All that Democracy has brought for the majority is a sense of power. But political power basically is defined as that which shapes the behavior and thinking of people. It is power, but to serve the interests of others. So what is this big deal about having political power ..?
Responsible African governments should have nationalized the mines years ago. Responsible Caribbean Governments should have nationalized the utilities years ago. But the political power that resides in the hands of a few is there to make the present plight acceptable to a majority (no matter how that majority is defined)
Baf….very well said, that is why I am more than a little bit pissed off at that and it is indeed a shame and disgrace to the black race particularly to females in 2014, the year of total enlightenment and to those with a modicum of intelligence, it also happens to be the golden age. that a little nimble infested yardhen such as AC still stands in shock, awe and fear of all the aforementioned shit stains on the island. (I called the names last night of said shit stains, no need to repeat).
For the record and for all those who were blessed with the intelligence to fully understand, said SHIT STAINS in reality only have power over nimble infested yardfowls, yardhens, unaware voters AND each other, no one else……..In other words politicians and those whom they extort, take bribes from, are business partners with etc, power is merely a figment of their imagination and those who are not intelligent enough know absolutely no better and are therefore keeping these blights and parasites with their negative, greedy energy alive and wealthy……it’s a vexing situation.
Freundel Stuart was Leroy Parris lawyer, Chris Sinckler was given an old jaguar car Leroy Parris wife use to drive, Dr Denis Lowe getting help from Williams, Denis Kellman getting funds from Arawak, Dr David Estwick get help from Innotech, Michael Lashley and Mark Malonely of Preconco in bed with Coverley and road building. We need to get rid of the DLP by peaceful protest and not violent means. Perhaps if they touch Dr George Belle he be the modern day Clement Payne whose persecution make cause persons to take to the street.
77th Anniversary of the 1937 Barbados Riots- What Future for the Island?
Compared to rebellions, riots and revolutions that have played out in various parts of the world throughout history, these riots were negligible in terms of size and scale. They however had a considerable impact on the modern history of Barbados and helped to shape the island as we know it today.
Barbados in 1937 was a country sharply divided along the lines of race, with a small white elite holding economic and political power and a majority black population largely employed in the agricultural sector and suffering from poverty, lack of opportunity, unemployment, dismal labour conditions and general social and economic malaise. The racial structure that permeated the social, economic and political landscape rigidly reinforced these conditions. The economy was dominated by sugar and land ownership policies and patterns that promoted peasant agriculture and made it impossible to address poverty. The same open economy also made it difficult to redress poverty through wages and employment-related benefits. Barbados was a country still dominated by the plantation a hundred years after the abolition of slavery.
In any situation where people are oppressed, courageous men and women speak out and agitate for change and it was no different in Barbados. Men like Clennel Wickham and Charles Duncan O’neal were followed by a Trinidadian of Barbadian parentage, Clement Payne, who stood up for the working people of Barbados and advocated labour reform and the formation of trade unions.
Payne was able to inspire the common man and such was his influence that the Barbadian authorities deported him to Trinidad on July 26th, 1937. Crowds gathered at the news of his deportation and the anger and frustration that had built up erupted into riots that lasted for four days. The immediate result of the riots was 14 dead, 47 wounded, 500 arrests and millions of dollars worth of damage. The long-term consequences were far reaching.
The British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by Lord Moyne was appointed in 1938 to investigate disturbances and unrest in the British West Indies and it recommended in its 1939 report that Britain invest in development and provision of social services.
The years following the riots would witness significant social and political reform in Barbados as black Barbadians emerged to rule a country where they were a majority. Payne, who died in 1941, did not live to see his dreams realised but his bravery in rebelling against the status quo was not in vain as generations of Bajans have benefited from his actions. Payne along with O’Neal are National Heroes of Barbados, an honour many also believe should be accorded to Clennel Wickham.
70 years to the day the riots began, Barbados is at a crossroads, with a widening gap between the rich and poor, extremely high cost of living, dissatisfaction among the population over widespread sale of land to foreigners and the inability of normal Barbadians to afford land and a lack of opportunity for the youth. I often wonder what Barbados will look like in 10-15 years time and I think I have a clear picture. It saddens me. I cannot imagine what it will look like in 70 years! http://individuality1977.blogspot.com/2007/07/70th-anniversary-of-1937-barbados-riots.html
Funny Nites….you either do not know or totally forgot the Harris – now business man of many businesses on the island including full control of the island’s private healthcare system and now car and parts dealer and Inniss- politician who while being health minister was hotter than hot to privatize the QEH public healthcare………….a very toxic connection…….I remember Moneybrain talking about extortion from politicians to business people, i kept telling him I was more concerned about who is extorting whom or is the line between the two so fuzzy it’s difficult to now separate the extorted from the extortionist?…at least not so with who is bribing whom, we distinctly know that scenario..
Rameses Caddle brought that Indian family here in the 70’s.They changed their Indian names to Harris so they can fool bajans with the name.Who’s benefitting?Indians are clannish,so now you know.Ask the Ramgoat woman.
Well he wheeling real influence and the FTC need to take note as his buying up May be uncompetitive behavior as price fixing and gouging may become his modus operandi. When 1 % controls 98% we can expect heads to be cracked and our crime rate to be on par with Jamaica or Trinidad.
