skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"There’s no question that many – I dare say, most – of those who answer to the name of leader in Africa are in the mold that Frantz Fanon categorizes as “contemptible fools.” But there’s also, we must not forget, the issue of the hypocrisy of the world’s economic powers – the nations whose banks facilitate the thefts in Africa, and keep the proceeds. "
"The art of throwing money away"
by Okey Ndibe (okeyndibe@gmail.com)
It’s always deeply painful when Africa achieves another distinction in the wrong sector. This time, it’s in the foolish art of throwing money away!
Last month, the Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based research group, released a sobering report on the illicit outflow of cash from African nations. The report concluded that, in the four decades between 1970 and 2008, African nations lost $854 billion through illegal transfers of funds. And GFI suggests that it’s a conservative estimate. Actual outflows, the report states, may be as high as $1.8 trillion.
In case Nigerians are wondering – yes, our country (once again) topped the list. With $240.7 billion, Nigeria clinched a claim as the outstanding star in the league of exporters of cash. Nigeria’s closest competitor, Egypt, lost $131.3 billion. The other countries in the top five are South Africa ($76.4 billion), Morocco ($41 billion), and Algeria ($35.1 billion).
There’s little surprise about Nigeria’s stellar showing in this dubious league. It’s estimated, after all, that Sani Abacha alone pocketed more than $3 billion. Last year, a Swiss judge ordered the freezing of $350 million in assets “belonging” to Abba Abacha, one of the dictator’s sons.
The picture is dismal. Much of these stolen funds end up in European, Asian, and North American banks. And then comes the paradox: the same public officials responsible for frittering away the continent’s resources are quick to haunt the capitals of Europe and North America, bowl in hand, to beg – shamelessly! – for alms.
The GFI report illustrates the anomaly: what Africa has exported in illicit cash is at least double the official development aid that’s come to the continent. That’s one way of saying – forgive the cliché – penny wise, pound-foolish. Here’s the diagram of events. First, our rulers wire good money to the so-called big donor nations. Then they travel to the Western capitals to debase themselves begging for handouts. Often, they return, like triumphant fools, clutching the pittance they received – at best, half of the loot they “donated” to Western banks. And then they promptly privatize much of the aid – and wire it back to their Western sponsors.
What’s worse, foreign aid – unlike the cool cash we idiotically transfer – comes with strings attached. Often, it’s aid only in name, but in reality part of the scheme by donors to further impoverish African peoples. All too frequently, foreign aid is abracadabra, pure and simple. It’s often packaged as “technical” assistance that destitute African nations are coaxed to pay for – often at hideously inflated prices.
It’s a financial magician’s dream trick. One day, no questions asked, African rulers enrich the banks and economies of the West with looted funds. The next day, these same rulers show up in Western capitals on perennial begging missions. They look like miscast mendicants in their designer suits and handcrafted pairs of shoes. They mope, listening – with little or no sense of shame or irony – to Western “donors” give them long, stiff and humiliating lectures on the virtues of wise investment, sound economic planning, and financial discipline.
I invoke the words of Ayi Kwei Armah: Why are we so blest?
There’s no question that many – I dare say, most – of those who answer to the name of leader in Africa are in the mold that Frantz Fanon categorizes as “contemptible fools.” But there’s also, we must not forget, the issue of the hypocrisy of the world’s economic powers – the nations whose banks facilitate the thefts in Africa, and keep the proceeds. When the right crop of African leaders reclaim their nations from the depraved hands of those who steal for a living, then the issue of the West’s role in impoverishing Africa must be raised.
It would be comforting if we could say that the GFI report focused on a habit that African leaders have since been dropped. Sadly, that’s far from being the case.
Take Nigeria. Despite some modest gains made over the last eleven years against the scourge of corruption and money laundering, the culture of stealing public funds remains alive.
Last week, the president of the Nigerian Bar Association reminded the world that his country has not lifted a finger about the Halliburton bribe scandal. This, despite the fact that there’s no doubt that officials of Halliburton handed hefty bribes to high-ranking Nigerian public officials. And despite the fact that Mr. Umaru Yar’Adua promised that he would not shield any implicated officials, and made a “show” of setting up an investigation panel. Chances are that, had Yar’Adua not been hobbled by sickness, he would have bestowed national honors on some of the Nigerian recipients of Halliburton bribes.
Nigerians pay a steep price for a culture that garlands corrupt people with pompous chieftaincy titles and hollow honors. That price is that corruption has become as familiar as staple food; the stealing of public funds is so normalized, in fact, that those who reject the temptation to steal are often viewed as fools – or worse.
