 |
| Nana S.K.B Asante |
The Insight has managed to obtain a copy of a memo authored
by Nana S.K. B. Asante, easily Ghana most experienced negotiator with
transnational corporations on the Plant Breeders Bill.
The Memo was addressed to Professor F.K. A Aclotey, President
and all members of the Sub-Committee of the Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
on the Plant Breeders Bill.
Nana Asante states in very clear language that some of the
state objectives of the Bill are not realizable and that it could also lead to
a situation in which resources would be siphoned out of the country.
He wrote in the
circumstances, the confidence and sanguine assertion that the “Bills will
encourage foreign breeders and local breeders to contribute to the development
of the agricultural sector, resulting in technology transfer and know-how as new variety enter
the trade channels” is with great respect, a piece of wishful thinking….
The full text of the
memo is published below;
4th February, 2014.
Professor F.K.A Allotey
Cc: Members of Subcommittee on Ghana Plant Breeders Bill
Professor F.K.A Allotey
Cc: Members of Subcommittee on Ghana Plant Breeders Bill
Dear Mr President and colleague members of the subcommittee,
I must first, apologize for my inability to attend the meetings of the subcommittee due to my indisposition.
I have read the report of the Sub Committee which broadly approves of the main substance of the Plant Breeders Bill. I note with satisfaction that apart from evaluating the scientific merits, considerable attention was paid to the intellectual property aspects of the Bill. While I am not competent to pronounce on the scientific aspects of the matter, I do have some comments on the IP implications of the Bill. My comments are informed by my long professional involvement in the relations between transnational corporations (TNCs) and developing countries, the claims of TNCs about the benign and beneficial impact of the operation of IP rights in the industrial sector on development and my experience of the operation of the legal regime for the transfer of technology in the country and in a number of other developing countries. I recently undertook a project towards the revision of Ghana’s Technology Transfer Regulations. The results were by no means reassuring.
An analysis of the Bill should be preceded by an examination of the Memorandum of the Bill, which elaborates the rationale for the proposed legislation and the benefits that would accrue from the implementation of the Act. The memorandum claims inter alia that:
“Variety Protection is particularly relevant at this time when plant breeders are being encouraged to increase their contribution to the development of agriculture in the country and the seed supply system. The protection of plant breeder rights is currently required to support plant breeding activities realized by the private and public breeding activities. Currently, arable land and other
resources needed for agricultural production worldwide are scarce. In view of the potential for productivity growth in Ghana, the provision of better seeds to farmers will result in increased yields on the same piece of land which will thereby enhance the economic development of the country. It is therefore critical that the country creates and promotes an enabling environment for the stakeholders in the agricultural sector especially the seed industry through the development of policies and strategies to ensure food security and increase the efforts of the country on international markets. Food security can be improved by breeding and making available to farmers seeds of high yielding varieties that are not only adaptable to our environment but have good taste and nutritional qualities.
The Bill will encourage foreign breeders and local breeders to contribute to the development of the agriculture sector of the economy, resulting in technology transfer and know how, as new varieties enter the channels of trade.
The Bill seeks to promote agriculture which will complement the committed initiative of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the development of the seed industry, as well as on going reforms in the agriculture sector. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for the administration and implementation of intellectual property rights under TRIPS and invariably has a joint responsibility with the Ministry of Trade which is entrusted with the responsibility to comply with Ghana’s international obligations under TRIPS. The emerging consensus among stakeholders indicates that variety protection can produce benefits by increasing the scope of plant improvement and help farmers to break out of the cycle of subsistence farming.”
The notion that the mere fact of protecting IP rights will increase plants breeder’s contribution to the development of agriculture should be treated with considerable skepticism, if the experience industry is evaluated. No significant contribution to industry has resulted from the bare fact of intellectual property protection. Such protection assures exclusive ownership and use to the registered owners, unless the rights are assigned or licensed to entities. The process of such transfer is riddled with conditions and restrictions which make the so called transfer largely illusory. The concern expressed by developing countries over this process were so grave that
they prevailed on UNCTAD to initiate a negotiation of an international code of conduct to regulate transfer of technology some 20 years ago. In the result TNCs of the industrialized world blocked the negotiation which aborted the Code. My own research into the technology transfer agreement such as licensed agreements, know-how agreement and technical assistance in Ghana disclose that these have proved to be notorious devices for transferring non taxable royalties and other fees from Ghana, without any meaningful transfer of technology to indigenous Ghanaian entities.
In the circumstances, the confident and sanguine assertion that the “ Bill will encourage foreign breeders and local breeders to contribute to the development of the agricultural sector, resulting in technology transfer and know-how as new variety enter the channels of trade” is, with great respect, a piece of wishful thinking. It is an illusory expectation bereft of any empirical evidence. If the Ministry of Agriculture has any empirical evidence of such technology transfer from any developing country, it should display it. Apart from the general observation, let us consider some of the practical implications of the provisions of the registration of foreign IP rights in Ghana in this sector.
According to section 9 of the Bill, virtually any foreign entity or person may apply for registration of a variety of seed in Ghana. The only requirement is that such a foreigner must come from a country with which Ghana has a treaty relationship, whatever the treaty may be. This means that all UN member countries qualify. A foreign entity or person need not be present or operate in Ghana before registration. It can appoint an agent to do so in Ghana on its behalf. It can therefore protect its rights in Ghana without the slightest intention to invest in Ghana or to transfer its technology relating to variety in Ghana. If the experience in industrial technology transfer is any guide, such transfer agreement, if it does take place, will be subject to payment of royalty and numerous restrictions. For example, any refinement of the variety by Ghanaian farmers could be prohibited or appropriated by the foreigner. The owner could also limit the geographical area of operation. An entity in Mongolia or Vancouver could dictate the operation of Ghanaian farmers.
