit this week that the auditor general’s audit had not materialised, nor had the Special Investigating Unit yet been authorised to investigate.
Source: Mail & Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)