We try to keep a positive vibe going here at This Is Africa, but every so often you come across something that just paints your mood black. Some of you may already be aware of this, but if like us you’re hearing about this for the first time your jaw will drop. And it’ll probably raise the same BIG questions in your mind that it did in ours. (Incidentally, once you read this you’ll no longer wonder why French presidents’ and ministers are sometimes greeted by protests when they visit former French colonies in Africa, even if the protests are about other issues. Though what other issues could be more important than this one we have no idea.)
Just before France conceded to African demands for independence in the 1960s, it carefully organised its former colonies (CFA countries) in a system of “compulsory solidarity” which consisted of obliging the 14 African states to put 65% of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20% for financial liabilities. This means these 14 African countries only ever have access to 15% of their own money! If they need more they have to borrow their own money from the French at commercial rates! And this has been the case since the 1960s.
Professor Nicolas Agbohou, Associate Professor at the Institute of Cheikh Anta Diop, University of Gabon
Believe it or not it gets worse.
France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the Francophone countries. So even if the African countries can get better prices elsewhere, they can’t sell to anybody until France says it doesn’t need the resources.
In the award of government contracts, French companies must be considered first; only after that can these countries look elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if the CFA countries can obtain better value for money elsewhere.
Presidents of CFA countries that have tried to leave the CFA zone have had political and financial pressure put on them by successive French presidents.
CFA Zone
Thus, these African states are French taxpayers – taxed at a staggering rate – yet the citizens of these countries aren’t French and don’t have access to the public goods and services their money helps pay for.
CFA zones are solicited to provide private funding to French politicians during elections in France.
The above is a summary of an article we came across in the February issue of the New African (and from an interview given by Professor Mamadou Koulibaly, Speaker of the Ivorian National Assembly, Professor of Economics, and author of the book The Servitude of the Colonial Pact), and we hope they won’t mind us sharing it with you influx, so here goes:
THE COLONIAL PACT
It is the Colonial Pact that set up the common currency for the Francophone countries, the CFA Franc, which demands that each of the 14 C.F.A member countries must deposit 65% (plus another 20% for financial liabilities, making the dizzying total of 85%) of their foreign exchange reserves in an “Operations Account” at the French Treasury in Paris.
The African nations therefore have only access to 15% of their own money for national development in any given year. If they are in need of extra money, as they always are, they have to borrow from their own 65% in the French Treasury at commercial rates. And that is not all: there is a cap on the credit extended to each member country equivalent to 20% of their public revenue in the preceding year. So if the countries need to borrow more than 20%, too bad; they cannot do it. Amazingly, the final say on the C.F.A arrangements belongs to the French Treasury, which invests the African countries’ money in its own name on the Paris Bourse (the stock exchange).
It is also the Colonial Pact that demands that France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the Francophone countries. So even if the African countries could get better prices elsewhere, they cannot sell to anybody until France says it does not want to buy those natural resources.
It is, again, the Colonial Pact that demands that in the award of government contracts in the African countries, French companies should be considered first; only after that can Africans look elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if Africans can obtain better value for money elsewhere, French companies come first, and most often get the contracts. Currently, there is the awkward case in Abidjan where, before the elections, former president Gbagbo’s government wanted to build a third major bridge to link the central business district (called Plateau) to the rest of the city, from which it is separated by a lagoon. By Colonial Pact tradition, the contract must go to a French company, which incidentally has quoted an astronomical price – to be paid in euros or US dollars.
Not happy, Gbagbo’s government sought a second quote from the Chinese, who offered to build the bridge at half the price quoted by the French company, and – wait for this – payment would be in cocoa beans, of which Cote d’Ivoire is the world’s largest producer. But, unsurprisingly, the French said “non, you can’t do that”.
Overall the Colonial Pact gives the French a dominant and privileged position over Francophone Africa, but in Côte d’Ivoire, the jewel of the former French possessions in Africa, the French are overly dominant. Outside parliament, almost all the major utilities – water, electricity, telephone, transport, ports and major banks – are run by French companies or French interests. The same story is found in commerce, construction, and agriculture.
In short, the Colonial Pact has created a legal mechanism under which France obtains a special place in the political and economic life of its former colonies.
THE BIG QUESTIONS
In what meaningful way can any of the 14 CFA countries be said to be independent?
If this isn’t illegal and an international crime, then what is?
What is it going to take for this state of indentured servitude to end?
How much have the CFA countries lost as a result of this 50-year (and counting) “agreement”? (Remember, they’ve had to borrow their own money from the French at commercial rates)
Do French people know they’re living off the wealth of African countries and have been doing so for over half a century? And if they know, do they give a damn?
When will France start paying back money they’ve sucked from these countries, not only directly from the interest on cash reserves and loans these countries have had to take out, but also on lost earnings from the natural resources the countries sold to France below market rates as well as the lost earnings resulting from awarding contracts to French companies when other contractors could have done things for less?
Does any such “agreement” exist between Britain and its former colonies, or did they really let go when they let go?
Controversial businessman sells asset for 300 times purchase price
Congo and Angola to collaborate in development of offshore oil block
Company defends deal as beneficial to Congo, campaigners criticise lack of transparency
By Peter Jones
KINSHASA, Jan 23 (Reuters) – Israeli billionaire businessman Dan Gertler sold one of his Congo-based oil companies to the government last year for $150 million – 300 times the amount paid for the oil rights – in a deal criticised by transparency campaigners.