Another practical issue is the registration process.
Foreign companies, with their vast resources, are likely to complete registration of a variety even if Ghanaian scientist has a similar variety, by virtue of the expeditious delivery of registration requirements. This affects two categories of Ghanaian operations namely, our scientist and our traditional farmers.
It is argued that our scientists would benefit from registering their varieties. That may well be true.
However, our past experience has demonstrated that our scientific community has, with the greatest respect, not been particularly successful in marketing their discoveries. A smart foreign entity, equipped with resources, could easily overshadow our scientists in the market place, even though I appreciate that our scientific community has produced excellent plants or seed varieties. The other aspect is that the commercial nature of the process would compel our traditional farmers to “buy” the new varieties from our scientist. This would violate the main rationale of investing public funds for the research of the scientific community which has been seen as our national assistance to the farming community . They would also be constrained by the onerous obligation to buy from foreigners.
Furthermore, how would traditional farmers fare under this new regime? They cannot compete with TNCs for the protections of varieties which they have developed through their tried and tested methods of traditional farming. My colleagues have pointed out that section 21 of the Bill would protect them. Nobody can predict the extent to which our enforcement agencies can resist the aggressive salesmanship of foreign companies. Furthermore the protection given by section 21 is rather limited. It purports to protects farmers ‘ personal use of their varieties on their own holdings for the purpose of the propagation of the product of harvest which they have obtained on their own holdings. This calls for a definition of “their own holdings”. Are they debarred from large scale production of their varieties outside “their own holdings” ?
In any case, as pointed out above, they cannot use protected foreign variety or varieties developed by locals scientists without paying for them. How will such a situation be conductive to increase in productivity on their part? Farmers are likely to be priced out of the market and reduced to a landless peasantry, a phenomenon evident in other countries.
My concluding remarks have to do with the effectiveness of the proposed regulatory machinery for the new legal regime governing varieties . The experience of Ghana in regulating transfer of technology in the industrial sector makes me extremely skeptical about the prospects of an effective, transparent, objective and fair minded determination by the Registrar or other responsible authorities designated in the Act. For example, the determination of the requirements for the protection of the IP namely: “new, distinct, uniform and stable”. What assurance is there that existing variety in Ghana cannot by some slight foreign infusion be characterized as “new” and therefore entitled to protection to the exclusion of the Ghanaian breeders.
We should also be mindful of the resourcefulness and ingenuity of the Ghanaian farmers whose labours produced and sustained the cocoa industry which has remained the mainstay of Ghana’s economy. Professor George Benneh has rightly admonished us that “Technology must consult Traditions”. We should not create a situation where our indigenous knowledge in agriculture, acquired with the sweat and toil of our fore fathers is appropriated or marginalized by unscrupulous foreign operators and their Ghanaian surrogates by virtue of their dexterity in registering “new varieties”.
Since the sub-committee reports has already been sent to the speaker, I shall send a copy of my comments to the Deputy Attorney General Dr Ayine whom I had discussion on this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nana S.K.B Asante
(Past President of GAAS)
Editorial
VANDANA SHIVA
Yesterday Dr Vandana Shiva, an activist for Food Sovereignty
spoke in Accra about the need for countries which have come out of colonialism
to protect their independence by controlling their food.
The Insight believes
that the situation in which food in Ghana is controlled by multinational
corporations undermines national independence.
For us, the primary reason for growing food is to satisfy
the nutritional needs of the people rather than the maximization of profit.
Where food is produced solely for maximising profit, it
worsens poverty and becomes a tool in the hands of a few for perpetuating
inequality and under development.
The Insight welcomes
Dr Vandana Shiva to Ghana and encourages the people of Ghana to take their
destiny into their own hands by controlling their agriculture.
This is a task which must be done.
THOUGHTS OF A MYSTERIOUS MAN
With Ebow Duncan
SOMETHING DIFFERENT
I woke up this morning with a strong desire to feel, say or
do something different and inspiring.
This feeling is not just about the attraction of change but
a desire to escape the rottenness that has engulfed national life since that
shameful day when agents of the Central Intelligence Agency of the US toppled
the Nkrumah Government.
It has been the same story of acute stupidity and the
worsening of the living conditions of a people who have chosen to call
themselves Ghanaians.
A people who live in the past glory of an ancient great but
primitive empire, of plenty gold, slaves and mud technology.
The reality today is
painted by the reggae super star Robert Nester Marley who sang the words “ in
the abundance of water the fool is thirsty”.
Ghana has all she
needs to jump out of poverty and misery. Fertile lands to grow healthy food.
Gold and diamond to feed the ego and line the national pocket. Rivers from
which to fish and drink. Strong men and women for national protection and
timber to build houses, boats and many more.
In spite of all of these the Ghanaian public sector employs
only 600, 000 people out of a population of 25 million. Nobody knows how many
are employed by the private sector but we know that many graduates of our
universities sit at home doing nothing.
The airwaves are full of noise which they call debate.
Everybody is talking but nobody is listening.
There is plenty talk about how to make the national currency
strong and stop the importation of cocoyam and kontonmire.
There are others who
are shouting themselves hoarse about dum so dum so or how to generate enough
electric power to power industry and bring light into our miserable lives.
Some say that the regime for the exploitation of gold could
be changed to make it more profitable for the people of Ghana.
For now Ghana gets
less than five per cent of the total value of gold exported from her soil and
of course the 95 per cent goes to those who have rushed on us from the colonial
metropolis.
At the very least we
could manage a 50-50 deal with these godamn exploiters who have managed to turn
us into hewers of wood and drawers of water.
