A habitual liar cannot be believed even when telling the truth.
There is a famous fable by ancient Greek storyteller Aesop about a shepherd boy who habitually lied for fun. While looking after a flock of sheep near a village, every now and then he would cry "Wolf! Wolf!" to bring the villagers rushing, just to laugh at them and their naivety. One day the wolf did actually attack his flock, and the shepherd boy cried "Wolf!! Wolf!"- this time for real.
But by then, the villagers had wisened up and ignored his cries. With no one coming to help, the boy could do nothing to stop the wolf feasting on his flock. Aesop concludes: "There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."
Thinking of this fable today, one cannot help but wonder: Did Iran attack the Japanese tanker Kokuka Courageous with limpet mines - as the United States claims it did on June 13? Does the video the US army produced indeed prove the accusation?
The US, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom say it does, Iran says it does not, and others have expressed doubts. So, who is telling the truth? Iran or the US and its allies? And why does it matter?
The urgency of these questions is now a matter of war and peace, of life or death. After that accusation, the potential military confrontation between the US and Iran has increased exponentially. On June 20, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that it had shot down a US RQ-4A Global Hawk surveillance drone that it said had violated its airspace. US Central Command confirmed the drone was shot down by Iranian surface-to-air missiles but denied that it had violated Iranian airspace.
President Donald Trump called the downing of the drone a "big mistake", and then ordered a military attack on Iran only to reportedly change his mind and cancel it. There would have been approximately 150 Iranian casualties, Trump said, and that would have been "disproportionate".
As the US and Iran inch ever closer to a military confrontation, the question the world faces at large is who to trust, what to believe, where to place our critical judgement?
An average of 12 lies a day
As of June 10, by Washington Post's estimates, "President Trump has made 10,796 false or misleading claims over 869 days." That is probably a dictionary definition of a congenital liar. The newspaper further states: "The president crossed the 10,000 thresholds on April 26, and he has been averaging about 16 fishy claims a day since then. From the start of his presidency, he has averaged about 12 such claims a day."
In this context, it would be a mistake to judge the particulars of politics with the proverbial "Sunday School" sense of morality that is farthest removed from the abiding concerns of those who habitually lie. States, particularly the most powerful states, lie and these lies are for the best interests of the ruling elites in charge of those states.
From Vietnam to Iraq, the US has systematically and consistently lied to advance its own warmongering objectives. But the US is not the only state that lies habitually.
Right now, the interests of the US, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel all coalesce around targeting Iran and dismantling its share of regional power. Each one of these forces has its own internal reasons to wish Iran harm.
They, therefore, manufacture lies, exaggerate facts, take a smidgeon of truth and weave a long tale around it, all to turn Iran into a demon, the way they did with Iraq and Afghanistan in the past.
The US media is complicit in this charade. The Washington Post and the New York Times have stopped counting the lies Trump tells when it comes to the war with Iran.
The first casualty of war they say is the truth. That means all wars begin with a lie. Is the explosion of this Japanese tanker in the Gulf of Oman the lie that will result in yet another calamitous war in the region?
Today the fragile being of more than 80 million people is at the mercy of that piece of news for which John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have been gunning most of their political careers.
THE REGIME OF DECEPTION
The regime of deception now code-named "post-truth" or "alternative facts" is predicated on what the French philosopher Guy Debord called "the society of the spectacle", where an image has assumed a reality of its own and it no longer matters what it actually means.
We see a ship burning and we read the story that the US imperial narrative ascribes to it and its media regurgitates. What actually caused that fire and what proof there is for the claim are all entirely irrelevant questions.
Three sources tell us Iran did it: the US, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. They all might be what we think them to be - habitual liars - but they might still be telling the truth that Iran did actually blow a hole in that ship. The problem is, as wise Aesop points out, "there is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth."
Let us take them one at a time. The US launched a massive military attack against Iraq and wreaked havoc in the region, all based on a blatant lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - a lie that the Bush administration staged and the New York Times consistently collaborated. Under the current administration that habitual tendency of states to lie has been exacerbated by a man who has a very casual relationship with the truth.
What about the UK? They also say the Iranians did it. They may very well be telling the truth. But we know for a fact that the British have a long colonial proclivity to tell lies to suit their interests. One such sustained course of lies was directed against democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh during the CIA-MI6 military coup of 1953 staged against him. The BBC was integral in spreading fake news at the time.