Gertler, an influential figure in Democratic Republic of Congo’s mining and oil sectors with close links to the Kinshasa government, denies any wrongdoing in the sale of Nessergy Ltd, which paid a $500,000 signing bonus for its block in 2006.
The block lies near some of neighbouring Angola’s most productive oilfields. At the time it was acquired by Nessergy, the block was located in an area at the heart of a maritime border dispute between Kinshasa and Luanda.
However, the two countries have since created a zone of common economic interest in an attempt to settle the border row. Last year, Congo sought to buy back the rights from Nessergy to allow it to negotiate a new production sharing agreement with Angolan state oil company, Sonangol.
According to the contract for the April 2013 transaction seen by Reuters, Sonangol financed the deal, paying Gertler’s Fleurette Group $150 million for the rights to the block. Congo will repay Sonangol out of future oil revenue.
Fluerette has been paid the fee but cannot access the money until a deal between the national oil companies of Congo and Angola is finalised.
A Fleurette representative said no major drilling had taken place in the Nessergy block due to disputes over development rights. He said the $500,000 signing bonus was the standard amount companies paid to Congo for oil rights at the time the contract was agreed.
The company said the value of its rights increased dramatically after oil was discovered on the nearby Menongue field in Angolan waters in 2007.
TARGET OF CRITICISM
Campaign group Global Witness, however, said Nessergy’s block was always likely to hold significant oil reserves given its proximity to Angolan discoveries totalling around 10 billion barrels.
“In a 2005-06 licensing round signature bonuses for these blocks ranged from $900 million to $1.1 billion,” the campaigner said in a statement, referring to the nearby Angolan acreage.
Global Witness also criticised the Congolese government for not publishing the deal within 60 days as required by the law.
Because Nessergy was incorporated in tax havens where owners are not obliged to divulge their identity, it is unclear who owns the minority holding not belonging to Gertler, and therefore who else benefits from the sale, the campaigner said.
“Global Witness is calling for an end to secrecy over beneficial ownership internationally, as an essential step in the fight against corruption,” the campaigner said.
Gertler’s mining companies have been the target of transparency campaigners in the past. Between 2010 and 2012 they obtained a number properties for sums widely considered to be generous, before selling them on for large profits.
According to the Africa Progress Panel, headed by Kofi Annan, Congo lost out on at least $1.36 billion in potential tax revenue in five deals with Gertler during this period.
Fleurette however stands by the deals. It said the Panel’s criticism failed to “take into account a series of other factors which will impact the value of an asset, or simply state the wrong value of the transaction.”
The Gertler-controlled group insisted the Nessergy deal was good for Congo. It said that joint production with Angola will earn the cash-strapped central African nation between $1.3 billion and $3.6 billion. (Writing by Joe Bavier; Editing by Daniel Flynn, editing by David Evans) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/congo-democratic-gertler-idUSL5N0KW3WW20140123
Gabriel….as I understand it the Ramgoat woman has nothing at all at all at all to do with this………someone pointed me to the Indian Mafia, directly from India, so go figure. Peter Harris has taken total advantage of the opportunity he was handed by the politicians from both DLP/BLP, while he continues to screw black Bajan victims who have cases with his insurance company…..go figure why he is allowed to do so, with the blessing of the island’s lowlife politicians..
The Bushman…..if you continue to give me the silent treatment, I will add you to that list of BU boyfriends that has been created just for guys who get angry with me, you will have to dump those three soft-in-the-head wives you like to boast about, Suckoo, Sandiford-Garner and AC (I know Island dumped you like rubbish and in great style recently..lol). Keep giving me the silent treatment and you will see…..lol
As with the lame-brained black leaders in Africa, the black leaders in the Caribbean, Barbados included are just as lame-brained though on a much smaller scale, however, it is still very destructive to their own people, not that any of them from Africa to the Caribbean have noticed any of this, but they will someday.
On 15 October 1987 a revolution was brought to an abrupt and bloody end by the murder of Thomas Sankara, President of the newly named state of Burkina Faso. In the years following Sankara’s assassination, by his once trusted friend Blaise Compaoré who runs Burkina Faso to this day, his revolution was overturned and the country became just another African fiefdom of the International Monetary Fund. But for a brief period of 4 years, Burkina Faso shone brightly, a stunning example of what can be achieved even in one of the world’s most impoverished countries.
Sankara was a junior officer in the army of Upper Volta, a former French colony which was run as a source of cheap labour for neighbouring Cote d’Ivoire to benefit a tiny ruling class and their patrons in Paris. As a student in Madagascar, Sankara had been radicalised by waves of demonstrations and strikes taking place. In 1981, he was appointed to the military government in Upper Volta, but his outspoken support for the liberation of ordinary people in his country and outside eventually led to his arrest. In August 1983, a successful coup led by his friend Blaise Compaoré, brought him to power at the age of only 33.
Sankara saw his government as part of a wider process of the liberation of his people. Immediately he called for mobilisations and committees to defend the revolution. These committees became the cornerstone of popular participation in power. Political parties on the other hand were dissolved, seen by Sankara as representatives of the forces of the old regime. In 1984, Sankara renamed the country Burkina Faso (land of people of integrity).
