Connect with us

Europe

Angola-Portugal Corrupt Connections Must End

Published

on

A corruption trial against jailed former prosecutor Orlando Figueira that started on January 22 in Lisbon, Portugal, has deep international ramifications. The man accused of bribing Figueira to quash a 2013 investigation into the source of funds for acquiring private luxury residences in Portugal is Manuel Vicente, a former vice president of Angola and long-time head of Sonangol, Angola’s national oil company.

Despite previous vows by Portuguese top judiciary officials not to yield to political pressure, the Portuguese courts allowed the accusations against Vicente to be separated from those against Figueira. This decision came after Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa met at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, with Angola’s new president João Lourenço. The court case was likely on the agenda for their private talks.

Angola has long argued that Vicente should face justice at home instead of in Portugal because of a judiciary agreement among the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries. But former Angolan President José Eduardo dos Santos made sure an amnesty law against legal proceedings was in place to shelter himself, his family and his close associates before he stepped down last August after 38 years of iron-fisted rule. That law also applies to Vicente.

President Lourenço and other Angolan politicians have called corruption cases in Portugal against Angolan elites a form of “neo-colonialism” and have threatened economic sanctions against Portugal. Angola is a former colony of Portugal. Many of its oil-rich citizens have invested billions of dollars in Portuguese energy, media, banking and real estate companies. Portugal risked a diplomatic row and a notable economic impact, so it bowed to impunity once again.

Vicente has been a central figure in Angolan power circles for decades. Born in 1956, he was practically raised by Isabel Eduardo dos Santos, the eldest sister of former president dos Santos. The two Angolan statesmen grew up together and, in private, treat each other as cousins. Vicente for a long time was in fact expected to succeed dos Santos to the presidency.

Before being appointed Vice President in 2012, Vicente led Sonangol for 13 years. He was the architect of the company’s international expansion and many of its most lucrative deals. Under his guidance, Sonangol acted as the de facto Angola’s sovereign wealth fund and helped fuel Angolan politics and its economy for most of its post-civil war years. He currently serves as a deputy in the National Assembly, the Angolan unicameral legislative body.

According to the charges brought against Vicente by Portuguese prosecutors, he used $245,000 of Sonangol funds to buy a private luxury apartment in a leafy Lisbon beachfront district. When the purchase came under scrutiny by Portuguese investigators, he allegedly bribed Figueira with $810,000 to have the case closed.

Vicente’s business dealings have long been scrutinized and criticized. A 2012 International Monetary Fund report found unexplained discrepancies between the fees paid by foreign oil firms to Sonangol and the amounts that were transferred to Angola’s Petroleum and Finance Ministries.

That same year, the Financial Times revealed that Vicente and other senior Angolan officials held concealed stakes in an Angolan oil company that had partnered with a U.S. firm to drill in a lucrative oil field in Angola. Those stakes were eventually transferred to Sonangol, which was paid $1.8 billion when the U.S. partner exited. Vicente was not charged with wrongdoing, but he never revealed any more about his stake or how much it earned him other than acknowledging he held it.

Portugal, which has a reputation for laxity in enforcing financial crime, became known as “the laundromat” for its money-laundering history. The OECD singled out Portugal on just those grounds in 2013. In turn, Angola was ranked 164 out of 176 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index produced annually by Transparency International.

Vicente’s ties to murky dealings also include Chinese companies and Russian oligarchs. For instance, The Economist linked him to the Queensway syndicate, an opaque consortium of companies that include China Sonangol. Vicente is a partner in these businesses founded by Sam Pa, a tycoon with alleged ties to Chinese intelligence services. Born Xu Jinghua, Sam Pa met dos Santos, the former Angolan president, when the latter was a student at a Soviet academy in Baku, Azerbaijan. As a result of these connections, Sonangol became the second largest source of oil imports to China after Saudi Aramco, netting billions of dollars for intermediaries like China Sonangol.

