Glencore, Africa, & the World Food Programme: Ill-gotten gains and food security (part 1)

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 'The Chance for Peace',16 April 1953

President Teodoro Obiang

The Guardian has reported that French authorities are impounding the assets of three serving African leaders and their families, in a case known as "ill-gotten gains". Those accused include Omar Bongo and his son, Ali Bongo from Gabon, the Congo-Brazzaville leader, Denis Sassou-Nguesso, and the Equatorial Guinean President, Teodoro Obiang and his son, Teodorin Obiang.

When balanced against their supposed state salaries, the assets that each of these clans had accrued over their years in power leaves left many questions unanswered. Hence, this legal action, initiated by anti-corruption NGOs. My initial reaction was one of satisfaction; the powerful should be held to account for their actions.

The tail end of this piece notes that NGOs are unable to bring corruption cases against African leaders in the UK, despite London allegedly being the "No. 1 destination for kelptocrats", according to Tim Daniel, a British Lawyer and anti-corruption expert. It is up to our authorities to do so.

In the UK, we have charged James Ibori, a former governor from the Delta state of Nigeria, with corruption. This region has a wealth of oil and natural reserves, and it has become synonymous with corruption, as money and power intermingle in a tale of filthy lucre populated by sly "Lucans".

In their book, 'Where vultures feast', Ike Okonta and Oronto Douglas, wrote that the IMF could not account for 150,000 barrels of oil that was being produced daily, the implication being that former Nigerian dictator, General Sani Abacha, and his cohorts were siphoning off the proceeds.

Six months later, Abacha completely redrew the allocation of crude oil contracts, handing a third of future supplies to Glencore, who later gained greater control of the Nigerian crude industry.

Later in the Congo, The Australian reports:

The breakthrough came in 2005, when Elliott detectives discovered that two consignments of Congo oil had been loaded on to a vessel called the Nordic Hawk for sale to Glencore, a British company set up by Marc Rich, the Swiss-based trader. 

Glencore intended to sell the oil on to BP in what should have appeared as a normal industry transaction. 

Kensington promptly applied to the High Court in London for injunctions to seize the proceeds of the Nordic Hawk consignments on the grounds that they were fraudulently concealed sales by the Brazzaville Government... 

...Somewhere along the way, millions of dollars went missing, and the judge noted that an examination of the bank statements of one of Gokana's companies "reveals that there was virtually no connection between the cash passing through its bank accounts and the sums it should have received for the oil it sold". 

Where the money went remains a mystery.

Glencore's website reveals that they also have operations in Equitarial Guinea. As part of its E&P portfolio, they have operated under the guise of Noble Energy, along with other oil giants, with the agreement of, and help from, the U.S. government. Yesterday, Glencore were due to merge with Xstrata to form one of the largest companies in the world.

Is it a coincidence that Abacha and Sassou-Nguesso were dealing with Glencore at about the same time that they were said to have been misappropriating resources and funds? Is it a coincidence that Glencore's name is linked to all the geographical areas ruled by those charged in France? 

Saddam Hussein on trial July 2004

Beyond this, Glencore have a history of dubious corporate activity. It was reported that the CIA believed that Glencore did business with Saddam Hussein and that they received millions in illegal kickbacks during the U.N. Oil For Food programme. Reuters refer to human rights and environmental abuses in Colombia, and pollution-related health problems in Zambia. This does not includes a number of other abuses that they have been associated with in Australia, Colombia and Kazakhstan, as detailed by Donal O'Driscoll for Saving Iceland.

Furthermore, this behemoth has strong political ties. For example, Glencore owns 8.75% of United Company (UC) Rusal Limited. Chaired by Oleg Deripaska, through his En+ group, and co-chaired by Nathanial Rothschild, who runs Vallar which has a 40% stake in Glencore, both are friends of former EU Trade Commissioner, Peter Mandelson, and UK Chancellor, George Osborne. Wikileaks reveals that Deripaska has Vladimir Putin's ear.

This is what the 1% have and do. More than bonuses, more than tax breaks, they have the political and economic power to do as they please, harming whoever gets in their way.

A poetic social construction of crime

Oscar Wilde and his lover, Alfred Douglas,
prior to his trial in 1894

As we each slink off to our weekends, I am publishing the poem below, written by Criminonymous. You can find another piece here, published on Anna Raccoon a few days ago.  No need for me to add any more; the strength of the piece speaks for itself. 

The only thing we have to blame is blame itself

I fail to see what we gain from blaming the individual

The working class criminal whose education was minimal

Some see their behaviour as indefensible

That the casual accrual of wealth through unconventional or deviant methods

Demeans the tax-paying, hard-working and indebted

If it were only explained more clearly in schools

That it’s just a few tools

Who monopolise the making and enforcement of rules

Why do we assume that the criminal law is the best way to respond to these issues?

Crime is a social construction

Should homosexuality be a crime?

Obviously, obviously not

But some countries still consider it as such

Do you think that alcohol should be criminalised?