Sankara purged corruption from the government, slashing ministerial salaries and adopting a simpler approach to life. Journalist Paula Akugizibwe says Sankara “rode a bicycle to work before he upgraded, at his Cabinet’s insistence, to a Renault 5 – one of the cheapest cars available in Burkina Faso at the time. He lived in a small brick house and wore only cotton that was produced, weaved and sewn in Burkina Faso.”
In fact the adoption of local clothes and local foods was central to Sankara’s economic strategy to break the country from the domination of the West. He famously said:
“’Where is imperialism?” Look at your plates when you eat. These imported grains of rice, corn, and millet – that is imperialism.”
His solution was to grow food – “Let us consume only what we ourselves control!” The results were incredible: self-sufficiency in 4 years. Former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Jean Ziegler says that a combination of massive land distribution, fertiliser and irrigation saw agricultural productivity boom; “hunger was a thing of the past”.
Similar gains were made in health, with the immunisation of millions of children, and education in a country which had had over 90% illiteracy. Basic infrastructure was built to connect the country. Resources were nationalised, local industry was supported. Millions of trees were planted in an attempt to stop desertification. All of this involved a huge mobilisation of Burkina Faso’s people, who began to build their country with their own hands, something Sankara saw as essential.
There have been few revolutionary leaders who have placed such emphasis on women’s liberation as Sankara. He saw the emancipation of women as vital to breaking the hold of the feudal system on the country. This included recruiting women into all professions, including the military and the government. It entailed ending the pressure on women to marry. And it meant involving women centrally in the grassroots revolutionary mobilisation. “We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph.” He saw the struggle of Burkina Faso’s women as “part of the worldwide struggle of all women”.
Sankara was more than a visionary national leader – perhaps of most interest to us today is the way he used international conferences as platforms to demand leaders stand up against the deep structural injustices faced by countries like Burkina Faso. In the mid 1980s, that meant speaking out on the question of debt.
Sankara used a conference of the Organisation of African Unity in 1987 to persuade fellow African leaders to repudiate their debts. He told delegates: “Debt is a cleverly managed reconquest of Africa. It is a reconquest that turns each one of us into a financial slave.” Seeing these same leaders go off one-by-one to Western governments to get a slight restructuring of their debt, he urged common, public action that would free all of Africa from domination. “If Burkina Faso alone were to refuse to pay the debt, I wouldn’t be at the next conference.” Unfortunately, he wasn’t to be.
Of course not everything Sankara tried worked. Most controversially was his response to a teachers strike, when he sacked thousands of teachers, replacing them with an army of citizens teachers who were often completely unqualified. Sankara’s system of revolutionary courts were abused by those with personal grievances. He banned trade unions as well as political parties.
Some of these measures, combined with break-neck social transformation, provided space for his enemies. Sankara was assassinated in a coup carried out by Blaise Compaoré. It seems clear there was outside support, including of French stooge President Félix Houphouët-Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire. Sankara’s revolution was rolled back by his one time associate, and Burkina Faso became another African country whose economy becomes synonymous with poverty and helplessness.
Today Sankara is not well known outside Africa – his character and ideas simply don’t fit with the notion of Africa which has been constructed in the West over the last 30 years. It would be difficult to find a less corrupt, self-serving leader than Thomas Sankara anywhere in the world. But neither does he fit the image charities like to portray of the ‘deserving poor’ in Africa. Sankara was clear on the role of Western aid, just as he was clear on the role of debt in controlling Africa:
“The root of the disease was political. The treatment could only be political. Of course, we encourage aid that aids us in doing away with aid. But in general, welfare and aid policies have only ended up disorganizing us, subjugating us, and robbing us of a sense of responsibility for our own economic, political, and cultural affairs. We chose to risk new paths to achieve greater well-being.”
The improvement in the lives of Burkina Faso’s people was astounding as a result of Sankara’s policies, yet he wouldn’t be surprised to learn that these policies have been systematically undermined by Western governments and agencies claiming to want exactly these improvements themselves.
Perhaps today, Sankara’s words are most relevant to our own crisis in Europe. They are echoed by those in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland who have heard little of him:
“Those who led us into debt were gambling, as if they were in a casino.. there is talk of a crisis. No. They gambled. They lost… We cannot repay the debt because we have nothing to pay it with. We cannot repay the debt because it is not our responsibility.”
Thomas Sankara had great belief in people – not just the people of Burkina Faso or Africa, but people across the world. He believed change must be creative, nonconformist – indeed containing “a certain amount of madness”. He believed radical change would only come when people were convinced and active, not passive and conquered. And he believed the solution is political – not one of charity. Surely Sankara has never been more relevant to our quest for justice in Europe and the world.
Jubilee Debt Campaign are asking people to join them in remembering Thomas Sankara. Tweet about Sankara using #thomassankara.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1401550180095997&set=a.1382336855350663.1073741828.1378668799050802&type=1&theater
Economic Terrorism aided and abetted by corrupt politicians.
All that Democracy has brought for the majority is a sense of power. But political power basically is defined as that which shapes the behavior and thinking of people. It is power, but to serve the interests of others. So what is this big deal about having political power ..?
