VODAFONE SCANDAL: Revisiting the Issues, Propaganda And Scum

In the light of current agitation by workers of Vodafone against bad management practices. We are compelled to revisit some of the issues raised in relations to the privatisation of 70 percent of the company. Please read on;

The divestiture of state interest in a statutory corporation the Companies Act is governed by the Divestiture of State Interest (Implementation) Act. The Act defines the role government institutions play in the divestiture process. Section 2 of the DIC Act established the Divestiture Implementation Committee (DIC) as "the agency of the Government for the implementation of Government policies in respect of divestiture programs". They are also responsible for the transfer of the divested shares to the purchaser.

The divestiture of 70% share of "The Enlarge GT Group" was not undertaken by the DIC. Even though it is clear from various documents (NR doc Ref 6601838 and SPA Step 5.1) that both the Former President and Vodafone International Holding B.V. (Vodafone) knew of the full mandate of DIC over the implementation process, the Presidency, under President Kuffour and Vodafone ignored the DIC Act and its due process and negotiated the agreement which resulted in the divestiture of 70% shares of GT. They then got the Acting Chairman and Executive Secretary of DIC to sign for the share transfer to Vodafone, after the ratification of the SPA by Parliament. Thus, the Parties that undertook the negotiations without the participation of DIC or signed transferred the share of GT transfer may be cited for fraud.            .

Former President Kufuor personally negotiated for the sale of Ghana Telecom

The Sale Purchase Agreement (SPA) was produced to satisfy President J. A. Kuffour and Vodafone's. The former President alone, and on some occasions with one or two of his Ministers, met Vodafone, determined the transaction consideration of $900million, and agreed to the terms and conditions provided by Vodafone in its is" May offer. The Presidency then imposed the condition and instructed a handful of public offices representing the various Ministries to embody it in the SPA. The meetings by the Former President and subsequent decisions taken were not transparent and did not rely on expert advice. However, this was forced on government technical team to implement. In the process MDAs and state institutions such as the NCA and DIC were made to abandon due processes and statutory obligation/Laws to rubber stamp the agreement. The MoC misrepresented facts to parliament.

Dr. Aggrey-Ntim and Mr. Kwadjo Mpianim has indicated that no minutes were taken during the negotiations between Vodafone's and former President Kuffour so there are no records on what informed the US$900million price for the Enlarged GT Group.

The May 15^th offer by Vodafone which was complied with to produce the SPA imposed onerous terms and conditions on the GoG. Dr. Aggrey Ntim (MoC) and Dr. Akoto Osie (MoFEP)oC served as a conduit for enforcing Presidential directives. This resulted in the infringement of various laws, including the Divestitures Implementation Committee Law and the National Communications Authority (NCA) Acts and Regulations.

Kwadwo Pianim, Chief of Staff to Kufuor supported the sale

The first record of proceedings for the transaction is contained in the minutes of the June 3^fC meeting held at the MoC for the selected personnel from the Ministries that form the technical team. In the minutes, the team is giving its matching orders "not to engage in negotiation but to draw the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA)". To achieve this they were "to endeavour to find
a way to implement decisions already reached [by higher authority]". This set in motion abuse 01 office by some high public officers, who disregarded statutory due processes and laws to produce a one sided agreement to the disadvantage of Ghana. The sale should have involved the Divestiture Implementation Committee and abided by the Public Procurement Act.

Telecom South Africa had made an offer of US$1.216biliion as far back as March is", 2008 and on May 8^th indicated their willingness to increase their increase offer. Eventually they submitted an US$1.65billion on May is" 2008, for the purchase of 66.67% of GT but this wa: intentionally ignored and never disclosed to Parliament or the Ghanaian public. Government went ahead and accepted an offer of US$900 -equivalent to US$1.286billion enterprise value- for 70% of GT. The above and the full implications of the transaction, such as the inclusion of the fiber optic backbone assets, were not disclosed to parliament. Endorsing this kind of practice by leaving the agreement intact will have serious implications for Ghana's democracy.

GT had been brought to its knees financially by fraudulent practices and mismanagement during the tenure of the Telenor/Telecorn Management Partners (TMP) and the Ghanaian Interim Management Committee. Significant financial malpractices have been detected in our investigations. A criminal investigation or probe must be instituted to reveal the full rot of the era and punish any wrong doers according to law.