We can at least try
to feel human again and tell ourselves that the black man too is capable of
managing his own affairs.
Yesterday, it rained heavily in Accra. There were floods
everywhere. One person was supposed to have died, vehicles were carried away
and the politicians started their pretence all over again.
Opposition blamed
Government for the floods and Government said if only the opposition had done
this and that there would be no floods in Ghana.
We are told that President Mahama will jump into one of his
fanciful cars and go round Accra to inspect the flood and flood prone areas.
My goodness how different will this be from what Kufour,
Rawlings and Mills did?
The same old story, same old style and no solution. Period!
What happened to the idea of harvesting to reduce the amount
of water which would eventually turn into flood waters?
Why is every house being concreted to prevent the water from
sipping into the ground?
Why are our gutters open to allow people to throw rubbish
into them?
Why do people throw rubbish into the gutters?
Why can’t Ghana have a building code which will insist on
designs of our buildings which will prevent floods?
Why can’t we change our ways to prevent the floods?
I really want to do something different today.
Perhaps engineer a revolution which will kick the ball heads
in the right places and make sure that our leaders begin to think
Something new is needed and urgently too.
How Global Agri-Business Destroys Farming
By Colin Todhunter
A new review carried out by the organization GRAIN reveals that
small farms produce most of the world’s food. However, they are currently
squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world’s farmland. The world is fast
losing farms and farmers through the concentration of land into the hands of
the rich and powerful. If we do nothing to reverse this trend, the world will
lose its capacity to feed itself.
This claim is based on the findings of the report, ‘Hungry
for Land’ (1), which states that small farmers are often much more productive
than large corporate farms. For example, if all of Kenya’s farms matched the
output of its small farms, the nation’s agricultural productivity would double.
In Central America, it would nearly triple. In Russia, it would be six fold.
Marina Dos Santos of the Coordination of the Brazilian
Landless Movement (MST) states that the peasantry is currently being
criminalised, taken to court and even made to disappear when it comes to the
struggle for land. Small farmers are constantly exposed to systematic expulsion
from their land, which not only affects peasants but also many other small
farmers and indigenous peoples who are the target of foreign corporations. Dos
Santos says that small farmers want land in order to live and to produce as
these are their basic rights against land-grabbing corporations who seek only
speculation and profit.
If the current processes of land concentration continue, she
argues that then no matter how hard-working, efficient and productive they are,
small farmers will simply not be able to carry on.
While it is often stated in official circles that the planet
needs to produce more food to feed the growing population, the report suggests
that more food could be produced almost immediately if small farmers had access
to more land and could work in a supportive policy environment, rather than
under the siege conditions they are facing today.
Elizabeth Mpofu, General Coordinator of La Via Campesina,
says that the vast majority of farms in Zimbabwe belong to smallholders and
their average farm size has increased as a result of the Fast Track Land Reform
Programme. Small farmers in the country now produce over 90% of diverse
agricultural food crops, while they only provided 60-70% of the national food
before land redistribution. Mpofu says that we need to urgently put land back
in the hands of small farmers and make the struggle for genuine and
comprehensive agrarian reform central to the fight for better food systems.
The world is fast losing farms and farmers in many places,
while big farms are getting bigger. One major reason why small farms are
disappearing is the rapid growth of monoculture plantations. In the last 50
years, 140 million hectares – well more than all the farmland in China –
have been taken over for soybean, oil palm, rapeseed and sugar cane alone. By
definition, peasant agriculture prioritises food production for local and
national markets as well as for farmers’ own families. Big agritech
corporations take over scarce fertile land and prioritise commodities or export
crops for profit and markets far away that cater for the needs of the affluent.
This process impoverishes local communities and brings about
food insecurity (2). GRAIN’s Camila Montecinos concludes that the concentration
of fertile agricultural land in fewer and fewer hands is directly related to
the increasing number of people going hungry every day.
GRAIN’s report relies on statistics that show small farms
are technically more productive than big farms. While industrial farms have
enormous power, influence and resources, small farms almost everywhere outperform
big farms in terms of productivity.
The review comes on the heels of a September 2013 report by
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (3), which also stated
that farming in rich and poor nations alike should shift from monoculture towards
greater varieties of crops, reduced use of fertilisers and other inputs,
greater support for small-scale farmers and more locally focused production and
consumption of food. More than 60 international experts contributed to the
report.
The report stated that monoculture and industrial farming
methods are not providing sufficient affordable food where it is needed. The
system actually causes food poverty, not addresses it.
Numerous high level reports from the UN and development
agencies have argued in favour of small farmers and agro-ecology, but this has
not been translated into real action on the ground where peasant farmers
increasingly face marginalisation and oppression.
Despite what these reports conclude and the evidence that
indicates small farms have better productivity, India for example is abandoning
the small farmer in favour of foreign agritech corporations. This is resulting
in a forced removal of farmers from the land and the destruction of traditional
communities on a massive scale. In 2008, former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram
envisaged at least 600 million people from rural India eventually shifting to
cities, leaving just 15% left to work the land or associated with the rural
economy.
This process is so
severe, so shocking even, that environmentalist Vandana Shiva has called what
is happening constitutes the biggest forced removal of people from their lands
in history. According to a 2009 report commissioned by the rural development
ministry and chaired by the then minister Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, in certain
areas of India it also involves the biggest illegal land grab
since Columbus.
The trend in India, as elsewhere, is being driven by big
agritech that is working with the government to ensure a shift away from
diversified agriculture that guarantees balanced local food production, the
protection of people’s livelihoods and environmental sustainability. Policies
that allow for the protection of local seeds and farmers’ rights to use them
are paramount. Yet small farmers are being displaced and are struggling to
preserve their indigenous seeds and traditional knowledge of farming systems.