Vicente helped broker a long standing relationship between Sonangol and the Brazilian construction and petrochemicals conglomerate Oberbrecht Group. The Brazilians have been deeply involved in Angolan business and politics since the 1980s and Vicente was a significant shareholder in their joint business ventures, according to Portugal’s business newspaper Jornal de Negócios. The Oberbrecht Group has been at the center of the largest Brazilian corruption probe, dubbed Operation Car Wash, that engulfed major political and business figures in Latin America and elsewhere.

A detailed investigation by The Guardian showed: “Odebrecht had a department dedicated to bribes, known as the Division of Structured Operations, which laid out close to $800m in illicit pay-offs for more than 100 contracts in a dozen countries over 15 years.”

Oil and other mineral resources have flown out of Angola under the watchful eye of Vicente and a few others like him for decades. In a country struggling to overcome centuries of colonial plundering and decades of civil war, where 70 percent of the population survives on less then $2 per day, a small number of ruling elites have conducted business with little transparency, disclosure or accountability. Many billions of dollars have changed hands with no oversight or simply went missing into private bank accounts.

Given the serious charges and the pattern of actions shown by Vicente, the only way to obtain justice would be for him to stand trial in a neutral nation that has a reputation for rule-of-law. That way, those who have been harmed by Vicente can be assured he will be dealt with fairly and Angola can no longer claim that his trial was politically or racially motivated.

If Vicente, who denies any wrongdoing, is innocent of these charges, he should face them in a courtroom where justice is respected. The chances of that coming to fruition are slim, but that would be the best way for Angola, Portugal and for Vicente to find an honest resolution.

Eugen Iladi is a freelance reporter based in Virginia who covers politics, conflict, business and development in emerging markets. He has contributed to numerous publications, including The National Interest, The Foreign Policy Journal, Real Clear Politics, Global Politics, the Gulf News, AlArab Online, Iraqi Business News, Taipei Times, Prime-Tass, Business New Europe, iAfrica, Cape Times, and many more.

Europe

From Davos to Munich

Published

on

An overview of the views and attitudes of European officials during the Davos and Munich Conference and their comparison with each other suggests that the security, economic, and political concerns of European countries have not only not diminished but are increasing.

During the World Economic Summit in Davos, the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France both gave a significant warning about the return of nationalism and populism to Europe. This warning has been sent in a time when Far-Right movements in Europe have been able to gain unbelievable power and even seek to conquer a majority of parliaments and form governments.

In her speech, Angela Merkel emphasized that the twentieth century’s mistake shouldn’t be repeated. By this, the German Chancellor meant the tendency of European countries to nationalism. Although the German Chancellor warning was serious and necessary, the warning seems to be a little late. Perhaps it would have been better if the warning was forwarded after the European Parliamentary elections in 2014, and subsequently, more practical and deterrent measures were designed. However, Merkel and other European leaders ignored the representation of over a hundred right-wing extremist in the European Parliament in 2014 and merely saw it as a kind of social excitement.

This social excitement has now become a “political demand” in the West. The dissatisfaction of European citizens with their governments has caused them to explicitly demand the return to the twentieth century and the time before the formation of the United Europe. The recent victories of right wing extremists in Austria, Germany and…, isn’t merely the result of the nationalist movement success in introducing its principles and manifestos. But it is also a result of the failure of the “European moderation” policy to resolve social, security and economic problems in the Eurozone and the European Union. In such a situation, European citizens find that the solutions offered by the moderate left parties didn’t work in removing the existing crises in Europe. Obviously, in this situation “crossing the traditional parties” would become a general demand in the West. Under such circumstances, Merkel’s and other European leaders’ warnings about the return to the twentieth century and the time before the formation of the United Europe simply means the inability of the Eurozone authorities in preventing the Right-extremism in the West.

These concerns remain at the Munich Security Conference. As Reuters reported, The defense ministers of Germany and France pledged to redouble their military and foreign policy cooperation efforts on Friday, inviting other European countries to participate if they felt ready to do so.
In a speech to the Munich Security Conference, German defense minister Ursula von der Leyen said Europe’s countries would not be able to respond nimbly enough to global challenges if they were stymied by the need to decide joint foreign policy approaches unanimously.

