In October 1993, the UN security council authorized a peacekeeping force to ensure no weapons crossed the Uganda-Rwanda border....in 1992, instead of punishing (Uganda leader) Museveni, western donors including the US doubled aid to his government and allowed his defense spending to balloon to 48% of Uganda’s budget, compared with 13% for education and 5% for health, even as Aids was ravaging the country. In 1991, Uganda purchased 10 times more US weapons than in the preceding 40 years combined. ...
But the US was not fostering nascent democratic initiatives inside Uganda. While pressuring other countries, including Rwanda, to open up political space, Uganda’s donors were allowing Museveni to ban political party activity, arrest journalists and editors, and conduct brutal counterinsurgency operations in which civilians were tortured and killed. And far from seeking stability, the US, by allowing Uganda to arm the RPF, was setting the stage for what would turn out to be the worst outbreak of violence ever recorded on the African continent.... Under immense international pressure, Rwanda leader Habyarimana had agreed in August 1993 to grant the RPF seats in a transitional government and nearly half of all posts in the army. Even Tutsis inside Rwanda were against giving the RPF so much power because they knew it could provoke the angry, fearful (majority of population) Hutus even more, and they were right....
In June 1994, while the slaughter in Rwanda was still underway, Museveni travelled to Minneapolis, where he received a Hubert H Humphrey public service medal and honorary doctorate from the University of Minnesota. The dean, a former World Bank official, praised Museveni for ending human rights abuses in Uganda and preparing his country for multiparty democracy. Western journalists and academics showered Museveni with praise. “Uganda [is] one of the few flickers of hope for the future of black Africa,” wrote one. The New York Times compared the Ugandan leader to Nelson Mandela, and Time magazine hailed him as a “herdsman and philosopher” and “central Africa’s intellectual compass.” https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/12/americas-secret-role-in-the-rwandan-genocide
............................................................................................................................
2-22-18 Berlin-based anti-graft group Transparency International published Wednesday its global corruption perceptions index covering 180 countries....with 0 points being most corrupt and 100 the least, based on data from international organisations like the World Bank, African Development Bank and World Economic Forum.
1. New Zealand 89 points
2. Denmark 88
3. Finland, Norway, Switzerland, equal at 85
6. Singapore, Sweden 84
8. Canada, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Britain 82
12. Germany 81
16. United States, Belgium 75
2. Denmark 88
3. Finland, Norway, Switzerland, equal at 85
6. Singapore, Sweden 84
8. Canada, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Britain 82
12. Germany 81
16. United States, Belgium 75
20. Japan 73
23. France 70
42. Spain 57
54. Italy 50
71. South Africa 43
77. China 41
81. Turkey 40
135. Russia, Mexico 29
151. Uganda 26
23. France 70
42. Spain 57
54. Italy 50
71. South Africa 43
77. China 41
81. Turkey 40
135. Russia, Mexico 29
151. Uganda 26
157. Burundi
169. Venezuela, Iraq 18
171. Libya , North Korea 17
175. Yemen, Sudan 16
177. Afghanistan 15
178. Syria 14
179. South Sudan 12
180. Somalia 9
171. Libya , North Korea 17
175. Yemen, Sudan 16
177. Afghanistan 15
178. Syria 14
179. South Sudan 12
180. Somalia 9
http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Uganda-third-most-corrupt-country-East-Africa-TI-report/688334-4315402-i9uouoz/index.html
...........................................................................................
...........................................................................................
3-22-15 In an interview last week, Nigerian president Goodluck Jonathan blamed the military’s inability to put down the rebellion previously to a lack of weapons and resources, which have now come through.
It is in keeping with global trends showing an upward swing in arms exports, with the volumes in 2010-2014 some 16% higher than in the preceding five years. The US, Russia, China, Germany and France are the five biggest exporters, while India, Saudi Arabia, China, the UAE and Pakistan took most deliveries globally.
We looked at the arms transfer sales data on Africa, ahead of the release of military expenditure figures by the Sweden-based research institution next month.
1: Africa received 9% of all global arms deliveries between 2010-14, the least of all the regions, but still a 45% increase over 2005-2009. SIPRI uses a five-year moving average due to yearly fluctuations in arms sales numbers.