Well, that is the past, you might say, today the UK is certainly the paragon of truth and justice. Indeed it might be, except that it recently chose to turn its back on the truth: "The UK refuses to back UN inquiry into Saudi 'war crimes' amid fears it will damage trade Britain's Middle East and North Africa minister Alistair Burt argued that the Saudi-led coalition itself should investigate any atrocities it committed in its conflict against rebel forces in Yemen."
Can we really trust a treacherous regime that has an equally causal relationship with truth and can turn a blind eye to facts when it suits its purposes?
What about Saudi Arabia, which too has claimed Iranians did it. Certainly, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) could be a trustworthy source - except, he and his backers have repeatedly lied to the public in the face of facts about the tragic fate of slain Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The same Saudi prince - a favourite of New York Times columnists and President Trump's Zionist son-in-law - is chiefly responsible for a genocide in Yemen in which "85,000 children have died from starvation".
None of this is to exempt Iran from being part and parcel of the selfsame scene and engaging in its own game of lies. Despite the death toll in Syria surpassing half a million, it has continued to fabricate a story about supporting a "legitimate government", while Bashar al-Assad has continued in a sustained course of murderous mayhem. Indeed, the Iranian authorities may very well have planted that mine in the Japanese tanker.
The issue we face is not the guilt or innocence of any party involved, but, instead, the complete collapse of any moral authority standing on the side of truth.
Nietzsche famously said: "Truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions, metaphors which have become worn by frequent use and have lost all sensuous vigour."
In the Gulf of Oman, the truth has dived into the lowest depths of the sea in search of new, more convincing, metaphors.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA
Hamid Dabashi
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Friday, December 7, 2012
Zuma on nationalisation and working with Ramaphosa
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has welcomed the prospect of working with businessman Cyril Ramaphosa as his deputy, saying "it would not be the first time" that he has worked with the man who was once tipped to take over from Nelson Mandela as president of the African National Congress (ANC).
Mr Zuma is set to be re-elected to lead the ANC at the party’s elective congress in Mangaung later this month. However, his current deputy, Kgalema Motlanthe — who has been nominated by three provinces and the youth league for the position of party president — is likely to lose out to Mr Ramaphosa.
Mr Ramaphosa has garnered more than 1,800 nominations for the position of deputy president, while Mr Motlanthe has received about 160 nominations to retain his current position in the party.
In an interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph published on Thursday, Mr Zuma praised Mr Ramaphosa when asked about the prospect of working with the business tycoon.
"It would not be the first time I worked with Cyril Ramaphosa. When he was the secretary-general, I was his deputy. So it would not be the first time, if he is elected," Mr Zuma told the paper.
He said that he was ready for a second term as president of the ANC.
The party’s elective conference in Mangaung will also be keenly watched by business — with the hope that economic policy will be clarified.
One of the burning issues up for possible debate is that of nationalisation of South Africa’s mines. Mr Zuma told the paper that the party would increase the pace of economic reform but would not "break" existing businesses to do so.
"Nationalisation is not the ANC policy," he said. "There are fundamental issues that need to be dealt with. It would be useful to do it quickly but we’ve got to balance things because we don’t want to break things in order to move forward."
Source: Business Day
Mr Zuma is set to be re-elected to lead the ANC at the party’s elective congress in Mangaung later this month. However, his current deputy, Kgalema Motlanthe — who has been nominated by three provinces and the youth league for the position of party president — is likely to lose out to Mr Ramaphosa.
Mr Ramaphosa has garnered more than 1,800 nominations for the position of deputy president, while Mr Motlanthe has received about 160 nominations to retain his current position in the party.
In an interview with the UK’s Daily Telegraph published on Thursday, Mr Zuma praised Mr Ramaphosa when asked about the prospect of working with the business tycoon.
"It would not be the first time I worked with Cyril Ramaphosa. When he was the secretary-general, I was his deputy. So it would not be the first time, if he is elected," Mr Zuma told the paper.
He said that he was ready for a second term as president of the ANC.
The party’s elective conference in Mangaung will also be keenly watched by business — with the hope that economic policy will be clarified.
One of the burning issues up for possible debate is that of nationalisation of South Africa’s mines. Mr Zuma told the paper that the party would increase the pace of economic reform but would not "break" existing businesses to do so.
"Nationalisation is not the ANC policy," he said. "There are fundamental issues that need to be dealt with. It would be useful to do it quickly but we’ve got to balance things because we don’t want to break things in order to move forward."