“Europe has to up its pace in the face of global challenges from terrorism, poverty and climate change,” she said. “Those who want to must be able to advance without being blocked by individual countries.”

Her French counterpart Florence Parly said any such deepened cooperation would be complementary to the NATO alliance, which itself was based on the principle that members contributed differently depending on their capacities.

“The reality has always been that some countries are by choice more integrated and more able to act than others,” she said.

The push comes as Germany’s political class reluctantly concedes it must play a larger security role to match its economic pre-eminence in Europe, amid concerns that the European Union is unable to respond effectively to security concerns beyond its eastern and southern borders.

But in their deal for another four years of a “grand coalition” government, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives and the Social Democrats have agreed to boost spending on the armed forces after years of post-Cold War decline.

The deal, which must still be ratified by the Social Democrat membership, comes as Germany reluctantly takes on the role of the continent’s pre-eminent political power-broker, a role generations of post-war politicians have shied away from.

Days after U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis reiterated President Donald Trump’s demand that European countries spend more on their militaries, Von der Leyen pledged to spend more on its military and the United Nations, but called in return for other countries not to turn away from mulitlateralism.

The pledges come as the EU seeks a new basis on which to cooperate with Britain, traditionally one of the continent’s leading security players, after its vote to leave the EU.

Earlier on Friday, the leaders of the three countries’ security services said close security cooperation in areas like terrorism, illegal migration, proliferation and cyber attacks, must continue after Britain’s departure.

“Cooperation between European intelligence agencies combined with the values of liberal democracy is indispensable, especially against a background of diverse foreign and security challenges,” they said.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Europe

Election Monitoring in 2018: What Not to Expect

Alina Toporas

Published

on

This year’s election calendar released by OSCE showcases a broad display of future presidential, parliamentary and general elections with hefty political subjecthoods which have the potential of transforming in their entirety particularly the European Union, the African Union and the Latin American sub-continent. A wide sample of these countries welcoming elections are currently facing a breadth of challenges in terms of the level of transparency in their election processes. To this end, election observation campaigns conducted by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Council of Europe, the Organisation for American States (OAS), the United Nations Electoral Assistance Division, the National Democratic Institute, Carter Center and even youth organisations such as AEGEE and Silba are of paramount importance in safeguarding the incorruptibility of election proceedings in fraudulent and what cannot be seen with the naked eye type of fraudulent political systems, making sure elections unfold abiding national legislation and international standards.

What exactly does an election observation mission supposed to accomplish?   

An election monitoring mission consists of operational experts and analysts who are all part of a core team and are conducting their assignments for a period of time varying between 8 and 12 weeks. Aside from the core team experts and analysts, there can be short-term or long-term observers and seconded observers or funded observers. Joining them, there is usually a massive local support staff acting as interpreters and intermediaries. Generally, an election observer does not interfere with the process, but merely takes informative notes. With this in mind, it is imperative of the observer to make sure there isn’t any meddling with votes at polling stations by parties and individual candidates; that the people facilitating the election process are picked according to fair and rigorous benchmarks; that these same people can be held accountable for the final results and that, at the end of the day, the election system put in place by the national and local authorities is solid from both a physical and logical standpoint. Oftentimes, particularly in emerging democracies, the election monitoring process goes beyond the actual process of voting by extending to campaign monitoring.

In practical terms, the average election observer needs to abide by certain guidelines for a smooth and standardised monitoring process. Of course, these rules can vary slightly, depending on the sending institution. Typically, once the election observer has landed in the country awaiting elections, their first two days are normally filled with seminars on the electoral system of the country and on the electoral law. Meetings with candidates from the opposition are sometimes organised by the electoral commission. Talking to ordinary voters from builders to cleaners, from artists to businesspeople is another way through which an election observer can get a sense of what social classes pledged their allegiances to what candidates. After two days in training and the one day testing political preferences on the ground, election day begins. Since the early bird gets the worm, polling stations open at least two hours earlier than the work day starts, at around 7am. Throughout the day, observers ask voters whether they feel they need to complain about anything and whether they were asked to identify themselves when voting. Other details such as the polling stations opening on time are very much within the scope of investigation for election monitors. Observers visit both urban voting centres and rural ones. In the afternoon, counting begins with observers carefully watching the volunteers from at least 3 metres away. At the end of the day, observers go back to their hotels and begin filling in their initial questionnaires with their immediate reactions on the whole voting process. In a few weeks time, a detailed report would be issued in cooperation with all the other election observers deployed in various regions of the country and under the supervision of the mission coordinators.   