By patenting and monopolising seeds, big agritech is preventing farmers from
saving and exchanging their own seeds that were developed over thousands of
years. Agritech corporations are being allowed to shape government policy by
being granted a strategic role in trade negotiations (6). They are consequently
setting the policy/knowledge framework by being allowed to fund and determine
the nature of research carried out in public universities and institutes .
Throughout the world, we continue to witness land grabs for
non-food crops, industry or real estate interests, monocultures for export and
the hijack of agriculture by big corporations backed by their co-opted
scientists, media outlets and politicians (8) who continue to propagate the
myth that they have the answer to global hunger and poverty. Despite mounting
evidence that they do not, they continue to colonise agriculture all over the world
– look no further than Africa where the Gates Foundation, Monsanto and Western
governments are placing it in the hands of big agritech for private profit
under the old colonialist pretext of helping the poor.
A shift from corporate-controlled, profit oriented commodity
agriculture is required and involves moving towards more biodiverse organic
systems that place emphasis on small farmers, local economies and food
sovereignty.
Rather than addressing poverty, food inequality and hunger,
big agritech corporations merely serve to perpetuate these problems and
exploitative global power relations by sucking power, wealth and food from
poorer countries, small farmers and local communities to satisfy themselves,
their shareholders and affluent urban consumers in foreign lands. As long as
petro-chemical corporate agriculture predominates and is expanded throughout
the planet, the less food security and local/national food sovereignty we will
see – and the more wars fuelled by oil interests, conflicts over land and water
and damage to the environment we shall witness.
Restructuring of Korle-Bu the Cronyism Style
 |
| A patient receives treatment at Korle Bu |
Report From An Insider
The Korle but Teaching hospital has never gone through such
a horrendous path in its management throughout its 90 years of existence as it
is today.
Using a
non-managerial professional, the present Board of the hospital, found it
convenient to turn Mr. Ahiano, a board member, into the head of a restructuring
team. Mr Ahiano, who was then residing in the USA before his appointment to the
Board, does not know anything about management.
Mr. Ahiano’s restructuring ‘gimmick’ has seen the elevation
of the Mrs Cynthia Boateng, one of the hospital’s BMC’s administrators as a
‘Special Assistant’ to the AG Chief Administrator (Ag CA) this position has
never existed in the hospitals 90 years journey. The position was
created to suit Mrs Cynthia Boateng, who failed to get the nod for the position
of Director of Administration during an interview for the position.
Presently, the
position is held by one Mr Nuru-deen, another ‘guy from the states. It is
unknown, that Mr. Nuru-deem used to work with Mr Eddie Annan’s defunct Masai
Company.
One wonders what Mrs Cynthia Boateng’s job description is,
as a Special Assistant, since the Ag CA has two abled and competent
secretaries. But as if this was not enough, Mr Ahiano has created another
position for Mrs Cynthia Boateng as
Deputy Director of Administration even though there is already a Deputy
Director of Administration called Mr Kombian., Mrs Cynthia Boateng, is
therefore holding two very key positions now- Special Assistant and a Deputy
Director of Administration. In all instances, appointment to the position did
not follow due process. Mrs. Boateng was handpicked by Mr. Eddie Annan to fill
the positions.
Meanwhile, the cronyism style of restructuring continues
unabated. The Director of Finance, Mr Annan Kakaba was relieved of his post
quite recently. The position is now occupied by one Mr De-Costa Eduful, Mr
Edduful worked formerly with the Accra Metro Assembly with Mrs Cynthia
Boateng’s husband, Dr Boateng.
Even though he joined the hospital some two months ago, Mr.
Eduful benefited from the allocation of the new cars.
Next to be sacked, was Mrs Vivian Djokoto, the Internal Auditor,
her offence, was that, she queried the payment of over sixty seven thousand
Ghana cedis (¢67,000) to Mr. Godfred Ahiano as allowance arrears. The position
is now occupied by Mr Peadism, who used to work with the Students loan Trust,
where the Ag CA Rev. A. Okpoti, is a Board member.
Next in line was Mr
Mahmound, the Director of Human Resource, who was giving the boot some three
weeks ago. His crime was that, he queried Mrs Cynthia Boateng’s elevation as a
deputy director without any due process being followed. It is hidden truth that
the position may be occupied by Mr Ahiano or Mr Arhin, the new Deputy Director
of Human Resource. Mr Arhin – another USA import also benefited for the
allocation of the new cars.
Next to go is likely to be Mr. Kombian, the Deputy Director
of Administration. The signs are clearly written on the wall. Firstly is the
creation of another deputy director position for Mrs Cynthia Boateng. Secondly,
Mr. Kombian who had worked for eighteen
years (18yrs) was not allocated any of the cars. Thirdly, there is an attempt
to have him boarded medically. Interesting another attempt was made to get the
hospital’s security coordinator, Capt Dodoo out of office when he was smeared
with a charge of stealing 21 bags of cement in the newspapers, when that
failed, an attempt was made to make his deputy, a warrant Officer, as second
head of Security, proposal by Mr Ahiano, that was rejected by the Board. Not
giving up, Mr Ahiano, has authorized an increment of 30% market premium to the
warrant officer without course to laid down procedure.
In addition to this, a pick-up meant for the security Unit
has been given to the Korle Bu police.
Where is the philosophy behind Checks and Balances here.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is all the restructuring going on
at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital for which Mr Ahiano has been allocated duty
vehicle, a duty house and a directors pay including Board allowance. He collects over ninety three thousand Ghana
Cedis cooly at the end of the every
month.
Who is listening.