2: States in sub-Saharan Africa received 42% of all imports into the continent, led by rivals Sudan and Uganda as the largest importers, at 15% and 14% of the subregional total respectively. Sudan is battling rebels internally, while Uganda has in recent years assumed the role of regional policeman, seen in intervention in countries such as South Sudan, DR Congo (with disastrous consequences), Central African Republic, and its on-going participation in peacekeeping operations such as in Somalia.
3: Despite these figures, understanding the impact of arms sales to Africa can be a bit like groping in the dark. In many cases they fuel conflict, in others they are used legitimately for defense or peacekeeping operations. These grey areas are why it is so difficult to get accurate data on the continent—while countries in the region regularly express support for conventional arms control initiatives, their low level of participation in the UN Register of Conventional Arms (UNROCA)—the key intergovernmental reporting instrument on conventional arms—casts doubts on their willingness to actively control arms. Just seven African countries have ratified the Arms Trade Treaty which came into force in December for example.
4: With China, the US and Russia among the biggest suppliers to Africa, their motives are diverse—from direct financial gain to “strengthening political influence in sub-Saharan Africa in order to gain access to natural resources and to further the security interest of the supplier,” SIPRI notes in a policy paper on the region. The outcome is a different interpretation of rules such as UN embargoes, more often not contributing to conflict in the region.
5: The three largest importers in the continent 2010-14 were Algeria which is in conflict with rebel groups and which took 30% of imports into the region, Morocco (26%) and Sudan, which took stock of 6% of arms.
6: The US restarted deliveries to Egypt in 2014, which it had restrained following the military coup in the country in 2013. SIPRI says the most notable delivery was for 10 combat helicopters, considered key in Egypt’s military campaign against Sinai rebels.
7: Neighbours Morocco and Algeria appear to be involved in an arms race of sorts—the latter increased deliveries by 3% between 2005-09 and 2010-14, buying its stock from Italy, Russia and China. Morocco saw imports increased elevenfold over the same period. Algiers appears to have the last laugh—it has a raft of outstanding orders, unlike its rival.
8: Several suppliers sent weapons to Nigeria and Cameroon to fulfill their urgent need for equipment to fight militant group Boko Haram, widely blamed for the terrorists’ longevity, despite the former spending twice as much on defence as on education. Both countries last year ordered and received choppers from China and Russia, and armoured vehicles from China, South Africa, Ukraine and Czech Republic.
10: no African company features among SIPRI’s list (pdf) of the world’s 100 largest arms-producing and military services companies, which in 2013 saw combined sales of $402 billion—or a fifth of Africa’s GDP. Two-thirds of the firms are headquartered either in the US or Western Europe. The last entry on the list made $770 million in sales in that year. http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-03-20-7-big-facts-you-need-to-know-about-arms-sales-to-africawhere-algeria-and-uganda-are-stars
...............................................................................................
6-24-13 some of the largest "offshore" centres can be found in major finance hubs such as London, Zurich and New York. You may also be surprised to know that Liberia, Botswana and Ghana, and Think Africa Press reports that Kenya may become Africa’s flagship offshore centre.
Offshore centres normally refer to a jurisdiction, which has tax legislation that offers fiscal advantages for non-resident companies choosing to incorporate and transfer capital there. A by Ahmed Zoromé says businesses in offshore centres are primarily oriented towards non-residents; and normally have a less demanding regulatory environment with minimal disclosure requirements, and low or zero-taxation schemes. It is not illegal for corporations or individuals to take advantage of legal rules through tax-efficiency schemes or estate planning, but where a low regulatory environment and the opacity of offshore transactions involves capital flight, money laundering or tax evasion, it becomes problematic. http://africanarguments.org/2013/06/24/the-africa-business-briefing-mayjune-2013-offshore-centres-financial-justice-and-multinational-business-by-desne-masie/
..................................................................................................................il
Hilaire Avril
- As several African governments examine the possibility of setting up their own “offshore” financial centres, the trade name for tax havens, campaigners are calling for transparency and fair tax regimes.
“We need pan-African action,” says Alvin Mosioma, coordinator of the Tax Justice Network Africa, an organisation that advocates fair tax regimes to promote economic and social development.