The exemption regime for the 3G license and the "transfer of the national optic fiber backbone fell within the ambit of the NCA. The NCA willfully abandoned well known international best practices, as well as due processes spelt out in NCA ACT 524 and LI1719. Through this, the: allowed or created "the exemptions regime under the SPA in relation to offers of 3G licenses a
well as "the inclusion of the National Fibre-Optic Backbone infrastructure" leading to condition that mortgage the role communications would play in the socio-economic development of the country. The fiber optic assets/company was seriously undervalue and the MoC, wrote latter t waive the payment US$28.5million, being the fee for the 3G license on the excuse that it has been factored into the $900rnillion offer made by Vodafone. The fee for the 3G licence had ne been determined at the time Parliament approved the SPA.

Where an agreement is between a government and a foreign investor, the concept of sanctity e contract is overridden by the principle of permanent sovereignty over resources. This allows the host state to unilaterally cancel or amend the contract if it discovers that that agreement undermines its strategic national interest. Transactions that relate to strategic national assets resources lie in the domain of public law rather than in the province of private contract because they are a framework for a joint public enterprise in which the Government and the foreign partner are engaged in the development of a strategic public resource or the operation of a vital public utility. Such agreements are not just simple commercial contracts but are major instruments of public policy on which the country's socio-economic development depend. A long-term investment agreement spelling out comprehensively the relations between the Government and the corporation in respect of the development and marketing of a major telecommunication resource and specifying all relevant fiscal arrangements is anything but a private contract-an institution of the market place.

There would be little inclination to abrogate an agreement or nationalize an undertaking, if the terms of the SPA could be reopened for renegotiation. The Government should indicate to Vodafone that the SPA is not acceptable in its present form and request for renegotiation. If this is not acceptable to Vodafone, GoG must take steps to find another investor, preferable with substantial Ghanaian participation, to ensure Ghana's sovereign rights over its resources.

OTHER ISSUES:

Potential Financial Fraud

Despite various request and responses, Vodafone could not account for the US$200 million bridge loan that was provided to GT after the signing of the SPA. In the attempt to provide explanation Vodafone submitted a payment list to the committee among which was a payment of GH¢61million to Huawei between August 2008 and May 2009. On request for confirmation, Huawei submitted documents indicating that they had invoiced and received only GH¢37.29million and not the Ghc61million that Vodafone alleged they had paid them. There are clear indications of fraud by Vodafone because it is misrepresenting their financial figure to disadvantage the GoG. The Government may wish to confront them with this matter and ask them to account for the difference of GH¢23.71m. An investigation into this matter will strengthen the hand of the GoG in any renegotiating of the SPA if it should come to it.

In any case, the GoG should not assume responsibility for $200million bridge loan until Vodafone is able to proof that it was used solely for the operations of Ghana Telecom.

The parties that negotiated the SPA colluded to deny the country from getting fair value for its assets. Vodafone sought and got exemption which they knew could be complied with only through illegality such as the award of 3G license and modification of GT to include the national fiber optic backbone company.

The Presidency that negotiated terms for the SPA instructed the Ministry of Communications that the sale was to Vodafone PLC however the SPA was approved by Parliament for Vodafone B.V.

Vodafone is an international player and knows the rules and norms in a liberalized telecommunications industry. Moreover, The NCA in a letter of July 2 2008 made Vodafone aware of the need to comply with NCA laws. Despite this Vodafone colluded to secure exemptions from due process and law to obtain terms and conditions that was unlikely to have been obtained if the law has been applied. They knew the illegality that was being committed and the risk it posed to the legality of the SPA but thought they will get away with it, particularly when the agreement was with a developing country like Ghana.

May 8^th 2007:           EDC was appointed the Transactions Advisor for the privatization of GT
via a 6-month contract dated May 2007.

June 30, 2007:                    GoG published in the Economist of London a "Request for Expression of
Interest from Strategic Investors" for GT to facilitate GoG policy of
"providing universal access for all communities and populations groups to
telephone, internet, and multimedia services. (Appendix 1)

October 29,2007:     The T A sent RFPs to 6 out of the 17 companies who responded to EOIs.