Source: Business Day
Thursday, September 6, 2012
US-Led Abuse and Rendition of Opponents to Gaddafi’s Libya
Delivered Into Enemy Hands
When rebel forces overtook Tripoli in August 2011, prison doors were opened and office files exposed, revealing startling new information about Libya’s relations with other countries. One such revelation, documented in this report, is the degree of involvement of the United States government under the Bush administration in the arrest of opponents of the former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gaddafi, living abroad, the subsequent torture and other ill-treatment of many of them in US custody, and their forced transfer to back to Libya.
The United States played the most extensive role in the abuses, but other countries, notably the United Kingdom, were also involved.
This is an important chapter in the larger story of the secret and abusive US detention program established under the government of George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the rendition of individuals to countries with known records of torture.
This report is based mostly on Human Rights Watch interviews with 14 former detainees now residing freely in post-Gaddafi Libya and information contained in Libyan government files discovered abandoned immediately after Gaddafi’s fall (the “Tripoli Documents”). It provides detailed evidence of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in US custody, including a credible account of “waterboarding,” and a similar account of water abuse that brings the victim close to suffocation. Both types of abuse amount to torture. The allega-tions cast serious doubts on prior assertions from US government officials that only three people were waterboarded in US custody. They also reflect just how little the public still knows about what went on in the US secret detention program.
The report also sheds light on the failure of the George W. Bush administration, in the pursuit of suspects behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, to distinguish between Islam-ists who were in fact targeting the United States and those who may simply have been engaged in armed opposition against their own repressive regimes. This failure risked aligning the United States with brutal dictators and aided their efforts to dismiss all political opponents as terrorists.
The report examines the roles of other governments in the abuse of detainees in custody and in unlawful renditions to Libya despite demonstrable evidence the detainees would be seriously mistreated upon return. Countries linked to these accounts include: Afghanistan, Chad, China and Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the report shows that individuals rendered to Libya were tortured or otherwise ill-treated in Libyan prisons, including in two cases where the Tripoli Documents make clear the United States sought assurances that their basic rights would be respected. All were held in incommunicado detention—many in solitary confinement— for prolonged periods without trial. When finally tried, they found that the proceedings fell far short of international fair trial standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
All we seek is justice.… We hope the new Libya, freed from its dictator, will have positive relationships with the West. But this relationship must be built on respect and justice. Only by admitting and apologizing for past mis-takes … can we move forward together as friends. —Abdul Hakim Belhadj, military commander during the Libyan uprising who had been forcibly returned to Libya in 2004 with US and UK involvement, Libya, April 12, 2012
When rebel forces overtook Tripoli in August 2011, prison doors were opened and office files exposed, revealing startling new information about Libya’s relations with other countries. One such revelation, documented in this report, is the degree of involvement of the United States government under the Bush administration in the arrest of opponents of the former Libyan Leader, Muammar Gaddafi, living abroad, the subsequent torture and other ill-treatment of many of them in US custody, and their forced transfer to back to Libya.
The United States played the most extensive role in the abuses, but other countries, notably the United Kingdom, were also involved.
This is an important chapter in the larger story of the secret and abusive US detention program established under the government of George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the rendition of individuals to countries with known records of torture.
This report is based mostly on Human Rights Watch interviews with 14 former detainees now residing freely in post-Gaddafi Libya and information contained in Libyan government files discovered abandoned immediately after Gaddafi’s fall (the “Tripoli Documents”). It provides detailed evidence of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in US custody, including a credible account of “waterboarding,” and a similar account of water abuse that brings the victim close to suffocation. Both types of abuse amount to torture. The allega-tions cast serious doubts on prior assertions from US government officials that only three people were waterboarded in US custody. They also reflect just how little the public still knows about what went on in the US secret detention program.
The report also sheds light on the failure of the George W. Bush administration, in the pursuit of suspects behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, to distinguish between Islam-ists who were in fact targeting the United States and those who may simply have been engaged in armed opposition against their own repressive regimes. This failure risked aligning the United States with brutal dictators and aided their efforts to dismiss all political opponents as terrorists.
The report examines the roles of other governments in the abuse of detainees in custody and in unlawful renditions to Libya despite demonstrable evidence the detainees would be seriously mistreated upon return. Countries linked to these accounts include: Afghanistan, Chad, China and Hong Kong, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sudan, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Finally, the report shows that individuals rendered to Libya were tortured or otherwise ill-treated in Libyan prisons, including in two cases where the Tripoli Documents make clear the United States sought assurances that their basic rights would be respected. All were held in incommunicado detention—many in solitary confinement— for prolonged periods without trial. When finally tried, they found that the proceedings fell far short of international fair trial standards.