DETAILS OF VAT ON BANKING
The Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) has finally settled on the
list of services that would attract the 17.5 percent Value Added Tax (VAT) and
National Health Insurance Levy (NHIL).
According to a letter from the Authority to the Bankers and
signed by its Commissioner-General, George Blankson, the 32 fee-based services
would attract the tax from July 1, 2014.
The list of fees, commissions and similar charges for
financial services that are subject to the tax was developed by the Technical
Committee for the Implementation of VAT Act 2013 (Act 870) which was made up of
representatives of the Ghana Bankers Association of Bankers, the Ministry of
Finance and the Ghana Revenue Authority and approved by the Minister of
Finance, Seth Terkper.
Find below the full list of financial services that would
attract the 17.5% tax:
1. CURRENT ACCOUNTS (Foreign/Local) - CORPORATE
BODIES ONLY
2. BANK DRAFT (PAYMENT ORDER)
2. BANK DRAFT (PAYMENT ORDER)
3. STOPPED CHEQUES
RETURNED CHEQUES
COMMISSION ON TURNOVER (CORPORATE BODIES ONLY)
6. OVERDRAFT PROCESSING OR RENEWAL FEE
7. REVOL VING ACCEPTANCE CREDIT
8. ARRANGEMENT FEE FOR FACILITIES ..
9. STATEMENTS AND CERTIFICATES OF BALANCE
10. CLEARING CHARGES
11. CHEQUES FOR COLLECTION
12. STANDING ORDERS
13. TELEPHONE BANKING
14. SAFE CUSTODY
15. CHEQUE BOOKS
- Sale of cheque leaflet
- Replacement of Lost Cheque Book
16. DEBIT CARDS AND CREDIT CARDS
17. REVOLVING CREDITS
18. COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT
"
19. TRANSFER OF DOCUMENTS TO OTHER BANKS
20. GUARANTEES/ BONDS/ TENDER /PERFORMANCE
21. REQUEST FOR FOREX DRAFTS
2. OUTWARDS TRANSFER: SWIFT/TELEX
- Drafts/Money Orders - Customer
23. TRAVELLERS CHEQUES, DRAFTS
24. CHEQUE LODGEMENTS - (FOR CORPORATE BODIES AND THIRD
PARTIES
ONLY)
ONLY)
25. EVACUATION FEE (CASH-IN-TRANSIT)
26. UNPAID STANDING ORDER
27. CLOSURE OF ACCOUNTS
28. REMOTE BANKING SERVICES
- Online Banking (Internet)
- E-statements
- E-clients
- Phone banking
- SMS banking
- Mobile Banking
- Monthly subscription
- Financial Transaction Fee
29. LENDING FEES
- Commitment Fee (Arrangement fee, Processing fee, facility
fee)
- Processing Fee
- Property Valuation Fee (Open market value)
- Guarantee Commission
- Bid Security
- Bank Credit Letter (Letter of Intent)
- Mobilization Guarantee
- Retention Guarantee
- Performance Bond
- Default or restructured
30. OTHER LOANS, EXCLUDING SALARY ADVANCE
- Arrangement Fees
- New Loans
- Top-Ups
- Early Settlement Fees
31. LETTERS OF CREDIT (IMPORTS)
Establishment Commission
- Arrangement Fee
* Presentation under L/C
Drawings Amendments:
- Increase in Amount
- Extension of period
- Extension of period - another quarter
.+.
- Discrepancy Other amendments:
32. DOCUMENTARY BILLS FOR COLLECTION
(IMPORTS)
Handling charges - customers
Negotiation Commission
- Advice of fate
- Advice of fate
"
- Bills deleted
- Protest Payment Commission
- Holding charges (per quarter)
- Prior Approval - Customers with:
- Own Resources
- Own Resources
- Telex/Cable charges
- Swap charge
Customers allocated funds from Bank;
Exchange Telex / Cable charges
Exchange Telex / Cable charges
The Battle for
Justice in Palestine
By Jim Miles
Obama’s plan: Let Netanyahu and Abbas
“stew in their juices”, Senior
White House official tells Haaretz U.S.
president hopes that after a few months with no negotiations and less U.S.
involvement, both sides will understand it is in their interest to renew
talks.
With the peace talks being dead, what happens in
Israel/Palestine? Settlements will continue to be built, dispossession
will continue against Palestinians, slowly the “apartheid” context of Israel
will become more and more obvious.
While the peace talks were in process, The Battle for
Justice by Ali Abunimah was published and pre-emptively indicated that the
peace process is/was essentially over and done with regardless of ongoing
talks. The main context of the book is of the elements of apartheid and
the associated boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS) that is
sending disconcerting messages to all the pro-Israeli/anti-Palestinian two
staters. Not that a two state solution has not been possible in the past,
but that it is beyond being a possibility now, leaving essentially two
solutions, a single apartheid state (the considered de facto state as it is
now) that is proclaimed to be Jewish, or a state with democracy inclusive of
equal rights for all its citizens.
In the preface, Abunimah indicates that the Palestinians are
winning – not necessarily on the ground where settlements, annexation,
blockades, and military rule remains – but winning in the general knowledge of
the world from the impact of the BDS movement. The real indicator to this
are the many methods and great amount of money and time that is being used to
discredit the BDS movement in particular within the U.S.
Comparison
As the U.S. is Israel’s largest benefactor, the work starts
with a comparison of Israel and the U.S., not the usual demographic statistics
(although those are interesting as well), but a comparison based on racial
considerations. Racial profiling, discriminatory laws and courts,
and the disproportionate prison populations that result, the huge industry of
security and surveillance, and the training of security forces (for
“interoperability”) all play into the comparison.