Nov. 20 2007:                       The MoC wrote to the President suggesting the formation of aGoG
negotiation Committee for the GT sale.

Dec. 11 2007:                        EDC submitted a Report to the MoC of the outcome of their evaluation of the bids for GT sale of 66.67%.

December 2007                   The services of the TA got terminated and GoG decided to undertake the negotiation at the Castle leading to the direct involvement of former
President J. A. Kuffour in negotiations. Government recommenced
negotiations and "approach Vodafone Group directly". (Vodafone letter of 19 June 2009)

Jan. 18, 2008                        Telecom South Africa wrote to the president informing him that they are " no longer engaged in any discussion with MTN regarding potential
corporate restructuring" and "are once again, in a position toparticipate"
in the privatization of GT". (Appendix 2)

Feb. 7, 2008                          Telecom S.A. requested for an account into which to pay $15,000 as was required for accepting their expression of interest. (Appendix 3)

Feb. 13, 2008:                      The Minister of Communications, Dr. Aggrey Ntim, invited the Vodafone team for further discussions on their offer that valued GT at an enterprise value ranging between US$1.150billion – US$800m for 80% shares in GT. (Appendix 5)

Feb. 19, 2008                        MoC is informed of a non-binding offer by Benji (in an e-mail to the
Minister) with Vodacom revising its offer to US$800m for 80% shares in GT. (Appendix 5)

March 14, 2008:      After discussions in march 3rd and 4th, Telkom SA sent an offer for GT
with an Enterprise Value ofUS$1,216million. This represented an equity value of US$986 million, and a net debt of US$230 million, for a purchase consideration for 66_% shares of GT. This value is nearly equivalent to what GoG accepted from Vodafone for 70% of the Enlarged GT Group. (Appendix 6)

(

May 8, 2008:

May 8, 2008             Telecom S.A informs the Presidency and the Ministry of Communication that they a preparing a revised offer for submission and approval to their Board of Directors. (Appendix 7)

May 13th 2008:       Telecom S. A. informs the Presidency and the Ministry of
Communications that they have valued 100% of GT at US$1.65 million
representing a purchase price US$947 million for 66.67% equity stake.
They indicated that their "business plan also envisages a capital spend of US$1,334 over 10 years. They indicated that "this value far exceeds any previous offer submitted by potential investors. (Appendix 8)

May 15,2008:                      The SA submitted their Board approved revised offer to the Presidency and the Minster of Communications. (Appendix 9)

May 15, 2008:                      Vodafone submitted an offer US$9OOm (representing an Enterprise Value of US$1,286 million) for 70% shares in GT and the fiber assets. The Vodafone offer is a product of negotiations between "High Authority" and had 27 point assumptions underlying it ie. terms and conditions they wished incorporated in the SPA. The Chief of Staff and Dr. Aggrey Ntim have indicated that no Minutes were taken during the "High Authority" negotiations and there were no Technical Advisors. (Appendix 10)

May 16, 2008:                      The Deputy Minister of Communication, Mr. Opare Ansah wrote to the
Chief of Staff & Minister of Presidential Affairs informing him of the
Ministry's receipt of Telecoms S.A. offer and attached their proposal.
(Appendix 11)

16th May 2008:       Minister of State in Charge of Finance Mr. Akoto Osei, signed for
acceptance of Vodafone offer on day following the submission of the
Vodafone offer. (Appendix 12)

June 3, 2008:                      Minister of Communications met an inter-ministerial technical team and a Vodafone team in the conference room of the MoC. ''The Minister
informed the [meeting] that the Ministry was coordinating the exercise and that government had agreed for Vodafone to purchase 70% of GT
including the transfer of optical Fiber backbone to GT". ''The work of the meeting was therefore not to engage in negotiations but to draw a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA)." "He called on the meeting to endeavour to find a way to implement decisions already reached [by higher authority]". (The quotes are from Minutes of the June 3^rd meeting -Appendix 13)

July 2 2008:                        NCA submitted a letter of "consent to the Transaction" to indicate that all NCA laws and regulations (ACT524, and L.I. 1719) have been complied with. This is in conflict to the NCA sent to inform the committee that they did not play a role in the transactions except when they are called by the MoC and that the committee should contact the Ministry for answers related to regulatory compliance. (Appendix 14)

Editorial

VODAFONE?

Vodafone is in the news again.

It first gained public attention in Ghana when it offered to buy 70 per cent of Ghana Telecom under the Kufuor administration.

The deal was heavily criticized because it violated the laws of Ghana and was not done with even a shred of transparency.

As many Ghanaians joined the struggle to save a national assets from being grabbed by a multi-national corporation with the help of their own elected leaders, workers of Ghana Telecom joined the sycophancy and praised the regime for selling of their own company.

Today, the workers of Ghana Telecom now Vodafone appear to know better. They have become victims of privatization like millions of workers around the world who continue to suffer from the ill advice of the world Bank and the International Monetary Fund

Vodafone is busily  retrenching labour as a means of guaranteeing its profit levels. It does not give a damn about the welfare of the workers who have made the company what it is today.

For the sake of profit, the company is ready turn its workers into pampers.

Should we say that the workers of Vodafone deserve what they are getting? After all they joined neo-colonial forces to heap insult on us for daring to stand up for their interests.
 

The Insight believes that the workers of Ghana Telecom supported the Vofafone deal out of ignorance they now know better and are welcome to join the people of Ghana in the bold confrontation with predatory capitalism.

 We preservation national assets should be the battle cry of the working people and their allies.

Vodafone must be compelled to respect the rights of its workers.

Why is the government afraid of the Chinese? (Part I)

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

We have had good cause to complain about inefficiency in the governance of this country over the years; and we will continue to do so until our leaders change for the better. We will not leave them to do things at their own pace, though. Very soon, we will take our protest a step further to put sustained pressure on them at both the local and national levels until they act responsibly to solve problems, not to create new ones to add to existing ones.

No empty sloganeering about a “Better Ghana” or a “Positive Change” will deter us from taking our leaders to task. We are serving notice so they don’t continue to mistake our leniency for a weakness to exploit.

When Ghanaians went to polls, they endured physical pain and mental agony to exercise their franchise in the hope that those to put in charge of affairs will be responsible enough to know their plight and work hard to uplift living standards.

They didn’t endure all that inconvenience to put dummies in charge of national affairs. Consequently, they will not sit down unconcerned for those in office to continue rubbing salt into their wounds.

Illegal Chinese Miners

I am completely angry at this stage, apparently because of what I have just read from Myjoyonline about a Chinese illegal gold miner shooting and wounding three Ghanaians with an AK 47 assault rifle in the Manso Abodom community of the Amansie West District in the Ashanti Region. (Please, see: http://edition.myjoyonline.com/pages/crime/201302/101206.php).

The suspect, Xia Gui Xiang, who was arrested five days ago, has been remanded in police custody pending further investigations. His victims, who were rushed to the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, are receiving emergency medical care.

The victims—identified as Kofi Bobie, Kwame Kyerematen and Kwaku Manu—were said to have been shot when they joined others from Manso Abodom who had entered the camp of the Chinese, who was mining illegally on Finger Mining Limited's concession.

The chilling impact of this occurrence has virtually rankled with me and I want to begin this campaign to call our national and local leaders to order. The circumstances surrounding the incident are enough to prompt immediate action:

Chinese Miners

1.       The Chinese were alleged to have been mining illegally in the concessional area of Finger Mining limited, a small-scale mining company with legal rights for almost a year; a situation said to have created tension in the Abodom community and its environs.

2.      Unhappy about the activities of these Chine[se illegal miners, the youth from Abodom had, on Tuesday February 5, 2013, massed up at their chief's palace, complaining about the rate at which the Chinese had been mining illegally in the area.

3. The Abodom youth also alleged that the chief of the community had collected money from the Chinese and allowed them to operate illegally in their environment.

MY COMMENTS

I congratulate the youth of Manso Abodom for rising up to tackle this Chinese menace, however limited their actions might be. Or however unfortunate the outcome might be. They have served notice that when the government and its security apparatus fail to defend the interests of the people, they (the people themselves) will do so on their own, damn the consequences.

There is a Chinese menace to confront head-on. Nobody should deceive us that there isn’t.

Within a short span of a little than 10 years, the Chinese have swarmed our country and are doing acts that largely flout our laws; but the government is not acting efficiently to clamp down on them. They are everywhere, vigorously exploring and exploiting the loopholes that we have created in our system.

Some Chinese Miners Arrested

How many Ghanaians can go to China to do things as they like, bulldozing their way through the national landscape and grabbing every substance of value they can reach?

The nuisance that these Chinese have become to us is beyond description; but our governments (especially those of Kufuor, the late Mills, and the incumbent Mahama) have either looked on unconcerned or looked away to encourage their activities.

Our state institutions responsible for immigration and immigrant quota or work authorization (if there is anything like that in Ghana) are either complicit in the influx of these Chinese undesirables or arte themselves fronting for them to act illegally in the country.

How do these Chinese enter the country, in the first place? What is the legal backing given them to live in the country? How do they ever know the parts of our country that have rich minerals to settle in? How do they establish themselves in the various communities to operate their illegal mining (or other economic) activities?

More importantly, how do they manage to win the trust of the chiefs and members of the various communities to be able to do their economic activities?

How do the chiefs feel by either collaborating with them to exploit the resources of the land with so much impunity and gusto while their own people remain unemployed and destitute, forced to resort to anti-social activities (armed robbery, especially) to eke out their livelihood?

There are many more disturbing questions that will end up tearing me apart if I continue to brood over them.

I blame the government—this John Mahama-led NDC government—at this stage. There is nothing to persuade me that it has any plan to deal with this Chinese menace. Hindsight persuades me that there is a cunning official complicity that must be condemned in no uncertain words. And that’s exactly what I am doing.

Having gone with well-padded knee-caps to panhandle in China, and having sold its conscience to the Chinese authorities, what can the government do to solve this problem without being browbeaten into submission by the Chinese authorities? And why is the government afraid to act on this menace?

Open pit dug by chinese miners

I recall what happened last year when some 31 Chinese were said to have been arrested (with one dying in the rumpus) for flouting the laws of the country on economic activities. The Chinese government quickly warned Ghana of the consequences, and we haven’t heard anything about that matter since then. You see how cowardly our leaders are? What are they afraid of, anyway?

There are many more instances to confirm the weaknesses in our government’s handling of cases related to foreigners trooping into Ghana and destabilizing the economic, cultural, and social sectors while our government looks on, paralyzed by its own incompetence in tackling such problems.

The half-hearted attempt to flush out foreigners from the retail business was more politically motivated than economically expedient. No wonder it ended all too soon without any success. And nobody in government is even thinking of that any more. I am really pissed off at this stage; so should you be too.

I shall return…

·         E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

·         Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.

The Monarchy and Politics

Queen Elizabeth

We live in a free and democratic society, with a fearless free media who hold the possessors of power to account, bringing the spotlight of truth to bear upon their activities. Yet, what’s this? 

The BBC apologising and cowering like a whipped dog because one of its journalists revealed that the reigning Monarch had queried with Ministers why Abu Hamza had not been deported. That is, a BBC reporter reporting on the functions of government and the institutions of state. Precisely what a reporter should be doing in an open and democratic society. Except, what the reporter had revealed was precisely the absence of democracy at the heart of government.

This comes alongside the twin running battles the Guardian is having with the government through the information commissioner. They want the government to reveal the rules by which Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles are given the right to veto parts of acts of parliament that concern their interests. They also want the government to reveal details of letters sent by Prince Charles, lobbying government ministers and trying to influence policy. The government, apparently with palace backing, are fighting tooth and claw to stop these documents being revealed.

What is at stake is effectively monarchical interference in both executive and legislative functions of state: promoting policies to ministers and then editing bills going before parliament. These are permanent, unremovable, unelected people having key and decisive influence over the laws that we have to live under. Importantly, their veto extends to commercial matters, involving the vast holdings of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall. That is, they have the personal right to write the laws that give them an advantage over commercial rivals.

As the Guardian notes: “In the past two parliamentary sessions Charles has been asked to consent to at least 12 draft bills on everything from wreck removals to co-operative societies. Between 2007 and 2009 he was consulted on bills relating to coroners, economic development and construction, marine and coastal access, housing and regeneration, energy and planning. In Charles's case, the little-known power stems from his role as the head of the £700m Duchy of Cornwall estate, which provides his £17m-a-year private income.” (http://tinyurl.com/8frkdcq)

Such legislative power also extends to changing employment law with regards to the Royal households. So it is not just the principle of Royal interference in the law, it is also the practice that can have dramatic real-world effects for those finding themselves employed by the sovereign.

As the judges ruling in the case of the release of Prince Charles’ letters, such matters are covered by constitutional convention. That is, there is no law covering them (and so they are not directly subject to judicial oversight). In the case of Charles’ ‘Black Spider Memos’ (so-called because of his handwriting), the government was claiming they were subject to immunity from freedom of information laws because they were part of his training to be a future Monarch, and so he must be able to correspond with ministers and learn how government works (and presumably, have access to privileged information unavailable to mere voters).

This is an extension of the constitutional convention of confidentiality surrounding the relationship of the Monarch to their ministers. As the judges explained, by convention the Monarch is entitled “to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.” (http://tinyurl.com/97bnya8) (This is accompanied by its twin convention that the Monarch must act on the advice of their ministers. 

So, in the weekly meetings between Queen Elizabeth and her Prime Minister, we can infer that she is not merely apprised of current events, but consulted and asked for her opinion (and given an opportunity to freely give her encouragement and warnings). 

The principle of confidentiality surrounding these conventions is that the Monarchy is supposed to defer to parliamentary sovereignty, and be politically neutral. If, though, Elizabeth is giving opinions and warnings (and vetoes) then, practically, she is not being neutral. The cloak of silence merely covers up her political positions and actions. She is merely seen to be neutral. Convention protects her from controversy.

So, when Frank Gardner revealed on the Today Programme that Elizabeth Windsor had been asking her Home Secretary why Abu Hamza could not be arrested, he was revealing a dark secret at the heart of government, the secret of the reality of royal interference. The BBC apology was instant, abject and craven. It was so important to swiftly redraw the curtains because the cornerstone of this arrangement is what in international affairs is called ‘soft-power’.

British Royal Family

One constitutional scholar defines conventions as existing:“if (i) there are precedents underpinning it, (ii) the parties to the relevant practice consider themselves to be bound by it and (iii) there is a reason for the existence of the convention” (http://tinyurl.com/97bnya8).Whilst either side of the convention may breech it, an act which is technically unconstitutional, there is no way to enforce such rules through the courts. 

Note that this applies to both sides. The Monarch retains the implicit capacity to cause governmental mayhem by beginning to more vigorously exert or stretch their veto capacity. Further, the Royal Family continue to retain considerable public sympathy, and it would be a hard battle for any government to publicly fall out with the Crown. A wise politician avoids unnecessary battles, and so both sides negotiate around the existence of the nuclear option (and possible mutual destruction). Through such means the Monarch, being able to excise clauses of bills affecting them, exercises a power US presidents can only dream of: the line item veto. It effectively makes Elizabeth a legislator.

In his play, The Apple Cart, Bernard Shaw explored this residual Royal power (the play’s title suggests the precarious balance of power between Crown and executive). Although his King Magnus, has been seen as in line with Shaw’s attraction to the idea of the strong leader, the play does explore this mutual relationship between the power of the elected state and the aesthetic appeal of Monarchy (what some constitutional scholars call the ‘dignified part’ of the state). He notes that for the professional politicians, the Monarchy provides an alibi and a distraction, belying their inability to compete with the real, effective power of capital. The centre of that play is the long dormant general right of Monarchs to withhold Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament. This power has not actually been used since Queen Anne, but it remains like a constitutional shark lurking beneath the waters. No Monarch could use it without bringing the whole constitutional house of cards down, but what Prime Minister would want to be in the position of facing that crisis?

David Cameron, British Premiere

Real politicians like to promote and thus bask in (and share) the popularity of the Royal Family as well as some of their unaccountable prerogative powers. The continued existence, influence and organised light-fingeredness of Elizabeth and Charles Windsor is their small price to pay. The rich pageant of the dignified parts of state provide depth and meaning to their tiny roles in a pitiless bureaucracy hemmed in by the real power of property.

The good news is for conspiracy theorists: there really is a vast, organised conspiracy at the heart of the state. The sad reality, though, is its name is government. Secrecy is the essence of warfare, and the government is an ongoing armed campaign against the vast majority of people. Should the professional politicians ever need a large-scale distraction to mobilise support, there is no doubt they would happily throw the Windsors under a bus.

**Stop Press**

On 16th October Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General used his veto under the Freedom of Information Act to block publication of Charles Windsor's letters. He said: "Much of the correspondence does indeed reflect the Prince of Wales's most deeply held personal views and beliefs. The letters in this case are in many cases particularly frank. They also contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality." The Guardian is understood to be considering taking the case to the High Court. His decision speaks volumes.

Germany 'exporting' old and sick to foreign care homes

German Chancellor Angela Merkel

Growing numbers of elderly and sick Germans are being sent overseas for long-term care in retirement and rehabilitation centres because of rising costs and falling standards in Germany.

The move, which has seen thousands of retired Germans rehoused in homes in eastern Europe and Asia, has been severely criticised by social welfare organisations who have called it "inhumane deportation".

But with increasing numbers of Germans unable to afford the growing costs of retirement homes, and an ageing and shrinking population, the number expected to be sent abroad in the next few years is only likely to rise. Experts describe it as a "time bomb".

Germany's chronic care crisis – the care industry suffers from lack of workers and soaring costs – has for years been mitigated by eastern Europeans migrating to Germany in growing numbers to care for the country's elderly.

But the transfer of old people to eastern Europe is being seen as a new and desperate departure, indicating that even with imported, cheaper workers, the system is unworkable.

Germany has one of the fastest-ageing populations in the world, and the movement here has implications for other western countries, including Britain, particularly amid fears that austerity measures and rising care costs are potentially undermining standards of residential care.

The Sozialverband Deutschland (VdK), a German socio-political advisory group, said the fact that growing numbers of Germans were unable to afford the costs of a retirement home in their own country sent a huge "alarm signal". It has called for political intervention.

"We simply cannot let those people who built Germany up to be what it is, who put their backbones into it all their lives, be deported," said VdK's president, Ulrike Mascher. "It is inhumane."

Researchers found an estimated 7,146 German pensioners living in retirement homes in Hungary in 2011. More than 3,000 had been sent to homes in the Czech Republic, and there were more than 600 in Slovakia. There are also unknown numbers in Spain, Greece and Ukraine. Thailand and the Philippines are also attracting increasing numbers.

The Guardian spoke to retired Germans and people needing long-term care living in homes in Hungary, Thailand and Greece, some of whom said that they were there out of choice, because the costs were lower – on average between a third and two-thirds of the price in Germany – and because of what they perceived as better standards of care.

But others were evidently there reluctantly.

The Guardian also found a variety of healthcare providers were in the process of building or just about to open homes overseas dedicated to the care of elderly Germans in what is clearly perceived in the industry to be a growing and highly profitable market.

According to Germany's federal bureau of statistics, more than 400,000 senior citizens are currently unable to afford a German retirement home, a figure that is growing by around 5% a year.

The reasons are rising care home costs – which average between €2,900 and €3,400 (£2,700) a month, stagnating pensions, and the fact that people are more likely to need care as they get older.

As a result, the Krankenkassen or statutory insurers that make up Germany's state insurance system are openly discussing how to make care in foreign retirement homes into a long-term workable financial model.

In Asia, and eastern and southern Europe, care workers' pay and other expenses such as laundry, maintenance and not least land and building costs, are often much lower.

Today, European Union law prevents state insurers from signing contracts directly with overseas homes, but that is likely to change as legislators are forced to find ways to respond to Europe's ageing population.

The lack of legislation has not stopped retired people or their families from opting for foreign homes if their pensions could cover the costs.

But critics of the move have voiced particular worries about patients with dementia, amid concern that they are being sent abroad on the basis that they will not know the difference.

Sabine Jansen, head of Germany's Alzheimer Society, said that surroundings and language were often of paramount importance to those with dementia looking to cling to their identity.

"In particular, people with dementia can find it difficult to orientate themselves in a wholly other culture with a completely different language, because they're very much living in an old world consisting of their earlier memories," she said.

With Germany's population expected to shrink from almost 82 million to about 69 million by 2050, one in every 15 – about 4.7 million people – are expected to be in need of care, meaning the problem of provision is only likely to worsen.

Willi Zylajew, an MP with the conservative Christian Democrats and a care service specialist, said it would be increasingly necessary to consider foreign care.

"Considering the imminent crisis, it would be judicious to at least start thinking about alternative forms of care for the elderly," he said.

 

Christel Bienstein, a nursing scientist from the University of Witten/Herdecke, said many German care homes had reached breaking point due to lack of staff, and that care standards had dropped as a result.

"On average each patient is given only around 53 minutes of individual care every day, including feeding them," she said. "Often there are 40 to 60 residents being looked after by just one carer."

Artur Frank, the owner of Senior Palace, which finds care homes for Germans in Slovakia, said that was why it was wrong to suggest senior citizens were being "deported" abroad, as the VdK described it.

"They are not being deported or expelled," he said. "Many are here of their own free will, and these are the results of sensible decisions by their families who know they will be better off."

He said he had seen "plenty of examples of bad care" in German homes among the 50 pensioners for whom he had already found homes in Slovakia.

"There was one woman who had hardly been given anything to eat or drink, and in Slovakia they had to teach her how to swallow again," he said.

German politicians have shied away from dealing with the subject, largely due to fears of a voter backlash if Germany's state insurers are seen to be financing care workers abroad to the detriment of the domestic care industry.

Chicago protest demands: ‘End the investigation of anti-war and international solidarity activists’

Chicago Protestors

With signs reading, “Opposing war is not a crime,” and “Two years is too long,” 100 people gathered at the Federal Building here, Sept. 20, to protest FBI and U.S. Attorney attacks on anti-war activists that began with FBI Raids in September 2010. Altogether, seven homes were raided and 23 people were subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury. The warrants and subpoenas alleged there was an ongoing effort to provide ‘material support’ for foreign terrorist organizations in the Middle East and South America.

The protest called for an end to the investigation into the activists, and for the return of property seized from the home of Hatem Abudayyeh and his family.

The Reverend Dan Dale, pastor of the Wellington Avenue United Church of Christ and Sister Zakiyyah Muhammad, a well-known African American community activist, delivered a letter to the offices of the U.S. Attorney, Gary Shapiro. Addressed to Shapiro and Attorney General Eric Holder, and signed by 80 prominent community leaders, academics, union and elected officials, the letter calls for an end to the federal investigation.

Referring to recent statements from the Dept. of Justice, the letter read, “Several months ago, your office announced that Goldman Sachs would not be indicted as a result of your investigation into their conduct, and last month you also announced that no-one would be indicted for the torture of captured Afghan militants. It would behoove you, under any standard of fairness, to now announce the end of your investigation of the people whose homes were raided two years ago and who were subpoenaed to your grand jury.”

Protestors 

Voices of support and resistance

At a press conference, several speakers made statements. First was Barbara Ransby, a local professor who last year joined a delegation of oppressed nationality women in a visit to Palestine. “It’s a frightening thing when the government threatens grassroots activists based on their political beliefs, especially people who have been conscientiously working for the poor and working people. This chapter should be closed.”

Bernardine Dohrn, an internationally recognized political activist because of her role in the anti-Vietnam War movement of the 1960s and 70s, spoke about being subpoenaed to a federal grand jury in May of 1982 in New York City. “Exactly 30 years ago, I was in the federal lock up in New York City, having refused to cooperate with an unjust grand jury. I have some experience with what these people have gone through, having their homes raided, and then having a continuing investigation for two years.”

Chicago protestors

Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a Cook County Commissioner, said, “I join you today in solidarity, along with all the other elected officials who have written letters and manifested their support in different ways for the individuals affected by this investigation. I’m here because I swore a vow to uphold the U.S. Constitution.”

Finally, Hatem Abudayyeh spoke. In addition to the 23 people in this investigation, and the property seized from his home, he added, “[This] is about my nationality and my organizing work. It is about FBI and local law enforcement entrapment and surveillance and informants sent to our mosques and churches and community centers and workplaces. It is about our government trying to sell the notion that caring and talking and teaching about Palestine, that criticizing our government’s support of Israel, that asking Americans to boycott Israel and to end U.S. aid to Israel, is somehow a criminal act.”

Also present at the protest were Stephanie Weiner, her husband, Joe Iosbaker, who were raided in 2010, and several of the Palestinian Americans who were subpoenaed in 2010.