These things vary over space and time

It is wrong to assume that the laws as they stand

Are based on rational calculations

Nor should it be assumed

That the direction in which the criminal law is currently headed

Is necessarily in the long-term interests of society as a whole

Some people see ‘criminals’ as totally different to them

When they think about crime

They remember what they have seen in the media

They immediately think about the most heinous of transgressions

But this is only a tiny fraction of what ‘crime’ really entails

Incidentally, many of these people are swing voters

The central focus of modern-day locusts

But when elections are based on fear

There is no incentive to ensure that our electorate is educated

And this lack of knowledge is perpetuated

In reality, all are equally likely to be caught up in something this forlorn

Because you have no control over where or when you are born

Some people truly believe that they had immunity

Thinking: “They are not us, so they deserve no impunity”

But we were all born in the same world, without equality of opportunity

Substitute assumed fallacies for humanity

It’s safe to say that we’re pretty lucky

I could have been born in Kentucky

Home to sixteen of the one hundred poorest counties in that country

Equally, the Queen is lucky not to be an Armenian from 1915

Got any pre-teens?

Elsewhere they make green jeans for the armies

Like Akala said, as hard as some of us have it

We’re still far better off than ninety per-cent of the planet

It is totally understandable that in this environment of propaganda

People make false assumptions about crime and justice

We don’t get to decide what counts as a crime

When the law should change its mind

Or where our priorities should lie

Nor are these decisions made well for us

So forget your anxiety regarding impropriety

And consider the long-term interests of our society

Criminonymous

Time to discuss U.S. state-sanctioned drone killings?

MQM-107E drone (c) U.S. Air Force Photo by Master Sgt, Michael Ammons

As reported by the BBC, President Obama's Google “hangout” revealed that the U.S.A. conducts drone strikes against suspect al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, mainly in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

Drone strikes have increased significantly during Obama's administration, but it is difficult to verify the number of deaths as a result of these attacks. During this “hangout”, he said that the strikes targeted "people who are on a list of active terrorists," and:

"al-Qaeda suspects who are up in very tough terrain along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan"

"For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in."

CIA officials claim that drone strikes killed 1400 suspected militants and 30 civilians between July 2008 and June 2011, whereas in five years up to June 2011, the Conflict Monitoring Center, based in Islamabad, estimates that 2052 people were killed, “mostly civilians.”

In October, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) collated their figures, which repudiate what the CIA admit to. If nothing else, the drone attack in Waziristan in March 2011 highlights the CIA's inability to produce accurate figures for the numbers of civilians it has killed.

Moreover, this latter attack illustrates Obama's contradictory language. If this was not an “intrusive military action”, then what is? If he means that because there are no armed personnel physically involved, that this action is any less “intrusive”, then what of the battle for the 'hearts and minds' (more later)? Do 'hearts and minds' exist outside of the corporeal body?

Barack Obama hope (c) Andrius Burlega

Amnesty International have registered their concerns with the U.S. government, and asked them to clarify the basis for these killings:

“The US authorities must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability.

"What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks? While the President's confirmation of the use of drones in Pakistan is a welcome first step towards transparency, these and other questions need to be answered.”

Other than Amnesty's opposition to what is going on, there is little else being reported on this issue. Rather than argue over the state-defined 'legality' of these killings, there are a few points that I wish to highlight.

Obama speaks of drone attacks killing “people who are on a list of active terrorists.” Who possesses these lists?

According to an excerpt from Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State by Dana Priest and William M Arkin, there are three separate “kill lists.” The National Security Council (NSC) keeps one, the CIA does, and so does the military. Interestingly, the lists are not co-ordinated amongst these agencies, one of the reasons being the 'legal' implications associated with each individual hit.

If there is not consensual agreement across U.S. government departments, how can it 'legal' for the U.S. government as a whole to carry out such attacks?

The FBI have a list of wanted terrorists on their website. On this list, is one Anas Al-Liby. According to his summary, he has political asylum in the UK, and was known to be living here recently. Has anyone seen any drones flying overhead?

Al-Liby may or may not be on any of the “hit lists” discussed above. He may or may not now reside in the UK. But just as the paradox of 'the body' and 'the mind' reveals the non-compatible objectives of the 'war on terror', here we have another anomaly; the local and the transnational.

Anwar al-Awlaki (c) Muhammad ud-Deen

The New York Times partially covered this ambiguity in their report following a drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki. The crux of their commentaries centred on al-Awlaki's birth within the borders of the U.S.A., the assumption being that this is somehow more disturbing that it happened to an American-born citizen.


Al-Qaeda suspects that threaten the national interests of the U.S.A. do not just live in the FATA region of Pakistan. They live and walk amongst us all. 

The U.S. government will not be deploying (non-intrusive?) drone strikes that target mosques in the U.S., at which suspected militant, jihadist Imams preach and their followers pray, because it is illegal. Why then act as judge and jury just because al-Qaeda suspects live elsewhere?

On a day when The Guardian reports that the U.S. 'no-fly' list of suspected terrorists has worryingly doubled in a year (including some 500 U.S. nationals), and on a day when a NATO report indicates that the Taliban are winning the battle for the 'hearts and minds' of the Afghan people, is it not time for the U.S. government to explain who they are targeting, and how this might be beneficial to national and global security?

Or are they afraid to do so because they will be acknowledging that they are carrying out state-sponsored assassinations?