Nigerian officials are specialists in squandermania, the disease of throwing money away. Nigerians throw away money on power generators, neglecting to fix their country’s power supply. Too many government officials splash huge fortunes on high-priced cars, but won’t invest in road construction and maintenance. They dole out stupendous sums to foreign hospitals and doctors, but won’t provide a healthcare system worthy of human beings for their hapless fellows who are stuck in Nigeria.
Today, Nigerians are riveted by the scandal of the N64 billion-runway at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja. How did Julius Berger win a contract to construct a runway whose price tag surpasses the cost of building an entire airport? Nigeria has a Bureau of Public Procurement whose statutory job includes the carrying out of due diligence before signing off on contracts. Did the officials of that bureau go to sleep when it came time to vet this contract? How in the world did the bureau give a thumbs-up to a project whose cost – from all appearances – is so scandalously inflated?
The aviation committee of the House of Representatives has been holding hearings, but I doubt that its members are less puzzled than the rest of us. Numerous officials have appeared before the committee in Abuja, but none has given a coherent explanation. The runway saga is, I fear, one of those bizarre narratives that point up how Nigeria’s cash takes wings and flies away to foreign vaults.
Here’s a textbook case deserving Nigerians’ attention. The bar association, labor unions, student activists, the media and other civic organizations ought to use this case to advance the cause of accountability in Nigeria. Acting President Goodluck Jonathan ought to ask for briefing on this scandal. At the very least, he should send away the leadership of the Bureau of Public Procurement and demand that Julius Berger renegotiate the contract.
GFI’s director, Raymond Baker, stated that stemming the “devastating outflow of much-needed capital is essential to achieving economic development and poverty alleviation goals in these [African] countries.” It’s questionable that Mr. Jonathan has the will to play spoiler to those who profit by throwing away Nigeria’s cash. But he has a rare opportunity to rise above the limitations of his political career, and the forces that contend for his loyalty. If he acts to freeze the runway contract until the disturbing questions are resolved, and to dismiss procurement officials who seem to doze while Nigeria is being fleeced, he’d send a signal that the era of irresponsible fiddling with public funds is nearing the end of its run.
Read full post
"Hamas (حماس Ḥamās, an acronym of حركة المقاومة الاسلامية Ḥarakat al-Muqāwamat al-Islāmiyyah, meaning "Islamic Resistance Movement") is an Islamic Palestinian socio-political organization which includes a paramilitary force..."
Dear friends,
Particularly mainstream media in the US lump both HAMAS and Al Qaeda together in the same category as “terrorists”. The idea is: terrorism is a great act of “evil”.
However, if we use history as a guide, terrorist actions are often not just carried out by mean-spirited people for the sake of “evil”, as it were. Rather, they are used mostly, in fact, as part of a larger plan that lesser military powers carry out against their more potent and larger foes for the former’s intent to gain autonomy. A case in point that occurred right here in the United States happened during the 19th Century, when Confederate forces openly robbed and burned stores of armaments from both warehouses and ships belonging to the Union, until President Lincoln was finally forced to declare war. And descendants of many of the Confederates and their ilk, by the way, continue to proliferate in this country, at all levels of power.
Nevertheless, the role of HAMAS is not simply terrorism. After all, their main duties appear to be administrative ones where they are responsible for providing social services to the citizens of Gaza, from food and health care to education. This aspect of their work is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the mainstream media of the West.
At any rate, in the informative discussion/interview, below, with noted Jewish scholar Neil Zagorin, he and I shared ideas about the role of HAMAS in the Israel/Occupied Palestine mess.
Cheers!
G. Djata Bumpus
*******************************
Djata: Hey Neil, talking about HAMAS in the US in anything other than a negative light seems to bring uneasiness among a certain part of the population.
Neil: HAMAS is treated like such a bogeyman that it's hard to say anything positive about it without making it seem naive and easily dismissible.
Djata: Neil, personally, I see HAMAS as a grass roots, freedom-fighting group. How do you see them?
Neil: Virtually every organized Palestinian group in the past century has striven for Palestinian freedom in one way or another, as far as I can tell. If you’re asking whether I see HAMAS as primarily motivated or inspired by the struggle for freedom, I’d say that’s a main factor.
Djata: In the context of their religious/political direction, do you consider HAMAS part of the body of Islamic fundamentalists who seem to be controlling an increasingly larger portion of the Middle East?
Neil: They are an Islamist group that seeks a Muslim renewal of some sort. Of course, the perceived need for that should be seen in the context of the dispossession and lack of freedom Palestinians have endured in the past century. It’s been fashionable, at least in the US, to view Islamism negatively, but I don’t think we should resort to stereotypes. If Al Qaeda is towards the far end of an Islamist spectrum, the ruling party of Turkey, with whom the West seems able to live respectfully, is at a different part of that spectrum. I would be cautious about concluding that HAMAS is like Al Qaeda.