Source: Human Rights Watch
Monday, March 19, 2012
A Fair Bit of Confusion: Treating Customers Fairly in South Africa
Last year, the Financial Services Board (FSB) announced that it would be implementing a Treating Customers Fairly (TCF) policy for the financial services industry in South Africa. The TCF policy is based on the UK version and is a consumer protection policy designed to address the problem of asymmetric information in the financial services industry where financials service providers possess certain information that the consumers do not. The TCF policy framework was followed by a pilot self-assessment project completed by 20 financial services companies with over 200 different FSB licenses. The results of this pilot project were recently published and they revealed that most of the financial services companies did not understand the concept of TCF nor did they have any idea of the impact of such a policy. The TCF policy is based on six defined outcomes:
These six outcomes are cut-and-pasted from the UK’s Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) own TCF policy. Although the UK’s TCF policy took 12 years to implement, the FSB’s projected timeline for full implementation of our TCF policy is by 2014. Therefore, it is crucial that financial services companies understand what TCF means and seek to align their current business practices with the policy as soon as possible.
The pilot self-assessment project revealed that the financial services companies’ understanding of TCF was that it involved consumer satisfaction and a consumer-centric approach but that they did not appreciate the full scope of TCF. In addition to the six outcomes described above, the UK’s FSA has explained TCF by focusing on two key principles, namely, ensuring that consumers understand the risks and benefits of the financial products they are investing in and that the sale of unsuitable products is minimised by maintaining ongoing TCF best practices.
The other major misconceptions revealed by the pilot self-assessment project was that the financial services companies assumed that their current practices generally conformed to the TCF policy and that implementation would be minimal requiring: (i) the adoption of a TCF policy document and (ii) including TCF as an additional function of compliance. The FSB has responded by stating that a TCF policy cannot be ring-fenced in compliance and must be incorporated throughout the company including the directors (and even the non-executive directors) so that everyone understands what TCF is and can apply it. Furthermore, the FSB has stated that the TCF policy is not limited to the company itself but the company is responsible for ensuring that the entire financial services supply chain, including financial product designers and distributors, apply the TCF best practices.
The TCF policy seeks to regulate financial product design, the marketing of financial products, the information provided to consumers, aspects of financial advice, the after-sale support of consumers and the complaint procedure. In addition, the TCF policy may place limits on the practice of bundling of financial products and on charging high switching fees. A TCF policy would also recommend certain corporate governance policies including the structuring of the incentives for employees so that achieving the TCF outcomes are part of the reward programme. The TCF policy will thus be enforced through self-assessment and compliance reporting by companies, on-site inspections and the imposition of penalties by the FSB and the potential establishment of a TCF ombudsman for consumer complaints.
To formally implement and enforce the TCF policy, the FSB will be required to make a number of regulatory amendments to legislation such as the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (FAIS Act) that regulates the provision of financial services (advice and intermediary services) in South Africa. Although the FAIS Act currently has elements of TCF policy within its regulations, including financial product marketing guidelines and disclosure requirements to consumers, it is anticipated that the TCF requirements will be more extensive. The TCF policy will also be implemented across all of the financial sectors and therefore may require amendments to retirement fund, insurance and collective investment schemes legislation. The pilot self-assessment project indicated that the financial services companies were waiting until such regulations were introduced to perform a gap-analysis on their current business practices but the FSB has recommended that the TCF assessment is conducted at an earlier stage.
The first step for a company to adopt the TCF policy is the implementation of an awareness programme so that all employees are introduced to TCF on a big picture level and also undergo specific TCF training programmes whether in-house or externally. The level of TCF awareness in a company is recorded by the completion of training logs and may be assessed by the FSB at an on-site inspection where the employees are questioned to ascertain their understanding of TCF. The next step would be the production of a broad TCF policy document to ensure that there are formal policy and procedures in place for proper implementation of TCF. These steps can occur before any TCF regulations are introduced.