Why are these upcoming elections particularly challenging to monitor?  

Talks of potential Russian interference into the U.S. elections have led to full-on FBI investigations. Moreover, the idea of Russian interference in the Brexit vote is slowly creeping into the British political discourse. Therefore, it does not take a quantum physicist to see a pattern here. Hacking the voting mechanism is yet another not-so-classic conundrum election observers are facing. We’re in the midst of election hacking at the cognitive level in the form of influence operations, doxing and propaganda. But, even more disturbingly, we’re helpless witnesses to interference at the technical level as well. Removing opposition’s website from the Internet through DDOS attacks to downright political web-hacking in Ukraine’s Central Election Commission to show as winner a far-right candidate are only some of the ways which present an unprecedented political savviness and sophistication directed at the tampering of the election machinery. Even in a country such as the U.S. (or Sweden – their elections being held September of this year) where there is a great deal of control over the physical vote, there is not much election monitoring can do to enhance the transparency of it all when interference occurs by way of the cyber domain affecting palpable election-related infrastructure.

Sketching ideational terrains seems like a fruitful exercise in imagining worst-case scenarios which call for the design of a comprehensive pre-emptive approach for election fraud. But how do you prevent election fraud? Sometimes, the election observer needs to come to terms with the fact that they are merely a reporter, a pawn which notwithstanding the action of finding oneself in the middle of it all, can generally use only its hindsight perspective. Sometimes, that perspective is good enough when employed to draft comprehensive electoral reports, making a difference between the blurry lines of legitimate and illegitimate political and electoral systems.

Continue Reading

Europe

Can Europe successfully rein in Big Tobacco?

Published

on

Photo by Mateo Avila Chinchilla on Unsplash

In what looks set to become the ‘dieselgate’ of the tobacco industry, a French anti-smoking organization has filed a lawsuit against four major tobacco brands for knowingly selling cigarettes with tar and nicotine levels that were between 2 and 10 times higher than what was indicated on the packs. Because the firms had manipulated the testing process, smokers who thought they were smoking a pack a day were in fact lighting up the equivalent of up to 10, significantly raising their risk for lung cancer and other diseases.

According to the National Committee Against Smoking (CNCT), cigarettes sold by the four companies have small holes in the filter that ventilate smoke inhaled under test conditions. But when smoked by a person, the holes compress due to pressure from the lips and fingers, causing the smoker to inhale higher levels of tar and nicotine. According to the lawsuit, the irregularity “tricks smokers because they are unaware of the degree of risk they are taking.”

It was only the most recent example of what appears to be a deeply entrenched propensity for malfeasance in the tobacco industry. And unfortunately, regulatory authorities across Europe still appear unprepared to just say no to big tobacco.

Earlier this month, for instance, Public Health England published a report which shines a positive light on “tobacco heating products” and indicates that electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risks. Unsurprisingly, the UK report has been welcomed by big tobacco, with British American Tobacco praising the clear-sightedness of Public Health England.

Meanwhile, on an EU-wide level, lawmakers are cooperating too closely for comfort with tobacco industry executives in their efforts to craft new cigarette tracking rules for the bloc.

The new rules are part of a campaign to clamp down on tobacco smuggling, a problem that is particularly insidious in Europe and is often attributed to the tobacco industry’s own efforts to stiff the taxman. According to the WHO, the illicit cigarette market makes up between 6-10% of the total market, and Europe ranks first worldwide in terms of the number of seized cigarettes. According to studies, tobacco smuggling is also estimated to cost national and EU budgets more than €10 billion each year in lost public revenue and is a significant source of cash for organized crime. Not surprisingly, cheap availability of illegally traded cigarettes is also a major cause of persistently high smoking rates in the bloc.