The underlying basis for it is the colonial-settler
mindset: in the U.S. it is African-american/first nations subject to
discrimination; in Israel it is Arabs/Palestinians facing discrimination.
A populist fear factor from this racial bias (crime, drugs, terror, religion)
assists with the cowing and manipulation of the colonial-settler population.
Demographics and apartheid
Demographics is the main concern of Israel. It is the
real threat to a “Jewish and democratic state”. Israel does not want two
states as that removes part of Eretz Israel from its domain. At the same
time, a one state solution being Jewish and democratic is not possible with a
resident population of Palestinians that is overtaking the Israeli
population. As argued by Abunimah, “The already present reality is a de
facto binational state, albeit with apartheid conditions, throughout historic
Palestine.”
Two other apartheid states are used as a comparison for
Abunimah’s arguments for a one state solution that overcomes apartheid.
South Africa and Northern Ireland provide his case, the former an obvious
racial apartheid state, the latter a perhaps not so obvious religious apartheid
state. The main commonalities to sustain the apartheid status are the
creation of the ‘other’ as a mortal threat against a superior society, a
demographic threat (obvious in South Africa with its much larger black population),
and the creation of a sense of victimhood, that the ‘other’ is the cause of the
problems.
The section ends with a return to a comparison within the
U.S. of economic apartheid, an awareness of the economic “Jim Crow” that exists
in the U.S. and a recognition that South African apartheid was rescinded based
on the accession to the Washington consensus economic agenda of neo-liberalism
– in other words, the economic status quo of white control would not be
interfered with.
Neoliberal Palestine
One of the more interesting parts of the discussion is that
of the neoliberal economic patterns that have been imposed on Palestine,
especially in the West Bank, although Gaza’s status as a large concentration
camp hanging in isolation could be a forewarning of what might come to the U.S.
homeland concept of neoliberalism. Regardless of that speculation on my
part, Abunimah examines what he calls Fayyad-ism. Salam Fayyad has in the
meantime resigned as Prime Minister, a position that he was not elected for (as
no member of the current Palestinian governance has been elected).
As a digression from reviewing to commentary, the
New York Times described Fayyad in very positive terms,
Mr. Fayyad, an American-educated economist, had gained the
confidence of the West and of many Israelis, building up the credibility of the
Palestinian Authority by introducing transparency, accountability and
stability. Since being appointed to the premiership in 2007, he has championed
law and order in the West Bank after years of chaos and focused on building the
institutions of a future state.
The New York Times comment is typical neoliberal hogwash,
extolling the virtues of “transparency, accountability and stability” without
any sign of any of them. And while he has “has championed law and order
in the West Bank” it has been for his Israeli masters at the expense of the
Palestinians people, other than the select few PA associates who manage the
money.
A former World Bank economist, Fayyad was appointed by a
presidential executive order in 2007 following the collapse of the Palestinian
national unity government and Hamas taking control of the Gaza Strip. While he
was one of the few senior politicians to frequently visit marginalised
communities and ask after their concerns, tax and commodity price hikes
repeatedly stoked angry street protests against him.
Palestinian unemployment has risen to almost 25% and real
GDP growth is set to fall from an average of 11% in 2010-11 to just 5% in 2013,
according to the World Bank.
Apart from the statistics, which coming from the World Bank
are presumably rigged as most western economic statistics are rigged, Fayyad
was obviously not as popular at home as he was within Israeli circles and
international economic circles.
Abunimah provides a clear deconstruction of the economic
miracle that was supposedly created in the West Bank. He describes
Fayyadism as “glittering illusions” from a “credit fuelled consumptive binge”
that depended on foreign aid and credit plus a repressive police state
apparatus…to suppress and disarm any resistance to Israeli occupation and to
crush internal Palestinian dissent and criticism with increasing ferocity.
Should these policies continue, Palestinians “can only look
forward to new, more insidious forms of economic and political bondage.”
The poverty, debt, and dependence created by the neoliberal
policies is discussed, highlighting the lack of employment , no real
development (i.e. of a manufacturing/industrial/agricultural sense), no direct
investment, easy credit creating more debt than income, a high level of
inequality, all based on a “construction and consumption binge fueled by easy
credit and foreign aid [Qatar and U.S.].”
A new Palestinian settlement of Rawabi highlights the effort
to “mask and normalize the worst abuses of occupation.” Fittingly, U.S.
style mortgages are considered a “soft power tool” for “explicitly political
goals” that “advances U.S. foreign policy.” The economic plans
demonstrate a “close integration between the aid and NGO industries…and the
advance of neoliberal economics and U.S. hegemony” using policies formulated
with the PA elites “behind closed doors with no transparency or democratic
process.”
Normal Neoliberalism?
Another aspect of economic normalization (recall that
“normalization” was a major part of the reason for the first Intifada) in its
current status is allowing Israeli companies to operate in the West Bank,
“almost all of which are complicit in Israel’s occupation, apartheid, and
denial of fundamental human rights.”
It is a form of Shock Doctrine as described by Naomi Klein,
wherein a powerful ruling alliance between a few large corporations and a class
of wealthy politicians..facilitated by brutal force, a usurpation of democratic
rules and torture…a silent partner in the global free market crusades.”
Two final constructs of neoliberalism are presented.
First is the destruction of the economic infrastructure (among other
structures) of Gaza, forcing it into a literal underground economy now highly
constricted by the new neoliberal order within the Egyptian junta.
Secondly, the creation of industrial zones and free market zones serves as a
means of controlling and then annexing more and more Palestinian territory.