The TCF policy may have a more onerous impact on the financial services industry in South Africa, given our pool of consumers, than the TCF policy has in the UK. The FSB has referred to certain challenges in implementing a TCF policy in South Africa such as the fact that a number of consumers may be in rural areas and may not have access to adequate after-sale consumer services and support. Although we can refer to the FSA’s TCF approach for guidance, a financial services company in South Africa will have to consider the particular challenges facing South African consumers and design creative solutions in order to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of the FSB. Therefore the earlier that a financial services company understands TCF and seeks to adopt a TCF policy, the easier the transition period and ultimate compliance will be.
Written by Kerry Kopke
Source: Polity
- Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
- Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.
- Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
- Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances.
- Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is both of an acceptable standard and what they have been led to expect.
- Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers to changing product, switching provider, submitting a claim or making a complaint.
These six outcomes are cut-and-pasted from the UK’s Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) own TCF policy. Although the UK’s TCF policy took 12 years to implement, the FSB’s projected timeline for full implementation of our TCF policy is by 2014. Therefore, it is crucial that financial services companies understand what TCF means and seek to align their current business practices with the policy as soon as possible.
The pilot self-assessment project revealed that the financial services companies’ understanding of TCF was that it involved consumer satisfaction and a consumer-centric approach but that they did not appreciate the full scope of TCF. In addition to the six outcomes described above, the UK’s FSA has explained TCF by focusing on two key principles, namely, ensuring that consumers understand the risks and benefits of the financial products they are investing in and that the sale of unsuitable products is minimised by maintaining ongoing TCF best practices.
The other major misconceptions revealed by the pilot self-assessment project was that the financial services companies assumed that their current practices generally conformed to the TCF policy and that implementation would be minimal requiring: (i) the adoption of a TCF policy document and (ii) including TCF as an additional function of compliance. The FSB has responded by stating that a TCF policy cannot be ring-fenced in compliance and must be incorporated throughout the company including the directors (and even the non-executive directors) so that everyone understands what TCF is and can apply it. Furthermore, the FSB has stated that the TCF policy is not limited to the company itself but the company is responsible for ensuring that the entire financial services supply chain, including financial product designers and distributors, apply the TCF best practices.
The TCF policy seeks to regulate financial product design, the marketing of financial products, the information provided to consumers, aspects of financial advice, the after-sale support of consumers and the complaint procedure. In addition, the TCF policy may place limits on the practice of bundling of financial products and on charging high switching fees. A TCF policy would also recommend certain corporate governance policies including the structuring of the incentives for employees so that achieving the TCF outcomes are part of the reward programme. The TCF policy will thus be enforced through self-assessment and compliance reporting by companies, on-site inspections and the imposition of penalties by the FSB and the potential establishment of a TCF ombudsman for consumer complaints.
To formally implement and enforce the TCF policy, the FSB will be required to make a number of regulatory amendments to legislation such as the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, 2002 (FAIS Act) that regulates the provision of financial services (advice and intermediary services) in South Africa. Although the FAIS Act currently has elements of TCF policy within its regulations, including financial product marketing guidelines and disclosure requirements to consumers, it is anticipated that the TCF requirements will be more extensive. The TCF policy will also be implemented across all of the financial sectors and therefore may require amendments to retirement fund, insurance and collective investment schemes legislation. The pilot self-assessment project indicated that the financial services companies were waiting until such regulations were introduced to perform a gap-analysis on their current business practices but the FSB has recommended that the TCF assessment is conducted at an earlier stage.
The first step for a company to adopt the TCF policy is the implementation of an awareness programme so that all employees are introduced to TCF on a big picture level and also undergo specific TCF training programmes whether in-house or externally. The level of TCF awareness in a company is recorded by the completion of training logs and may be assessed by the FSB at an on-site inspection where the employees are questioned to ascertain their understanding of TCF. The next step would be the production of a broad TCF policy document to ensure that there are formal policy and procedures in place for proper implementation of TCF. These steps can occur before any TCF regulations are introduced.
The TCF policy may have a more onerous impact on the financial services industry in South Africa, given our pool of consumers, than the TCF policy has in the UK. The FSB has referred to certain challenges in implementing a TCF policy in South Africa such as the fact that a number of consumers may be in rural areas and may not have access to adequate after-sale consumer services and support. Although we can refer to the FSA’s TCF approach for guidance, a financial services company in South Africa will have to consider the particular challenges facing South African consumers and design creative solutions in order to resolve these issues to the satisfaction of the FSB. Therefore the earlier that a financial services company understands TCF and seeks to adopt a TCF policy, the easier the transition period and ultimate compliance will be.
Written by Kerry Kopke
Source: Polity
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)