“The African Union has established a special panel on illicit financial flows, and the African Tax Administrators Forum meeting held in 2008 was also a promising start, but Africans have been too silent too long on the issue of financial transparency.”
“With the current preoccupations with terrorism and political instability on the continent, adding financial instability and sheltering corruption in local tax havens would be catastrophic,” Mosioma concludes.
“There is an emerging trend in Africa towards establishing our own offshore centres . One argument we hear is that it would modernise the African financial sector, and streamline the red tape in many countries,” says Mosioma.
The nefarious impact of tax havens on developing countries’ economies is increasingly well documented. Recent research establishes that secrecy jurisdictions in the British Isles or the Caribbean are a major conduit for billions of dollars siphoned out of low-income countries each year.
Africa is far from immune. The Isle of Jersey, one of the world’s most famous jurisdiction for “offshore finance”, announced in early August it would open negotiations with the government of Kenya over its share of the 10 million dollars in bribes recovered from bank accounts allegedly held by a former Kenyan cabinet minister and the former head of the national power company on the island.
Some African states have a long-standing tradition of ensuring banking and legal secrecy on their territory. Liberia is internationally famous for its lax shipping register, ensuring cheap and confidential registration of sea vessels regardless of their seaworthiness and ownership.
Mauritius has long been a tax haven, sheltering fortunes from the prying eyes of African tax authorities and facilitating “round tripping”, the discrete harbouring of funds from India later artificially re-invested under the very favourable guise of foreign direct investments. Djibouti and the Seychelles have also been qualified as tax havens in the past.
Botswana, in southern Africa, set up its International Finances Services Centre in 2003, facilitating the easy transfer and repatriation of funds to avoid withholding and capital gains tax, thus earning the moniker of “Switzerland of Africa” in an article of the Harvard International Review in 2010.
Much more recently, Ghana, a west-African country, which recently struck oil, contemplated the benefits of setting up its own offshore financial centre.
Kenya announced in March that it was considering establishing the Nairobi International Financial Centre. The project seems to be an attempt at competing with Johannesburg, in South Africa, the financial powerhouse of the continent, and Mauritius, already a secrecy jurisdiction.
“This is not yet official government policy, as far as we know,” Mosioma says. “But there are related concerns being raised regarding Kenya’s Special Economic Zones granting telecoms and banking operations special tax regimes,” he explains.
Financial advisor and international institutions have, until recently, been marketing Western economies’ deregulation as the successful path to economic growth throughout the world. The global financial meltdown of 2008 and current debt crises in Europe and the U.S.A. seem to have had little effect on this discourse so far.
“The global financial sector is still advocating the liberalisation of financial flows into and out of countries as a “best practice”, and increasingly so in developing countries,” says Mosioma.
But recent developments may have thwarted some African temptations to create regional fiscal paradises. Ghana’s proposed offshore centre was recently disavowed by the government, which withdrew the offshore banking license it had granted to Barclay’s Bank.
The move was blamed by the financial group on Ghana’s inadequate legislative framework. But the Central Bank seems to have reacted to concerns regarding the possibility of regional money laundering. “It’s very heartening to see that Ghana seems to have come through in this regard,” says Nicholas Shaxson, author of the recently published Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World, a history of the global offshore financial system.
“The specific risks of tax havens for African countries is that tax haven exacerbate the “resource curse”, the economic hardships hitting countries that rely mainly on commodities exports,” Shaxson explains.
“A country like Nigeria has billions in oil money flooding in, but the ordinary people tend not to be better off, as it sets off inflation and impedes exports of job-creating sectors, such as agriculture or manufacturing,” he says. “If a country’s financial sector were suddenly to cause a massive influx of money, it would undoubtedly have the same effect on its population.”
Despite the risks, the issue of offshore financial centres is not yet on most international organisations’ radars. The OECD’s Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes is one of the only institutions moitoring offshore finance. It narrowly spared Ghana a slot on its black list, in light of the recent development.
According to Shaxson: “Civil society is in its early phase of waking up to the importance of the issue: Brazil’s government is hosting an upcoming seminar on international tax justice, and India has its own drivers, with rising public anger at what they call ‘black money’.” http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/08/africa-emerging-trend-towards-establishing-offshore-tax-havens/
No comments:
Post a Comment