To help curtail cigarette smuggling and set best practices in the fight against the tobacco epidemic, the WHO established the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005. The first protocol to the FCTC, the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, was adopted in 2012 and later ratified by the EU. Among other criteria, the Protocol requires all cigarette packs to be marked with unique identifiers to ensure they can be tracked and traced, thereby making smuggling more difficult.

Unsurprisingly, the tobacco industry has come up with its own candidates to meet track and trace requirements, notably Codentify, a system developed by PMI. From 2005 through 2016, PMI used Codentify as part of an anti-smuggling agreement with the EU. But the agreement was subject to withering criticism from the WHO and other stakeholders for going against the Protocol, which requires the EU and other parties to exclude the tobacco industry from participating in anti-smuggling efforts.

The EU-PMI agreement expired in 2016 and any hopes of reviving it collapsed after the European Parliament, at loggerheads with the Commission, overwhelmingly voted against a new deal and decided to ratify the WHO’s Protocol instead. Codentify has since been sold to the French firm Impala and was rebranded as Inexto – which critics say is nothing but a front company for PMI since its leadership is made out of former PMI executives. Nonetheless, due to lack of stringency in the EU’s draft track and trace proposal, there is still a chance that Inexto may play a role in any new track and trace system, sidelining efforts to set up a system that is completely independent of the tobacco industry.

This could end up by seriously derailing the EU’s efforts to curb tobacco smuggling, given the industry’s history of active involvement in covertly propping up the black market for cigarettes. In 2004, PMI paid $1.25 billion to the EU to settle claims that it was complicit in tobacco smuggling. As part of the settlement, PMI agreed to issue an annual report about tobacco smuggling in the EU, a report that independent researchers found “served the interests of PMI over those of the EU and its member states.”

Given the industry’s sordid history of efforts to prop up the illicit tobacco trade, it’s little surprise that critics are still dissatisfied with the current version of the EU’s track and trace proposal.

Now, the CNCT’s lawsuit against four major tobacco firms gives all the more reason to take a harder line against the industry. After all, if big tobacco can’t even be honest with authorities about the real levels of chemicals in their own products, what makes lawmakers think that they can play a viable role in any effort to quell the illegal cigarette trade – one that directly benefits the industry?

Later this month, the European Parliament will have a new chance to show they’re ready to get tough on tobacco, when they vote on the pending proposal for an EU-wide track and trace system. French MEP Younous Omarjee has already filed a motion against the system due to its incompatibility with the letter of the WHO. Perhaps a ‘dieselgate’ for the tobacco industry might be just the catalyst they need to finally say no to PMI and its co-conspirators.

Continue Reading

Latest

Americas3 hours ago

Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of American Investigative Journalism

Lucy Komisar, who is perhaps the greatest living investigative journalist, has discovered — and has documented in detail — that...

Intelligence6 hours ago

Artificial intelligence and intelligence

As was also clearly stated by Vladimir Putin on September 4, 2017: “whichever country leads the way in Artificial Intelligence...

Tech7 hours ago

How Strategy, Technology, and Operations Come Together in “The Symphonic Enterprise”

New Report shares how leading companies are looking beyond traditional domains to leverage technology broadly across the enterprise. Deloitte’s Tech...

Energy8 hours ago

Higher Shares of Renewable Energy Central to Sustainable Development Across Southeast Asia

Southeast Asian countries are on course to meet their aspirational renewable energy target of a 23 per cent share of...

Eastern Europe9 hours ago

Can Azerbaijan fall into the Turkish pitfall?

In July 1974, the 10,000-strong Turkish army, choosing the name of the gang leader Attila the Hun as the operation...

Tech10 hours ago

Digital Controllership: Finance and Accounting Robotic Process Automation a Priority

In a recent Deloitte Center for Controllership™ poll of more than 1,700 finance, accounting and other professionals, 52.8 percent say their...

Middle East11 hours ago

Why US not trustworthy ally for Turkey

Just weeks after failure of the ISIL terrorist group in Iraq and Syria, the United States announced that it is...

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy