Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Posts tagged ‘IMF’

“President Goodluck Jonathan Is A Waste Of Time” Says Isaac Osuoka

“People in the Niger Delta now recognize that Jonathan is a waste of time”– Isaac Osuoka

“Jonathan is a stooge of backward Nigerian political elite who are generally stooges of Western powers. Though as a stooge of stooges, Jonathan has shown that he is particularly spineless and is most amenable to even the slightest of pressure from those he considers powerful.”– Isaac Osuoka

Isaac Osuoka, the Executive Director of Social Action

As Nigerians from all walks of life gear up for the beginning of the “mother of all protests” on Monday, January 9, 2012, over increase in fuel price, journalist and author of Time to Reclaim Nigeria, Chido Onumah, interviewed Isaac Osuoka, director of Social Action and one of the leaders of civil society in Nigeria. Osuoka has been active in the country’s pro-democracy and Niger Delta peoples movements. He was one of the founders of the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) and acted as its first spokesperson in the late 1990s. Osuoka who is currently a Vanier Scholar at York University, Toronto, Canada, speaks on the situation in Nigeria and why Nigerians must look beyond President Jonathan. Excerpts:

CO: Whether we like it or not, you can’t deny the fact Goodluck  Jonathan enjoyed a measure of support before the 2011 presidential election. What was responsible for this?

IO: Many Nigerians believed that Goodluck Jonathan was a different breed from the backward cabal that have held Nigeria hostage for the better part of the last 51 years. They thought that because he is a native of the Niger Delta with very minimal historical ties to what was referred to as the Hausa-Fulani oligarchy, that he represents a refreshing change from the past. They saw a meek looking and educated man and felt that maybe he is the change that Nigeria needs. Well, Goodluck Jonathan has proven to Nigeria that he is not the change the country needs. In fact, Jonathan is the worst President that the ruling class has ever foisted on Nigeria.

CO: Was it a case of misplaced optimism?

IO: Exactly! The man has shown that he is clueless. He has shown that he lacks the capacity to address the very serious challenges confronting the country. And what is even worse is that he does not care. He does not care for the people of Nigeria. He does not care for the progress of Nigeria. He has the mentality of a Local Government caretaker committee chairman. He has surrounded himself with similarly clueless characters who are only interested in how much they can loot while the booty lasts. This is a president that hates Nigerians whom he thinks forced him to be president and he seems determined to punish them.

CO: Let’s talk about the recent increase in fuel price which has precipitated massive demonstrations across Nigeria.

IO: The removal of fuel subsidy demonstrates again that the Jonathan presidency does not care a bit about the welfare of Nigerians. Can you imagine the puerile argument that fuel subsidy does not benefit the majority of the Nigerian people? Only those that see benefit in terms of how much you loot can make such a stupid argument. You see, since they know that the figures of how much the government is expending on subsidies is over bloated because of the corruption in the system, and they know the few individuals that have benefited from all the fraud, they have come to associate benefit with whose hands are in the lucre. That is all they see. The loot. That is all they are interested in. From their exalted position, they don’t see the mass of the Nigerian people who are mostly unemployed or have the lowest incomes anywhere in the world. That is why World Bank sponsored economists like Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala will ask during one of her meetings with the NLC why people were so worried over subsidy removal when about 70 per cent of Nigerians don’t own cars! That is why the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, who behaves more like a politician will talk down to us and insist we must accept the fuel increase while he is comfortable spending almost N20 billion ($133million) of tax payers’ money on a piece of land to build a “world-class international conference centre”. This has always been their modus operandi. Was it not David Mark, then a soldier-minister under General Ibrahim Babaginda (now senate president and a champion of democracy) who berated Nigerian students for protesting increase in fuel because not many students owned cars, as if many of us who went to universities outside our state of origin had to trek to school. Can a ruling elite be more insensitive!

CO: Many Nigerians are saying that rather than remove subsidy of petrol, the president should consider removing subsidy on government inefficacy.

IO: What can I say? We are all aware of the billions earmarked for feeding the president and the vice president in 2012. The vice president will spend N1.7 billion ($11.3 million) on trips in 2012 and N1.3 billion ($8.6 million) on office stationeries. This amount includes N12 million ($80,000) on books, N45 million ($300,000) on newspapers, and N9 million ($60,000) on magazines and periodicals. Does this show a government that is serious? Go back at the end of the year and see how many books were bought. We are in an emergency, but our rulers are busy frolicking. Our rulers don’t see that there is no effective mass transit system anywhere in the country and the people depend on petrol fuelled vans, motocycles, tricycles, and kabukabus to move from home to work. They don’t see that the public electricity system has all but collapsed and businesses and homes depend mostly on petrol generators to do business. They don’t see that the people of Nigeria are important. But why should they? They are used to rigging elections and subverting the will of the people. For someone like Goodluck Jonathan who has been the biggest beneficiary of the PDP rigging machine right from when he was summoned to go and become deputy governor in Bayelsa, the people don’t matter. Have you not seen how irritated he looks anytime he is on national television and he is asked about lack of positive result with his policies? The man does not understand why Nigerians should continue to complain. Over and over again he has given the story that Obama or some foreign head of state has praised him for what he is doing and he feels that is what Nigerians should also do. But Obama does not live in Benin City and has not experienced power failure in his life. So how should Obama be the one to decide whether Jonathan is performing or not.

CO: Are you saying Jonathan is a stooge of Western powers?

IO: It is worse than that. Jonathan is a stooge of backward Nigerian political elite who are generally stooges of Western powers. Though as a stooge of stooges, Jonathan has shown that he is particularly spineless and is most amenable to even the slightest of pressure from those he considers powerful. The man is so scared of those he considers powerful. Like the governors. Now let us look at how this backward ruling elite always attempts to selects its weakest elements to act as pawns in the name of president. As far back as the eve of Nigeria’s independence, the Sarduana, who was a powerful leader of the North, selected a weak Tafawa Balewa to be Prime Minister. So we then had a situation where the head of government of Nigeria, the largest state in black Africa, was a mere stooge of powerful northern politicians and contractors who expected the head of government to just represent their interests. We later had Gowon who was maybe the weakest among northern soldiers that took power at that time. Again, Gowon was a stooge for the main powers who remained behind the scenes to share their loot while Gowon was speaking English in public. The same thing with General Obasanjo who as military head of state was not the main power. The same with Shagari, Nigeria’s first really clueless head of government. Like Balewa the northern political establishment selected a weak Shagari who will not stop them from looting. Babangida, Abacha. Those had their different styles, but were really all continuations of a reprobate regime of waste.

CO: You agree then with Chinua Achebe that “the trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership”.

IO: I agree completely. Anytime someone strong and a bit independent minded emerges, they kill him. But sometimes the scheme of the dominant power blocs in the country backfires. For example, when they sponsored Obasanjo to return as civilian head of government in 1999 against the wish of even people in Obasanjo’s village. Obasanjo came and decided to play the game on his own terms. He had learnt how to play the game from the soldier-politicians. He made sure he handed over power to a weak politician. He carefully selected Yar’adua, a man he knew to be terminally ill. Someone who will be too sick to rule. Obasanjo also forced Jonathan – against Jonathan’s will, to become Vice President. Today Jonathan is Nigeria’s most unwilling president. Political jobbers around him, including those of them from the Niger Delta, asked him not to throw away the chance of the Niger Delta.

CO: If that is the case, is he representing the interest of the Niger Delta?

IO: President Jonathan is the worst thing to happen to the Niger Delta. Go and see the East-West road. The road from Warri to Port Harcourt and beyond. The condition of that federal road is worse than ever. This is an outrage! Every year there is a budget allocation for everything. At the end of the year nothing to show for all the billions. Why? This is because Jonathan is superintending over the biggest looting spree in this history of Nigeria. Governors see state funds as their private estate. Ministers see their office as reward for loyalty to governors and opportunity to chop. Local government chairmen. Those are the biggest rogues! The National Assembly is more or less a college of self-serving opportunists – most of whom cannot even get close to winning in free and fair elections. They say most of the big houses in Abuja have been built or bought by civil servants. Where did they get the money? These people, all these people that have continued to loot, are part of the political elite. They are happy that a clueless and spineless person like Jonathan is President. They are the people insisting that Jonathan remove fuel subsidy so that they will have more loot to share. Simple. But Jonathan can’t see it. He doesn’t have that kind of vision. He and those eating with him can’t see the groundswell of opposition to fuel increase. They can’t see that opposition to fuel increase will ultimately result in resistance to everything the ruling class represents in Nigeria. This is just the beginning. In that case, the increase in fuel price is good. For the first time in a long time Nigerians from different ethnic, religious and even class backgrounds are massing together to build a new movement for change. That is what excites me. Supporting the new movement should be the duty of every person who is keen to see Nigeria progress. Neither Jonathan nor his PDP can do anything good for Nigeria. What we need is not just a change of government, we need a system overhaul. This needs struggle and perseverance on the part of the people.

CO: What do you make of the economic policy direction of the Jonathan administration?

IO: He has none? We don’t see any direction. We have heard them talk about a transformation agenda, but what is that agenda? There is none! Corruption is on the increase. Have you asked yourself why the president has not made public his asset declaration? What is he hiding? The biggest challenge facing the Nigerian economy is electricity. The government has done nothing to show that it even appreciates the urgency. Statements, statements everyday, but nothing to show. What they want is to continue to drill and sell crude oil and share proceeds to the three tiers of government for onward looting. It is sad that the same thugs that have benefited from the looting of Nigeria are the same people who Jonathan has assembled to be part of his so-called economic management team. These are people who Jonathan feels indebted to because they provided cash for his campaign. But is there no other way to reward political donors? Must you hand over the management of the national economy to them? The governors are well represented in that economic team. But what have they done in their states to demonstrate that they can manage any economy? The heads of private banks are also prominent. These people know how to make profit for themselves – mostly by conniving with politicians and civil servants to launder stolen money. Does that qualify them to manage Nigerian economy? Then you have Okonjo-Iweala – an agent of international finance capital.

CO: Talking about Okonjo-Iweala, civil society groups are asking President Jonathan to sack her. Do you share that view? She is serving at the instance of the president, shouldn’t the focus be on the president?

IO: I agree that the focus should be on President Jonathan, but Mrs. Okonjo-Iweala is dangerous. Her case is special. This is a person sent by the World Bank to continue economic policies that have failed everywhere in the world. Okonjo-Iweala wants to deregulate because deregulation is an essential ingredient of the neoliberal economic doctrine of the World Bank and IMF. She is too far away from the realities of Nigeria to understand that deregulating fuel price in Nigeria will have negative impacts on all aspects of productive life. But does she care? No. All her bosses in Washington DC expect is for Nigerian government to have as much cash as possible to service the debt profile that is sure to increase under Jonathan. Okonjo-Iweala’s greatest achievement in government has been the biggest single transfer of wealth from Nigeria to other parts of the world. The so called debt forgiveness meant that Nigeria gave money to Europe and North America –  representing the biggest wealth transfer in human history. They said the savings from debt deal will be used to improve infrastructure. Where is the infrastructure? Okonjo-Iweala is now saying that the gain from oil subsidy will be used to improve infrastructure. Does this woman think that Nigerians are fools all the time? It is just sad the way these people protect their private interests and claim that they are trying to improve Nigerian economy. Recently, I read that the Federal Executive Council awarded contract in the billions for the importation of plastic trash cans from Europe. This is for use in Abuja. Can you imagine that? Is Jonathan and his cabinet saying that there are no plastic manufacturers in Nigeria who can do the job? There are plastic manufacturers all over the country. All the government needed to do was give specification to local producers and monitor and enforce compliance. Keeping the job at home would have meant creating or protecting jobs at home and all the benefits that come from local production. But this government does not care for any local production apart from the production of crude oil. That is why they can even think of increasing fuel price, the same action that could completely destroy the local artisanal sectors where the bulk of production in Nigeria takes place.

CO: The people in the Niger Delta must really be disappointed with President Jonathan.

IO: I can tell you that there was real excitement with the idea of a son of the Niger Delta becoming president of Nigeria. Our people had been treated like second-class citizens since Nigeria was created. So people were happy to see Jonathan as president and went out to vote – even though we know that state governors schemed to inflate the votes for their own purposes. But what has been the benefit of a Jonathan presidency? Symbolic. Only symbolic. Today, the traditional dress of the Niger Delta male, in particular, the Ijaw male, has become something of a national attire. People from the Delta now dress as such and can move in Abuja with a swagger. You did not have this before. Apart from the symbolism and cosmetic impact, there is nothing substantial for the people from the Jonathan presidency. Environmental pollution and destruction of livelihoods by the petroleum industry is worse now than ever before. Today, we have a major offshore oil spill by Shell and the Jonathan presidency is looking the other way. There is no serious attempt to call Shell to order. Compare that with the response of the Brazilian government to recent offshore spill by Chevron. But with Jonathan in Nigeria, there has not been any serious attempt to address the issue of lost livelihoods for the coastal communities as a result of the recent Shell spill. It is a shame because there are people in Jonathan’s system that had campaigned all their lives for environmental justice. Now that they have the rare opportunity to do something, they are looking the other way. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) produced a report on pollution in Ogoniland. The recommendations from UNEP should have provided the Jonathan presidency with an opening to address the historical environmental abuse of the Niger Delta. But all he did was set up a committee like he does on everything. Anytime Jonathan sets up a committee, you know the man is not serious. Or he just doesn’t care.

CO: It is a shame because President Jonathan is a major beneficiary of the struggle of the people in the Niger Delta.

IO: President Jonathan is a beneficiary of the struggles of the Niger Delta which he was never part of. Today, he is enjoying the goodwill of even ex-militants who have continued to support the amnesty programme because they feel their son is president. But Odi has not been rebuilt? Even Okerenkoko has not been rebuilt. I agree that the amnesty programme has been very successful in keeping militants off the creeks. The result has been restoration of oil production to optimal levels. The government people are the biggest beneficiaries. But the relative calm or peace as some people chose to call it has not been utilized by the government as an opportunity to improve social infrastructure in the Niger Delta or anywhere in Nigeria for that matter. Things are getting worse every day. A few months ago, people in a village next to Jonathan’s were protesting against Shell for abuses. People in the Niger Delta now recognize that Jonathan is a waste of time. Let me tell you that petrol is very expensive in the creeks of the Niger Delta. Combined with the fact that the engines of boats consume a lot of petrol, it means that removal of subsidy will affect the Niger Delta the most.

This article was published by Isaac Osuoka the Executive Director of Social Action on January 10, 2012 at saction.org

The source: Social Action Organization (Social Development Integrated Centre) is an organisation dedicated to education, mobilisation and solidarity for communities and activists working for environmental justice, democracy and social change in Nigeria and the Gulf of Guinea. The organisation is promoting increased citizens’ participation in addressing policy and practices in energy and mining, trade and investments that affects human rights, democracy and livelihoods.

Social Action works primarily in Nigeria while collaborating with other citizens groups in the ECOWAS zone and the Gulf of Guinea. Through active participation with national and regional networks, the organisation is connected to the global movement for social justice.

This article was published at USA Africa Dialogue Series on January 7, 2012

IMF Orders African Governments to Remove Fuel Subsidies

NewsRescue published on January, 1, 2012:

Christine Lagarde visited Nigeria to meet President, Goodluck Johnathan in December 2011

Joining Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad, Nigeria on New Years day removed fuel subsidies in accordance with an order from the IMF (International Monetary Fund). This created a jump in the price of automobile fuel from about 65 Naira per liter to 140Naira per liter overnight, Sunday. This brings fuel/gas prices in Nigeria to about the same price it is in the US, though lower than many European nations.

Nigerians used to pay about $1.51 / gallon, the European average is about $5-6.00/gallon, while the US average is $3-3.70/gallon. While other oil producing nations, like Venezuela, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are about $0.12, $0.78 and $0.91 respectively. This hike in fuel prices was compelled on African Nations by the IMF due to supposedly rising global oil prices and the Europe recession.

Trying to invoke an “African Spring”?

Christine Lagarde ordered the governments of Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad to relinquish fuel subsidies

The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Christine Lagarde visited Nigeria to meet with the President, Goodluck Johnathan in December 2011 to drive home this directive. This move invites frustration on African nations which comparatively escaped the “Greed” Wall street recession that has been marauding and collapsing European and Middle Eastern economies, with resulting hardship, riots and Government change, including the popular “occupy” riots still plaguing the United States and other European nations, the August 2011 “Robin-hood” riots of the UK,  the collapse of Greece economy, that likewise affected the Middle East with the “Arab Spring” revolutions. This IMF induced chaos in Africa is like the IMF induced riots in 1997 in Indonesia during the Asian financial crisis.

Related: NewsRescueHow The IMF-World Bank and Structural Adjustment Program(SAP) Destroyed Africa

The meeting with Goodluck Johnathan was not just coincidental. Analysts believe it was predetermined. The IMF has been canvassing for the removal of subsidy among African countries. View Meeting images provided by IMF

This pronouncement has seen governments in Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Chad and Ghana moving to cut state subsidies on fuel.

Yesterday, Ghana cut subsidy and it was learned that the development was due to pressure from the IMF to do so because of rise in the price of crude.

CBN governor Sanusi, Minister of Finance, Ngozi Iweala and IMF boss, Christine Lagarde

The Chief Executive Officer of Ghana’s National Petroleum Authority (NPA), Alex Mould said the cumulative effect of the rise in crude oil prices this year and the about 5.7 percent depreciation of the cedi meant a 25 percent increase in cedi terms in the cost of procuring crude oil and petroleum products since January. For instance, the IMF has urged countries across West and Central Africa to cut fuel subsidies, which they say are not effective in directly aiding the poor, but do promote corruption and smuggling.

Related: NewsRescue- 01/06/2012- Nigeria Targeted For Destruction: Gordon Duff, US

 

The price change will see the cost of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) increase by 30 percent while petrol and diesel will go up 15 percent at pumps in Ghana. Mould said Ghana has spent about 450 million cedis on fuel subsidies in 2011.

Ghana’s Minister for Finance Kwabena Duffour said the removal of subsidies would have a positive impact on Ghana’s economy. Duffour said: “Subsidising fuel is not sustainable. It is the right thing to do so we can sustain our fiscal consolidation.”

This is the same music that the protagonists of subsidy removal in Nigeria, like the Coordinating Minister of Economy and Minister of Finance, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala; the Minister of Petroleum, Diezani Alison-Madueke and the Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Sanusi Lamido Sanusi are singing.

While Sanusi insisted that the economy would breakdown if the subsidy is not removed, Ngozi said Nigerians would be better off without subsidy. Ghana’s subsidy removal yesterday confirmed people’s speculations that Western powers are behind the move to stop subsidy. Development in Ghana has also gone to confirm that the Nigerian government would boycott the public outcry on subsidy removal and go ahead to remove.

There is no provision for subsidy in the 2012 budget proposal submitted by President Goodluck Jonathan. The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) has said that from next year they would not pay for subsidy because there is no provision for it in the budget.

Who are the bosses in Africa

The development also negates the IMF’s saying that it does not tailor policies for any country to follow, but only provide technical supports. But during the visit of Lagarde to Nigeria, she said, “I came here primarily to listen to our African members, and to find out how we can better tailor support to countries in this region in the current difficult global environment.”

Nigeria is indeed in serious economic problem. For instance, the value of the currency has been devaluing against major foreign currencies. The official value of naira against dollar is currently 156 to a dollar and at the Bureau De Change, it goes for 165 against the dollar.

The governor of central bank, Sanusi sometime this year faulted the IMF for suggesting that the value of the naira be devalued to protect further depreciation of the foreign reserves. However, the governor bowed to pressure and got the naira devalued. It is the same pressure from the Western powers that is pushing the government to remove fuel subsidy.

In Nigeria, removal of subsidy would necessarily lead to hike in fuel pump and such hike would trigger increment in the price of other commodities and services. It is already been speculated that by next year, when subsidy might have been removed, Nigerians would have to pay as high as N140 per litre of petrol. The price is currently N65 per litre.

What this means is that Nigerians should gird up for tough times next year. This is because any increase in the price of fuel would push the cost of production in the manufacturing industry up.

Also, cost of transportation would go up and even operators of Small, Medium Scale Enterprises would not be able to continue in business because most of them relied on generators to power their machines and generators are powered by fuel. Some civil society organizations and organized labour are urging Nigerians to come out and protest subsidy removal. The question is, can Nigerians occupy the “Three Arm Zone” as Americans “Occupied” the “Street.”

Subsidy removal is turning out to be another Bretton Woods Institutions’ anti-peoples’ policy. It is a neo-liberal agenda developed by those in authority. It is not a popular idea but that of the ruling power. It is becoming a dominant idea because in every political setting, the dominant idea is the idea of the ruling power.

Now that the government is bent on removing subsidy from fuel against people’s outcry, the question to ask is if this is the “Fresh Air” that President Goodluck promised Nigerians during his campaigning? – source

Under IMF Hegemony

Also, Nile Bowie wrote at Global Research on January 6, 2012:
[Lagos Dissents Under IMF Hegemony; Nigeria: The Next Front for AFRICOM
The IMF and US African Command (AFRICOM) Join Hands in the Plunder of the African Continent

On a recent trip to West Africa, the newly appointed managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde ordered the governments of Nigeria, Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad to relinquish vital fuel subsidies. Much to the dismay of the population of these nations, the prices of fuel and transport have near tripled over night without notice, causing widespread violence on the streets of the Nigerian capital of Abuja and its economic center, Lagos. Much like the IMF induced riots in Indonesia during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, public discontent in Nigeria is channelled towards an incompetent and self-serving domestic elite, compliant to the interests of fraudulent foreign institutions.

Although Nigeria holds the most proven oil reserves in Africa behind Libya, it’s people are now expected to pay a fee closer to what the average American pays for the cost of fuel, an exorbitant sum in contrast to its regional neighbours. Alternatively, other oil-producing nations such as Venezuela, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia offer their populations fuel for as little as $0.12 USD per gallon.

While Lagos has one of Africa’s highest concentration of billionaires, the vast majority of the population struggle daily on less than $2.00 USD. Amid a staggering 47% youth unemployment rate and thousands of annual deaths related to preventable diseases, the IMF has pulled the rug out from under a nation where safe drinking water is a luxury to around 80% of it’s populace.

Although Nigeria produces 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day intended for export use, the country struggles with generating sufficient electrical power and maintaining its infrastructure. Ironically enough, less than 6% of bank depositors own 88% of all bank deposits in Nigeria. Goldman Sachs employees line its domestic government, in addition to the former Vice President of the World Bank, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who is widely considered by many to be the de facto Prime Minister.

Even after decades of producing lucrative oil exports, Nigeria has failed to maintain it’s own refineries, forcing it to illogically purchase oil imports from other nations. Society at large has not benefited from Nigeria’s natural riches, so it comes as no surprise that a severe level of distrust is held towards the government, who claims the fuel subsidy needs to be lifted in order to divert funds towards improving the quality of life within the country.

Like so many other nations, Nigerian people have suffered from a systematically reduced living standard after being subjected to the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Policies (SAP). Before a loan can be taken from the World Bank or IMF, a country must first follow strict economic policies, which include currency devaluation, lifting of trade tariffs, the removal of subsidies and detrimental budget cuts to critical public sector health and education services.

SAPs encourage borrower countries to focus on the production and export of domestic commodities and resources to increase foreign exchange, which can often be subject to dramatic fluctuations in value. Without the protection of price controls and an authentic currency rate, extreme inflation and poverty subsist to the point of civil unrest, as seen in a wide array of countries around the world (usually in former colonial protectorates). The people of Nigeria have been one of the world’s most vocal against IMF-induced austerity measures, student protests have been met with heavy-handed repression since 1986 and several times since then, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths. As a testament to the success of the loan, the average laborer in Nigeria earned 35% more in the 1970’s than he would have in 2012.

Working through the direct representation of Western Financial Institutions and the IMF in Nigeria’s Government, a new IMF conditionality calls for the creation of a Sovereign Wealth Fund. Olusegun Aganga, the former Nigerian Minister of Finance commented on how the SWF was hastily pushed through and enacted prior to the countries national elections. If huge savings are amassed from oil exports and austerity measures, one cannot realistically expect that these funds will be invested towards infrastructure development based on the current track record of the Nigerian Government.Further more, it is increasingly more likely that any proceeds from a SWF would be beneficial to Western institutions and markets, which initially demanded its creation.

Nigerian philanthropist Bukar Usman prophetically writes “I have genuine fears that the SWF would serve us no better than other foreign-recommended “remedies” which we had implemented to our own detriment in the past or are being pushed to implement today.”

The abrupt simultaneous removal of fuel subsidies in several West African nations is a clear indication of who is really in charge of things in post-colonial Africa. The timing of its cushion-less implementation could not be any worse, Nigeria’s president Goodluck Jonathan recently declared a state of emergency after forty people were killed in a church bombing on Christmas day, an act allegedly committed by the Islamist separatist group, Boko Haram. The group advocates dividing the predominately Muslim northern states from the Christian southern states, a similar predicament to the recent division of Sudan.

Strategic Forecasting Inc. Regional Map of Africa

As the United States African Command (AFRICOM) begins to gain a foothold into the continent with its troops officially present in Eritrea and Uganda in an effort to maintain security and remove other theocratic religious groups such as the Lord’s Resistance Army, the sectarian violence in Nigeria provides a convenient pretext for military intervention in the continuing resource war. For further insight into this theory, it is interesting to note that United States Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania conducted a series of African war game scenarios in preparation for the Pentagon’s expansion of AFRICOM under the Obama Administration.

In the presence of US State Department Officials, employees from The Rand Corporation and Israeli military personnel, a military exercise was undertaken which tested how AFRICOM would respond to a disintegrating Nigeria on the verge of collapse amidst civil war. The scenario envisioned rebel factions vying for control of the Niger Delta oil fields (the source of one of America’s top oil imports), which would potentially be secured by some 20,000 U.S. troops if a US-friendly coup failed to take place At a press conference at the House Armed Services Committee on March 13, 2008, AFRICOM Commander, General William Ward then went on to brazenly state the priority issue of America’s growing dependence on African oil would be furthered by AFRICOM operating under the principle theatre-goal of “combating terrorism”.

At an AFRICOM Conference held at Fort McNair on February 18, 2008, Vice Admiral Robert T. Moeller openly declared the guiding principle of AFRICOM was to protect “the free flow of natural resources from Africa to the global market”, before citing China’s increasing presence in the region as challenging to American interests. After the unwarranted snatch-and-grab regime change conducted in Libya, nurturing economic destabilization, civil unrest and sectarian conflict in Nigeria is an ultimately tangible effort to secure Africa’s second largest oil reserves. During the pillage of Libya, its SFW accounts worth over 1.2 billion USD were frozen and essentially absorbed by Franco-Anglo-American powers; it would realistic to assume that much the same would occur if Nigeria failed to comply with Western interests. While agents of foreign capital have already infiltrated its government, there is little doubt that Nigeria will become a new front in the War on Terror.]

The new democracy: Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

The Independent published on 18 November 2011 this revealing article written by Stephen Foley.

What price the new democracy? Goldman Sachs conquers Europe

Goldman Sachs Men in the EU

While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone’s corridors of power have been undergoing a remarkable transformation

The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi, Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively politically toxic.

This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.

It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank’s alumni hold sway in the corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund’s European division was also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.

Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname as “the Vampire Squid”, and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman’s interests are intricately tied up with the answer to that question.

Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers, argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European politicians aren’t “bought and paid for” by corporations, as in the US, he says. “Instead what you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions.”

This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.

Mr Monti is one of Italy’s most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman’s bankers were working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury’s committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country’s financial policies.

With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of international advisers. The bank’s two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.

Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now non-executive chairman of Goldman’s UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International, and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country’s financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland’s interest rate this summer.

Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi, who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.

Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn’t be above 60 per cent of the size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women of Goldman Sachs.

The bank’s traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece, was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime Minister in Greece’s unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at the time.

Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK parliamentary hearing last year: “It is clear with hindsight that the standards of transparency could have been and probably should have been higher.”

When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn’t involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at Goldman.

It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a “voluntary” haircut of 50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the continent’s big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to this consensus.

“My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of €1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?” says Simon Johnson. “It means bailing out the creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different, in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the same.”

So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm’s money that Italian government bonds will not default.

When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest bankruptcies in US history.

The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made insolvent.  Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed amount on eurozone countries’ debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a second economic collapse.

Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?

EU and Banks are Weapons of Mass Slavery

How to Buy a European Country?

They temp you; they fool you; then the EU vampire sucks each drop of blood and wealth in your nation. If you are lucky and not dead when they are done with you; you will remain in debt bondage and poverty slave for centuries.

People must wonder, not the businesses, not the bankers, and not the politicians, can they really gain from joining the EU. “We must sacrifice for our country and our future generations” that is what they tell your politicians to tell the people to accept “austerity”. They want the people to pay for the debts of fraudulent local businesses; greedy banks; and EU agents. These debts are now considered sovereign debts. Why the billions are now considered national debts if some foreign thieves gave few bucks to local conmen and senseless entrepreneurs? The EU forces the governments to pay back EU bankers; but governments have no body to squeeze other than the people and national assets. Electricity; water; factories; airlines; or anything will go to foreign banksters. This is free market and the price you have to pay to clear your debts; be civilized; and join the rich democratic EU!

Join the European Union; be part of the civilized rich Europe and the West; and Easy loans are actually weapons of mass destruction and very marketable imperial expensive products. Getting any rubbish business plan is the only requirement; of course with some naivety and stupidity. They come to you and give you free advice if you don’t have some extra cash; or they can write it in your debt books as consultancy fees. The marvelous outcome is that “Hurray!!! You are eligible for loans from our banks; don’t worry about collaterals or securities, we just want to help you to become rich and civilized like us in the EU” that is what they told hundreds; but they never tell the people that they are screwed.

Why would banks potentially destroy themselves with such bad loan?

Bad loans are actually toxic loans because they are poisonous. It is a calculated gamble and a secure one with the definite support from the governments of creditors, namely: Germany; UK; and France.

I stated many questions about the initial silence and roles of these governments and their controlled EU institutions. Banks are too big to fail because governments defend them.

Banks and financiers cannot be incompetent, have maladministration, or short-sighted. The same scenario was tried in the US in several bubbles; and who lost? The banks didn’t but the foolish and greedy customers did.

Defaulting countries are now under exploitative control; it also happened in the past many times and in many countries.

Take Egypt for example; it was forced to sell Suez Canal to pay back small debt for a greedy foreign ruler “Pasha” who Britain and France deceived him and made him believe that he is Ismail “the Magnificent”; and he can Europeanize Egypt because he is so great and visionary.

Before him, his brother Saaid pasha was much under French influence, and in 1854 was induced to grant to the French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps a concession for the construction of the Suez Canal.

To the British, Said also made concessions to the Eastern Telegraph Company, and another in 1854 allowing the establishment of the Bank of Egypt. He also began the national debt by borrowing £3,293,000 from Messrs Fruhling & Gbschen, the actual amount received by the pasha being £2,640,000.

Egypt financed and built the Canal and produced cotton; then what? They were forced to sell them for peanuts; or a song.

Britain and France in November 1879 re-established the Dual Control in the persons of Major Baring and Monsieur de Blignières. For two years the Dual Control governed Egypt, and initiated the work of progress that Britain was to continue alone. The financiers and their governments tools were the winners and the common people were the losers.

Cutting a just pound of his flesh

Blame Greedy Poor and Not Rich Banks

The core of the problem was most likely irresponsible lending by banks. A credit bubble was created through banks’ lending out money to individuals and businesses to acquire assets that proved to be worth less than the amount of the loans. This was especially true in the real estate sector – something we also saw happening in the United States.

What is called “irresponsible lending by banks” is actually a deliberate act of sabotage for the sovereignty of specifically targeted some European states.

It is a replay of the tragic comedy “The Merchant of Venice”. Cutting a iuſt pound of his fleſh

But can the money lenders take their loot without dropping blood?

These debts were made with evil intentions and they must be either written off or rescheduled by the people without additional usury.

Zionists Control World Finances; Shocking Facts from Dr. David Duke

Dr. David Duke

David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American activist and writer, and former Republican Louisiana State Representative. He was also a former candidate in the Republican presidential primaries in 1992 and in the Democratic presidential primaries in 1988. Duke has unsuccessfully run for the Louisiana State Senate, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and Governor of Louisiana.

Duke describes himself as a racial realist, asserting that “all people have a basic human right to preserve their own heritage.” He is a strong advocate of opposition to Zionism as well as what he asserts to be Zionist control of the Federal Reserve Bank, the federal government and the media. Duke supports anti-immigration, both legal and illegal, preservation of what he labels Western culture and traditionalist Christian “family values”, strict Constitutionalism, abolition of the Internal Revenue Service, voluntary racial segregation, and ardent anti-communism and white separatism.

David Duke wrote three books: Finders-Keepers (1976); My Awakening (1998); Jewish Supremacism (2002).

David Duke is campaigning for implementing the following policies:

Jewish Supremacism Book

1- We must break the Zionist control of Wall Street and The Federal Reserve; the IMF; and the World Bank;

2- We must break the Zionist control over the Global media;

3- We must break the Zionist corrupt political influence;

4- Understand that Zionism is a world problem;

5- We must end these insane Zionist wars;

6- We must break the Zionist matrix of power;

7- We must replace Zionist Globalism with freedom & independence for every nation & people.

From: About DavidDuke.com

http://www.davidduke.com/general/about-2_90.html on 11/18/2002

DavidDuke.com is the website of former Louisiana Representative; David Duke, PhD. Rep. Duke has dedicated his life to the freedom and heritage of European American peoples. Rep. Duke has led careers as a successful elected official, author, and activist.

He not only won a seat in the House of Representatives in Louisiana, but he jolted the political establishment by defeating the incumbent governor of Louisiana and garnering huge numbers of votes for Governor and for U.S. Senator. He also was elected in 1996 to the Parish Executive Committee of the largest Republican Party District in Louisiana, St. Tammany Parish where the other elected members chose him unanimously to serve as chairman of the District. He served as chairman until 2000.

Over sixty percent of the European American voters of Louisiana have voted for Rep. Duke in statewide races.

In addition: David Duke has a PhD in History. It was earned at the MAUP University system in Kiev, Ukraine, the largest university system in Ukraine.

David Duke is the author of two books: My Awakening. His latest book, Jewish Supremacism, has now been translated in 14 languages and is a bestseller in many nations. As an activist, Rep. Duke is the President of EURO, the European American Unity and Rights Organization, an organization for European American patriots.

Rep. Duke’s offices are in Mandeville, Louisiana, 30 miles north of New Orleans and he also teaches in Eastern Europe. From his Mandeville office you may select from the David Duke Online Bookstore found on this website and Mr. Duke’s EURO website: http://www.whitecivilrights.com. You will find many of his writings here as well as current spoken and written commentaries on current events.

If you read his writings with an open mind, you will discover a man of both intellect and courage.