Responsible African governments should have nationalized the mines years ago. Responsible Caribbean Governments should have nationalized the utilities years ago. But the political power that resides in the hands of a few is there to make the present plight acceptable to a majority (no matter how that majority is defined)
Baf….very well said, that is why I am more than a little bit pissed off at that and it is indeed a shame and disgrace to the black race particularly to females in 2014, the year of total enlightenment and to those with a modicum of intelligence, it also happens to be the golden age. that a little nimble infested yardhen such as AC still stands in shock, awe and fear of all the aforementioned shit stains on the island. (I called the names last night of said shit stains, no need to repeat).
For the record and for all those who were blessed with the intelligence to fully understand, said SHIT STAINS in reality only have power over nimble infested yardfowls, yardhens, unaware voters AND each other, no one else……..In other words politicians and those whom they extort, take bribes from, are business partners with etc, power is merely a figment of their imagination and those who are not intelligent enough know absolutely no better and are therefore keeping these blights and parasites with their negative, greedy energy alive and wealthy……it’s a vexing situation.
Freundel Stuart was Leroy Parris lawyer, Chris Sinckler was given an old jaguar car Leroy Parris wife use to drive, Dr Denis Lowe getting help from Williams, Denis Kellman getting funds from Arawak, Dr David Estwick get help from Innotech, Michael Lashley and Mark Malonely of Preconco in bed with Coverley and road building. We need to get rid of the DLP by peaceful protest and not violent means. Perhaps if they touch Dr George Belle he be the modern day Clement Payne whose persecution make cause persons to take to the street.
Freundel Stuart and his government place in history as the worst government since independence is assured.
77th Anniversary of the 1937 Barbados Riots- What Future for the Island?
Compared to rebellions, riots and revolutions that have played out in various parts of the world throughout history, these riots were negligible in terms of size and scale. They however had a considerable impact on the modern history of Barbados and helped to shape the island as we know it today.
Barbados in 1937 was a country sharply divided along the lines of race, with a small white elite holding economic and political power and a majority black population largely employed in the agricultural sector and suffering from poverty, lack of opportunity, unemployment, dismal labour conditions and general social and economic malaise. The racial structure that permeated the social, economic and political landscape rigidly reinforced these conditions. The economy was dominated by sugar and land ownership policies and patterns that promoted peasant agriculture and made it impossible to address poverty. The same open economy also made it difficult to redress poverty through wages and employment-related benefits. Barbados was a country still dominated by the plantation a hundred years after the abolition of slavery.
In any situation where people are oppressed, courageous men and women speak out and agitate for change and it was no different in Barbados. Men like Clennel Wickham and Charles Duncan O’neal were followed by a Trinidadian of Barbadian parentage, Clement Payne, who stood up for the working people of Barbados and advocated labour reform and the formation of trade unions.
Payne was able to inspire the common man and such was his influence that the Barbadian authorities deported him to Trinidad on July 26th, 1937. Crowds gathered at the news of his deportation and the anger and frustration that had built up erupted into riots that lasted for four days. The immediate result of the riots was 14 dead, 47 wounded, 500 arrests and millions of dollars worth of damage. The long-term consequences were far reaching.
The British Royal Commission of Inquiry headed by Lord Moyne was appointed in 1938 to investigate disturbances and unrest in the British West Indies and it recommended in its 1939 report that Britain invest in development and provision of social services.
The years following the riots would witness significant social and political reform in Barbados as black Barbadians emerged to rule a country where they were a majority. Payne, who died in 1941, did not live to see his dreams realised but his bravery in rebelling against the status quo was not in vain as generations of Bajans have benefited from his actions. Payne along with O’Neal are National Heroes of Barbados, an honour many also believe should be accorded to Clennel Wickham.
70 years to the day the riots began, Barbados is at a crossroads, with a widening gap between the rich and poor, extremely high cost of living, dissatisfaction among the population over widespread sale of land to foreigners and the inability of normal Barbadians to afford land and a lack of opportunity for the youth. I often wonder what Barbados will look like in 10-15 years time and I think I have a clear picture. It saddens me. I cannot imagine what it will look like in 70 years! http://individuality1977.blogspot.com/2007/07/70th-anniversary-of-1937-barbados-riots.html
Funny Nites….you either do not know or totally forgot the Harris – now business man of many businesses on the island including full control of the island’s private healthcare system and now car and parts dealer and Inniss- politician who while being health minister was hotter than hot to privatize the QEH public healthcare………….a very toxic connection…….I remember Moneybrain talking about extortion from politicians to business people, i kept telling him I was more concerned about who is extorting whom or is the line between the two so fuzzy it’s difficult to now separate the extorted from the extortionist?…at least not so with who is bribing whom, we distinctly know that scenario..
http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/honda-sale/
The Bushman…….you are starting to slow down, how did the above get past you once again….lol
So who is Peter Harris fronting for Is it Donville or Chris?
From what i am gathering, it’s not for Bajans for sure, Donville and Chris are just the waterboys…..lol
Rameses Caddle brought that Indian family here in the 70’s.They changed their Indian names to Harris so they can fool bajans with the name.Who’s benefitting?Indians are clannish,so now you know.Ask the Ramgoat woman.
Well he wheeling real influence and the FTC need to take note as his buying up May be uncompetitive behavior as price fixing and gouging may become his modus operandi. When 1 % controls 98% we can expect heads to be cracked and our crime rate to be on par with Jamaica or Trinidad.
French President François Hollande
[Traduction française ICI]
We try to keep a positive vibe going here at This Is Africa, but every so often you come across something that just paints your mood black. Some of you may already be aware of this, but if like us you’re hearing about this for the first time your jaw will drop. And it’ll probably raise the same BIG questions in your mind that it did in ours. (Incidentally, once you read this you’ll no longer wonder why French presidents’ and ministers are sometimes greeted by protests when they visit former French colonies in Africa, even if the protests are about other issues. Though what other issues could be more important than this one we have no idea.)
Just before France conceded to African demands for independence in the 1960s, it carefully organised its former colonies (CFA countries) in a system of “compulsory solidarity” which consisted of obliging the 14 African states to put 65% of their foreign currency reserves into the French Treasury, plus another 20% for financial liabilities. This means these 14 African countries only ever have access to 15% of their own money! If they need more they have to borrow their own money from the French at commercial rates! And this has been the case since the 1960s.
Professor Nicolas Agbohou, Associate Professor at the Institute of Cheikh Anta Diop, University of Gabon
Believe it or not it gets worse.
France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the Francophone countries. So even if the African countries can get better prices elsewhere, they can’t sell to anybody until France says it doesn’t need the resources.
In the award of government contracts, French companies must be considered first; only after that can these countries look elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if the CFA countries can obtain better value for money elsewhere.
Presidents of CFA countries that have tried to leave the CFA zone have had political and financial pressure put on them by successive French presidents.
CFA Zone
Thus, these African states are French taxpayers – taxed at a staggering rate – yet the citizens of these countries aren’t French and don’t have access to the public goods and services their money helps pay for.
CFA zones are solicited to provide private funding to French politicians during elections in France.
The above is a summary of an article we came across in the February issue of the New African (and from an interview given by Professor Mamadou Koulibaly, Speaker of the Ivorian National Assembly, Professor of Economics, and author of the book The Servitude of the Colonial Pact), and we hope they won’t mind us sharing it with you influx, so here goes:
THE COLONIAL PACT
It is the Colonial Pact that set up the common currency for the Francophone countries, the CFA Franc, which demands that each of the 14 C.F.A member countries must deposit 65% (plus another 20% for financial liabilities, making the dizzying total of 85%) of their foreign exchange reserves in an “Operations Account” at the French Treasury in Paris.
The African nations therefore have only access to 15% of their own money for national development in any given year. If they are in need of extra money, as they always are, they have to borrow from their own 65% in the French Treasury at commercial rates. And that is not all: there is a cap on the credit extended to each member country equivalent to 20% of their public revenue in the preceding year. So if the countries need to borrow more than 20%, too bad; they cannot do it. Amazingly, the final say on the C.F.A arrangements belongs to the French Treasury, which invests the African countries’ money in its own name on the Paris Bourse (the stock exchange).
It is also the Colonial Pact that demands that France has the first right to buy or reject any natural resources found in the land of the Francophone countries. So even if the African countries could get better prices elsewhere, they cannot sell to anybody until France says it does not want to buy those natural resources.
It is, again, the Colonial Pact that demands that in the award of government contracts in the African countries, French companies should be considered first; only after that can Africans look elsewhere. It doesn’t matter if Africans can obtain better value for money elsewhere, French companies come first, and most often get the contracts. Currently, there is the awkward case in Abidjan where, before the elections, former president Gbagbo’s government wanted to build a third major bridge to link the central business district (called Plateau) to the rest of the city, from which it is separated by a lagoon. By Colonial Pact tradition, the contract must go to a French company, which incidentally has quoted an astronomical price – to be paid in euros or US dollars.
Not happy, Gbagbo’s government sought a second quote from the Chinese, who offered to build the bridge at half the price quoted by the French company, and – wait for this – payment would be in cocoa beans, of which Cote d’Ivoire is the world’s largest producer. But, unsurprisingly, the French said “non, you can’t do that”.
Overall the Colonial Pact gives the French a dominant and privileged position over Francophone Africa, but in Côte d’Ivoire, the jewel of the former French possessions in Africa, the French are overly dominant. Outside parliament, almost all the major utilities – water, electricity, telephone, transport, ports and major banks – are run by French companies or French interests. The same story is found in commerce, construction, and agriculture.
In short, the Colonial Pact has created a legal mechanism under which France obtains a special place in the political and economic life of its former colonies.
THE BIG QUESTIONS
In what meaningful way can any of the 14 CFA countries be said to be independent?
If this isn’t illegal and an international crime, then what is?
What is it going to take for this state of indentured servitude to end?
How much have the CFA countries lost as a result of this 50-year (and counting) “agreement”? (Remember, they’ve had to borrow their own money from the French at commercial rates)
Do French people know they’re living off the wealth of African countries and have been doing so for over half a century? And if they know, do they give a damn?
When will France start paying back money they’ve sucked from these countries, not only directly from the interest on cash reserves and loans these countries have had to take out, but also on lost earnings from the natural resources the countries sold to France below market rates as well as the lost earnings resulting from awarding contracts to French companies when other contractors could have done things for less?
Does any such “agreement” exist between Britain and its former colonies, or did they really let go when they let go?