All this is done for the benefit of large corporations (beyond
the obvious benefits to Israel). These zones create areas where Israel
and corporations “operate in exploitive ways forbidden in their home
territories.” It is time, argues Abunimah, to
abandon the illusion that the formal recognition of a Bantustan-like
Palestinian state alongside Israel would do anything to free Palestinians from
an exploitative economic system that is already deeply entrenched.
As a final note on the never say die neoliberal order, the
U.S. has plans to continue with their neoliberal shock doctrine if the two
sides start negotiations anew,
In addition, the White
House is pleased both with the plan drawn up by General John Allen, which
proposes security arrangements for a two-state reality, and with the plan to
restore and upgrade the Palestinian economy – devised by the U.S.
administration, the quartet envoy Tony Blair and private sector
representatives. These two plans “can be put back in the mix if the parties are
willing to come back to the table seriously,” the official said.
I defer to the reader’s intelligence and the above comments
when considering that perspective.
BDS
It was the South African BDS movement that finally caused
the country to make a volte face and get rid of its political apartheid
structures, unfortunately replacing them with economic apartheid. Israel
is facing a burgeoning movement that borrows heavily from that success,
adapting it as necessary for the slightly different situations.
This is where Abunimah sees the win, the growing awareness
of Israeli actions brought about by the BDS movement, and ironically, Israel’s
attempts to discredit it. Israel realized early that it could not argue
“the facts” against the BDS as it was the very facts on the ground that
provided the support for the campaign. They have also realized that
trying to argue the victim role has had little effect again in consideration of
these very facts. Instead Israel has changed to ideological arguments that
attempt to deny the validity of the people supporting BDS and to hasbara, a
public relations efforts to disseminate abroad positive information.
Israel sees the BDS movement as “deligitimization”, another
“existential threat” that is coalescing with the one state solution by
“undermining moral legitimacy…constraining military activities, destroying
Israel’s image.” To counter this they have used a variety of tactics in
various situations.
Much of it has to do with rebranding. This includes
‘pinkwashing’ attempting to present Israel as a liberal haven for the LGBT
community. It also includes ‘greenwashing’, a “propaganda campaign of
smoke and mirrors to conceal some of Israel’s most troubling, environmentally
destructive and criminal activities, many directly linked to military
occupation and colonization.”
One of the largest areas of countering BDS is within the
universities of the U.S., the “David Project”. This program targets
teachers and students, it attempts to intimidate institutions, misuses civil
rights laws, and attempts to criminalize campus behaviours. A relatively
long comparison is made between these actions and the U.S./Arizona actions with
Hispanics, including walls along the Mexican border and the ‘other’ described
as ‘terrorists’.
Success?
As per Israeli sources, the negative view of Israel is
increasing, in a “finding that indicates that public opinion is sharply out of
step with official government policy.” No surprise there. Netanyahu has
indicated the “its not about the facts, its about the defamation of Israel,”
that it is an “image problem.” Again very similar to U.S foreign policy.
The Reut Institute, “a nonpartisan and nonprofit policy
think tank in Tel Aviv designed to provide real-time, long-term strategic
decision-support to Israel,” “tacitly conceded that resistance to Israel
is based on genuine and justifiable grievances and the denial of Palestinian
rights.”
In essence, BDS has shifted the focus of debate from that of
Israeli victimhood and the virtues of neoliberal democracy to that of the voice
of the Palestinian people.
The end of the two state solution’s endless negotiations and
the increasing awareness created by the BDS movement highlight problems brought
about by Israel onto itself.
The Battle for Justice in Palestine is a well
referenced, well written, and well argued presentation on the current state of
affairs in Palestine. It is a strong update to events within that
particular sector of global ideological manipulations.
Cracking
the US Economic Blockade of Cuba
The powerful regional organisations created in Latin
America, an important legacy of the late Hugo Chavez, have forced cracks in
Washington’s 50- year economic blockade of Cuba. Senior US regime figures have
called on President Barack Obama to loosen the blockade.
Obama loosened a few of the additional measures imposed by
Bush the Second (lifting some severe restrictions on family member visits) but
has mostly maintained the status quo of travel bans on US citizens, ‘trading
with the enemy’ sanctions and imposing large fines on companies (with over 10%
US shareholding) which trade with Cuba.
The US economic, commercial, and financial blockade
(called an ‘embargo’ in the US) has tried to isolate and lay siege to Cuba
since the early years of the revolution. The first version was signed into force
by President John F Kennedy, just after he ordered a personal supply of 1,000
fine Cuban cigars.
However, now that Cuba has taken on a leading role in
continental organisations such as the CELAC, Washington insiders have been
forced to admit that it is the USA (‘America’) that has become ‘increasingly
isolated’ in the Americas.
The late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his political
mentor, former Cuban President Fidel Castro, in the early 2000s, led the
movement against a proposed ‘Free Trade Area of the Americas’ (FTAA) and
against the Washington-dominated Organization of American States (OAS).
Venezuela and Cuba created the left-bloc ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for Our
Americas) as a counter to the FTAA. In 2005, at a summit in Argentina, Chavez
held a shovel to demonstrate that he had come to ‘bury’ the FTAA; and indeed he
did.
Then in 2008, backed by others including President
Lula of Brazil and President Kirchner of Argentina, Chavez led the creation of
UNASUR, a South American bloc that has since helped defuse Washington’s
destabilisation plans in several countries.
The unification process peaked a little more than year
before Chavez died of cancer. In Caracas, in December 2011, 33 Latin
American and Caribbean heads of government confirmed the creation of CELAC (the
Community of Latin American and Caribbean States). The only countries of the
Americas left out were the USA and Canada. With a population twice the
size of the US, CELAC has become a new counter-weight to the Washington-based OAS.
This new bloc moved immediately to build new direct relations, for example with
the European Union.
We should see this recent letter to Obama on Cuba,
from 50 US establishment figures, in this wider context. Titled ‘Open letter to
President Obama: support civil society in Cuba’ (http://www.supportcubancivilsociety.org/), it calls
for relaxation of travel to Cuba by US citizens, increased support for Cuban
civil society, ‘principled engagement in areas of mutual interest’ and some
relaxation of financial restrictions for ‘authorised’ relations.
This is a very long way from the liberal ideas of free
movement and free trade, so often preached by Washington. But while the
letter’s proposals are quite modest, and there is a traditional destabilisation
agenda, it is the authors that make a difference. There have been many similar
proposals from what we might call US ‘official dissidents’, former officials
who have disagreed with the bipartisan US policy on Cuba.
This time the proposal comes from figures still deeply
embedded in the US security, finance and diplomatic oligarchy. Notably there is
John Negroponte, mastermind of death squads (under the Reagan and Bush 2
administrations) in Central America and Iraq, along with several military and
business figures and recent heads of the US mission in Havana (called an
‘Office of Interests’, as there is no US Embassy).
The letter admits that US policy on Cuba (embedded in both
US law and Presidential decree) has left Washington ‘increasingly isolated’ in
the Americas. That policy is unpopular in the US and even more unpopular in
Florida, where the anti-Cuban mafia have their main base. An Atlantic Council
poll (February 2014) said that 56% of US people and 63% of Florida residents
were in favour of a change in US policy towards Cuba.
Nevertheless, given the bizarre, elite politics of the US
Congress (a Republican dominated Lower House has just voted to impose sanctions
on Venezuela, because of violence initiated in that country by US client
groups), the letter recognises that the legislative form of the policy (set in
two laws passed under the Clinton administration in the 1990s) cannot be
quickly changed. However they suggest Obama can act to make some important changes
by presidential decree.
In the imperious language of Washington these changes are
said to ‘serve as catalysts for meaningful change in Cuba’; in practice they
signal a fear of being left out of a Cuban development process which is slowly
but steadily engaging a range of other countries.
The week after the letter was published a high level
delegation headed by Thomas J. Donohue, the President of the US Chamber of
Commerce, paid a visit to Havana. Their main interest seemed to be in reviewing
the economic reforms underway, over the past few years.
Cuba’s ‘updating’ of its economic model (in the Cuban view
this is a subset, and not the defining feature, of Cuban socialism) has
included changes to the 1995 foreign investment law, which selectively attracts
capital to joint ventures in identified priority areas. These areas have been
tourism, mining, oil and energy, the health sector, light engineering and
infrastructure. Key partners so far have been Venezuela, China, Spain, Canada,
Brazil and Russia.
The letter to Obama from 50 US figures proposes an expansion
of ‘licensed travel’ for a range of US citizens (professionals, business
people, NGOs, academics), including authorising the use of ‘pre-paid’ credit
cards. Presently, the US Treasury has to license US citizens and residents to
travel to and spend money in Cuba. Non-US citizens are generally not affected
by these laws, unless they try to use US-linked banks and credit cards.
Second, the group proposes that Obama authorise finance,
scholarship and communications links between ‘civil society’ groups in the two
countries. This has been contentious on the Cuban side because the US has for
some years used ‘civil society’ groups in attempts at political
destabilisation. The Sumate group in Venezuela was one such group. Its former
leader Maria Corina Machado, now a leading opposition politician, was recently
implicated in a plot to assassinate President Nicolas Maduro. In Cuba US
citizen Alan Gross remains in jail for smuggling satellite communications
equipment, with which he was trying to set up a US-mentored political network.
Similarly, a USAID project to start an alternative twitter network (Zunzuneo)
was recently exposed.
Third, the letter proposes priority for ‘principled engagement
in areas of mutual interest’. This is important because issues such as
migration, drug control, environmental management and counter-terrorism have
all failed because of the poor relations, rooted in the US refusal of
diplomatic relations. The failure was best illustrated by the outcome of Cuba’s
sharing of intelligence, in the late 1990s, on planned bombings of Cuban
tourist hotels. Instead of moving against the Florida-based terrorists, the FBI
traced back and arrested some of the sources of that intelligence, five Cuba
agents now known as the Cuban Five. Three of these men are still in US jails,
political prisoners for more than 15 years, simply because they tried to warn
of terrorist attacks planned against their country. Securing their freedom will
be at the forefront of any such ‘mutual interest’ dealings.
Finally the US group asks for financial liberalisation to
allow all US-authorised activities. This is also important, as the blockade has
made many simple, day-to-day transactions difficult.
A US president can authorise the use of certain forms
of credit, but the Congress would have to change the legal basis of wider
sanctions, and these have been aimed at bigger targets, in recent years. US
citizens are still banned from buying Cuban cigars, for example, but there have
been very few fines for such infractions since about 2008. The US Treasury
(through its OFAC agency) has shifted its focus to finance companies, resulting
in some big fines.
For example, under these anti-Cuban laws the Dutch travel
company Carlson Wagonlit Travel was fined nearly $6 million and Despegar, an
Argentine travel firm, was fined $2.8m, this year. Back in 2009 the ANZ Bank
was fined $5.7m while Credit Suisse was fined $536m, the largest ever US
sanctions penalty. These fines underline the point that US laws continue to
affect even foreign companies, if they have 10% or more US-based shares.
The US economic blockade of Cuba is truly a dinosaur policy.
It is rejected at the UN every year by almost every nation on earth, it is
rejected by the US people and it is now rejected by Washington insiders, who
have finally discovered that is it they who are isolated. Whether the Obama
administration moves on this or not, it is clear that Latin American unity has
been the recent driving force for change.
No comments:
Post a Comment