Djata: But if HAMAS is simply another “terrorist” group, then why do they have so much support from everyday Palestinians?
Neil: Hamas would not be where it is without tremendous grass-roots support among Palestinians. As I understand it, HAMAS has earned a reputation for being more honest and competent in discharging administrative duties than the Palestinian Authority. They have earned respect for being confrontational with Israel in a context where 15 years of negotiations have not produced a 2-state solution, but have produced significant Israeli settlement in the West Bank that threatens to make a 2-state solution impossible.
HAMAS will use brute force to achieve political goals within Palestinian society, but brute force is a common tool in that region. The reasons for that are many and complex, and HAMAS is not the roughest group in that part of the world. In the end, for a combination of reasons, HAMAS commands grass-roots support, even among Palestinians who are not Islamist, or even Muslim.
Djata: Do you agree with the US government not wanting to include HAMAS in the dialogue?
Neil: The governments of both the US and Israel have dealt with and do deal with HAMAS. They both tolerated, if not enabled, HAMAS to get started a generation ago, seeing it as something that could counterweight the Palestinian secular radicalism of the PLO and similar groups. Now that HAMAS is a genuine national force, they still deal with them. There’s been quiet cooperation, at times, between Israeli government officials and Palestinian officials who are Hamas members on administrative matters pertaining to daily life. Israel negotiated one truce arrangement with HAMAS last summer, that is, in 2008, that was relatively successful in keeping armed conflict damped down for the duration of its limited scope, even if it was unsuccessful in other ways, particularly in having border crossings into Gaza opened as HAMAS wanted.
Israel and the US deal also with HAMAS by publicly rejecting a direct relationship, and treating it confrontationally. That is also a way for one political actor to deal with another political actor.
Djata: Yes, I understand your point; however, the Obama administration seems to be following the same path as the Bushies did, by not acknowledging HAMAS as a crucial group in the process regarding dialogue that will lead to solving some of the problems that both Israel and Palestine face.
Neil: If you’re asking me whether I think it would be better for the US government to deal openly and directly with the HAMAS-led government in Gaza, I think that it would. The objection at this point is usually that HAMAS is a terrorist organization, or is a bunch of Muslim fanatics, or is rejecting of Israel’s right to exist.
Djata: One of the points that are made against HAMAS is their use of Palestinian civilians as “targets:, during their confrontations with Israel. Is that your position?
Neil: Yes, HAMAS has been willing to harm civilians, and to create fear among civilians, as tools to achieve political aims, which is a definition I would use for terrorism. Yes, HAMAS is an Islamist political entity that has striven for Muslim rule over all of historic Palestine, though some segments of Hamas say they would be willing to settle for a 2-state solution. Substitute “Israel” for “HAMAS” and “Zionist” for “Islamist” and “Muslim” in the preceding sentences, and see how they read.
Yes, HAMAS says it can’t recognize Israel. This is for theological reasons, as I understand it: all lands that were historically under Muslim control should remain under Muslim control. Some people in HAMAS speak of long-term truce that could be extended indefinitely as a method of co-existence with Israel. They may be sincere, or not. In honesty, this is an alien type of political view to me, a Westerner. Look at the Israeli body politic; at this point, though, there’s reason to doubt that it has the intention and will to negotiate a settlement with Palestinians in which Palestinians actually achieve some real independence.
The point of this is that if the US wants to only deal with groups that are politically high-minded and dedicated to non-violence, it may as well pack up and go home. If the US wants to be involved to foster a resolution that will bring some kind of justice and normal life to the region, it should deal with major players. Hamas has a real presence in Palestinian society, it represents a genuine spectrum of Palestinian opinion, it may well be a reality-based player that would adapt to being included in the mainstream by behaving as a mainstream player. Will it become “moderate” in its view of Israel? Doubtful, but let’s be honest, there’s little real moderation in that part of the world. In any case, it would take a long time after some kind of resolution of the conflict is put in place and works out well for most Palestinians to feel okay about the situation.
Djata: President Obama appears to be maintaining a hands-off position with HAMAS. If his administration maintains that stance, how will this help HAMAS become engaged in the dialogue?
Neil: The US has taken a stance of rejectionism vis-a-vis HAMAS for years, while the situation has gone from bad to worse. Congressmen and Senators have visited Gaza recently. It's hard for me to resist the conclusion that this is a form of dealing with HAMAS directly, if not openly. If so, maybe it portends something beneficial.
Read full post
"There’s no question that many – I dare say, most – of those who answer to the name of leader in Africa are in the mold that Frantz Fanon categorizes as “contemptible fools.” But there’s also, we must not forget, the issue of the hypocrisy of the world’s economic powers – the nations whose banks facilitate the thefts in Africa, and keep the proceeds. "