PLEASE READ
The economic and political effects of the CFA zone
The Servitude of the Colonial Pact (Interview with Professor Mamadou Koulibaly)
The CFA franc still controlled by Paris
Mamadou Koulibaly launches a African crusade
Good that Ouattara is the Cote d’Ivoire President but what about the Colonial Pact? http://www.thisisafrica.me/opinion/detail/1603/how-france-lives-off-africa-with-the-colonial-pact#.UuPArfvWNr4.twitter
Controversial businessman sells asset for 300 times purchase price
Congo and Angola to collaborate in development of offshore oil block
Company defends deal as beneficial to Congo, campaigners criticise lack of transparency
By Peter Jones
KINSHASA, Jan 23 (Reuters) – Israeli billionaire businessman Dan Gertler sold one of his Congo-based oil companies to the government last year for $150 million – 300 times the amount paid for the oil rights – in a deal criticised by transparency campaigners.
Gertler, an influential figure in Democratic Republic of Congo’s mining and oil sectors with close links to the Kinshasa government, denies any wrongdoing in the sale of Nessergy Ltd, which paid a $500,000 signing bonus for its block in 2006.
The block lies near some of neighbouring Angola’s most productive oilfields. At the time it was acquired by Nessergy, the block was located in an area at the heart of a maritime border dispute between Kinshasa and Luanda.
However, the two countries have since created a zone of common economic interest in an attempt to settle the border row. Last year, Congo sought to buy back the rights from Nessergy to allow it to negotiate a new production sharing agreement with Angolan state oil company, Sonangol.
According to the contract for the April 2013 transaction seen by Reuters, Sonangol financed the deal, paying Gertler’s Fleurette Group $150 million for the rights to the block. Congo will repay Sonangol out of future oil revenue.
Fluerette has been paid the fee but cannot access the money until a deal between the national oil companies of Congo and Angola is finalised.
A Fleurette representative said no major drilling had taken place in the Nessergy block due to disputes over development rights. He said the $500,000 signing bonus was the standard amount companies paid to Congo for oil rights at the time the contract was agreed.
The company said the value of its rights increased dramatically after oil was discovered on the nearby Menongue field in Angolan waters in 2007.
TARGET OF CRITICISM
Campaign group Global Witness, however, said Nessergy’s block was always likely to hold significant oil reserves given its proximity to Angolan discoveries totalling around 10 billion barrels.
“In a 2005-06 licensing round signature bonuses for these blocks ranged from $900 million to $1.1 billion,” the campaigner said in a statement, referring to the nearby Angolan acreage.
Global Witness also criticised the Congolese government for not publishing the deal within 60 days as required by the law.
Because Nessergy was incorporated in tax havens where owners are not obliged to divulge their identity, it is unclear who owns the minority holding not belonging to Gertler, and therefore who else benefits from the sale, the campaigner said.
“Global Witness is calling for an end to secrecy over beneficial ownership internationally, as an essential step in the fight against corruption,” the campaigner said.
Gertler’s mining companies have been the target of transparency campaigners in the past. Between 2010 and 2012 they obtained a number properties for sums widely considered to be generous, before selling them on for large profits.
According to the Africa Progress Panel, headed by Kofi Annan, Congo lost out on at least $1.36 billion in potential tax revenue in five deals with Gertler during this period.
Fleurette however stands by the deals. It said the Panel’s criticism failed to “take into account a series of other factors which will impact the value of an asset, or simply state the wrong value of the transaction.”
The Gertler-controlled group insisted the Nessergy deal was good for Congo. It said that joint production with Angola will earn the cash-strapped central African nation between $1.3 billion and $3.6 billion. (Writing by Joe Bavier; Editing by Daniel Flynn, editing by David Evans) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/congo-democratic-gertler-idUSL5N0KW3WW20140123
Gabriel….as I understand it the Ramgoat woman has nothing at all at all at all to do with this………someone pointed me to the Indian Mafia, directly from India, so go figure. Peter Harris has taken total advantage of the opportunity he was handed by the politicians from both DLP/BLP, while he continues to screw black Bajan victims who have cases with his insurance company…..go figure why he is allowed to do so, with the blessing of the island’s lowlife politicians..
The Bushman…..if you continue to give me the silent treatment, I will add you to that list of BU boyfriends that has been created just for guys who get angry with me, you will have to dump those three soft-in-the-head wives you like to boast about, Suckoo, Sandiford-Garner and AC (I know Island dumped you like rubbish and in great style recently..lol). Keep giving me the silent treatment and you will see…..lol
As with the lame-brained black leaders in Africa, the black leaders in the Caribbean, Barbados included are just as lame-brained though on a much smaller scale, however, it is still very destructive to their own people, not that any of them from Africa to the Caribbean have noticed any of this, but they will someday.
On 15 October 1987 a revolution was brought to an abrupt and bloody end by the murder of Thomas Sankara, President of the newly named state of Burkina Faso. In the years following Sankara’s assassination, by his once trusted friend Blaise Compaoré who runs Burkina Faso to this day, his revolution was overturned and the country became just another African fiefdom of the International Monetary Fund. But for a brief period of 4 years, Burkina Faso shone brightly, a stunning example of what can be achieved even in one of the world’s most impoverished countries.
Sankara was a junior officer in the army of Upper Volta, a former French colony which was run as a source of cheap labour for neighbouring Cote d’Ivoire to benefit a tiny ruling class and their patrons in Paris. As a student in Madagascar, Sankara had been radicalised by waves of demonstrations and strikes taking place. In 1981, he was appointed to the military government in Upper Volta, but his outspoken support for the liberation of ordinary people in his country and outside eventually led to his arrest. In August 1983, a successful coup led by his friend Blaise Compaoré, brought him to power at the age of only 33.
Sankara saw his government as part of a wider process of the liberation of his people. Immediately he called for mobilisations and committees to defend the revolution. These committees became the cornerstone of popular participation in power. Political parties on the other hand were dissolved, seen by Sankara as representatives of the forces of the old regime. In 1984, Sankara renamed the country Burkina Faso (land of people of integrity).
Sankara purged corruption from the government, slashing ministerial salaries and adopting a simpler approach to life. Journalist Paula Akugizibwe says Sankara “rode a bicycle to work before he upgraded, at his Cabinet’s insistence, to a Renault 5 – one of the cheapest cars available in Burkina Faso at the time. He lived in a small brick house and wore only cotton that was produced, weaved and sewn in Burkina Faso.”
In fact the adoption of local clothes and local foods was central to Sankara’s economic strategy to break the country from the domination of the West. He famously said:
“’Where is imperialism?” Look at your plates when you eat. These imported grains of rice, corn, and millet – that is imperialism.”
His solution was to grow food – “Let us consume only what we ourselves control!” The results were incredible: self-sufficiency in 4 years. Former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Jean Ziegler says that a combination of massive land distribution, fertiliser and irrigation saw agricultural productivity boom; “hunger was a thing of the past”.
Similar gains were made in health, with the immunisation of millions of children, and education in a country which had had over 90% illiteracy. Basic infrastructure was built to connect the country. Resources were nationalised, local industry was supported. Millions of trees were planted in an attempt to stop desertification. All of this involved a huge mobilisation of Burkina Faso’s people, who began to build their country with their own hands, something Sankara saw as essential.
There have been few revolutionary leaders who have placed such emphasis on women’s liberation as Sankara. He saw the emancipation of women as vital to breaking the hold of the feudal system on the country. This included recruiting women into all professions, including the military and the government. It entailed ending the pressure on women to marry. And it meant involving women centrally in the grassroots revolutionary mobilisation. “We do not talk of women’s emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph.” He saw the struggle of Burkina Faso’s women as “part of the worldwide struggle of all women”.
Sankara was more than a visionary national leader – perhaps of most interest to us today is the way he used international conferences as platforms to demand leaders stand up against the deep structural injustices faced by countries like Burkina Faso. In the mid 1980s, that meant speaking out on the question of debt.
Sankara used a conference of the Organisation of African Unity in 1987 to persuade fellow African leaders to repudiate their debts. He told delegates: “Debt is a cleverly managed reconquest of Africa. It is a reconquest that turns each one of us into a financial slave.” Seeing these same leaders go off one-by-one to Western governments to get a slight restructuring of their debt, he urged common, public action that would free all of Africa from domination. “If Burkina Faso alone were to refuse to pay the debt, I wouldn’t be at the next conference.” Unfortunately, he wasn’t to be.
Of course not everything Sankara tried worked. Most controversially was his response to a teachers strike, when he sacked thousands of teachers, replacing them with an army of citizens teachers who were often completely unqualified. Sankara’s system of revolutionary courts were abused by those with personal grievances. He banned trade unions as well as political parties.
Some of these measures, combined with break-neck social transformation, provided space for his enemies. Sankara was assassinated in a coup carried out by Blaise Compaoré. It seems clear there was outside support, including of French stooge President Félix Houphouët-Boigny of Cote d’Ivoire. Sankara’s revolution was rolled back by his one time associate, and Burkina Faso became another African country whose economy becomes synonymous with poverty and helplessness.
Today Sankara is not well known outside Africa – his character and ideas simply don’t fit with the notion of Africa which has been constructed in the West over the last 30 years. It would be difficult to find a less corrupt, self-serving leader than Thomas Sankara anywhere in the world. But neither does he fit the image charities like to portray of the ‘deserving poor’ in Africa. Sankara was clear on the role of Western aid, just as he was clear on the role of debt in controlling Africa:
“The root of the disease was political. The treatment could only be political. Of course, we encourage aid that aids us in doing away with aid. But in general, welfare and aid policies have only ended up disorganizing us, subjugating us, and robbing us of a sense of responsibility for our own economic, political, and cultural affairs. We chose to risk new paths to achieve greater well-being.”
The improvement in the lives of Burkina Faso’s people was astounding as a result of Sankara’s policies, yet he wouldn’t be surprised to learn that these policies have been systematically undermined by Western governments and agencies claiming to want exactly these improvements themselves.
Perhaps today, Sankara’s words are most relevant to our own crisis in Europe. They are echoed by those in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland who have heard little of him:
“Those who led us into debt were gambling, as if they were in a casino.. there is talk of a crisis. No. They gambled. They lost… We cannot repay the debt because we have nothing to pay it with. We cannot repay the debt because it is not our responsibility.”
Thomas Sankara had great belief in people – not just the people of Burkina Faso or Africa, but people across the world. He believed change must be creative, nonconformist – indeed containing “a certain amount of madness”. He believed radical change would only come when people were convinced and active, not passive and conquered. And he believed the solution is political – not one of charity. Surely Sankara has never been more relevant to our quest for justice in Europe and the world.
Jubilee Debt Campaign are asking people to join them in remembering Thomas Sankara. Tweet about Sankara using #thomassankara.