Money Money Everywhere

Money Money Everywhere

gascartoonHave you ever known anyone who’s sitting on a gold pot that they just can’t figure out how to open? Meet Tanzania.

Africa’s poverty has a real chance of being erased by major recent discoveries of natural resources, and no country has more new discoveries than Tanzania.

I know first-hand how fast Tanzania is developing. We operated a safari in just the last few weeks for a dozen Chinese managers of a new uranium plant in Dar.

Titanium and coltan have also been discovered recently, and Tanzania continues to sit on an unexploited massive vein of gold that is reckoned to be the second largest in the world after South Africa.

And most recently was the discovery of natural gas.

Just a few months ago, the IMF published findings that Tanzania could be earning $5-6 billion annually by the end of the next decade from an estimated 51 trillion cubic feet.

That’s where the good news ends.

Tanzania has botched exploitation of almost all of its natural resources, gold being the best example. Since its discovery near Lake Victoria nearly two decades ago, multiple companies have traded ownership and management, and reasonable production has yet to be attained.

Uranium is the next best example. The Chinese are successfully mining it, but the squandered tax revenue from it, and the corruption involved in the land that was swapped and sold for the mines is unbelievable.

And now there’s natural gas.

Lo and behold some observers think that the successful bidder to start developing the resource, the Norwegian company, Statoil, has ripped the country off royally.

The Production Sharing Agreement that Tanzania signed with Statoil “could [cost the government] hundreds of millions of dollars a year” according to a principal of the East African watchdog organization, Taweza.

It’s truly a mystery why Tanzania, which could be one of the richest countries in Africa, continues to be one of the poorest.

Some suggest corruption, and to be sure there’s a lot of that in Tanzania. Particularly with mineral rights transparency is easy to avoid. There is no legislative committee – as there should be – which oversees mineral right negotiation. It’s the Minister and his cronies.

That would be easily remedied by a better legislature, and it is coming round but terribly slowly.

In a confusing tweet last week Tanzanian opposition politician, Zitto Kabwe said, “not a single developing country that derives the bulk of its export earnings from oil and gas is a democracy.”

Is Kabwe suggesting he must trade his ideology, his outspoken democratic opposition to the current Tanzanian regime, to eliminate poverty? In other words: the current Tanzanian regime portraying itself as a democracy facilities wanton corruption?

Is there a Marxian dialectic here?

I’m not sure but it’s the handful of people like Kabwe who might be able to force Tanzania into some kind of meaningful grappling of its very rich resources.

But don’t pop the champaign just yet.

An Ugly Goose

An Ugly Goose

814 goldTanzania has some of the largest deposits of gold, uranium and other precious metals in the world, and Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. Go figure.

And now, they’ve found gold in Ngorongoro. The rush has begun.

For the last month rumors have grown out of one of the most besmirched areas of the country, the far northeastern area of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, that there was gold in them thar hills.

At first it was put aside as just another “Wackie Waso.” Waso is one of the larger towns in the area where several years ago “Babu,” the Lutheran pastor turned herbalist, began dispensing a brew that reportedly cured everything from diabetes to AIDs.

Lots of people raced to Babu, literally in the thousands from as far away as the Emirates. And lots of people died.

The area is just south of Loliondo adjacent the Serengeti and due north of Olduvai Gorge. It’s been in all sorts of controversies in the last several years, including a main stop on the proposed Serengeti Highway.

This is a rich agricultural area with a rapidly growing population. The place has all the makings of a real “Wild West” community.

So when gold was reported in a seasonal stream about a month ago there were two distinct reactions: run to the place or laugh. The government tried to stem the tide, but to no avail. The rush is on.

Reports today have more than a thousand individuals panning a stream hardly a kilometer long that at its best is 2 meters wide.

Yet this week government agents confirmed it is gold. Not surprisingly, authorities announced that they would not allow any major commercial exploitation, but let the local people “enjoy the windfall.”

That may strike outsiders as strange, given how valuable a real streak of gold could be to a poor country. But Tanzania already has the world’s second largest seam of gold and has been trying to benefit from it for the last 15 years.

The Lake Victoria gold mines have been a mess for years. Mismanagement, corruption and lack of security have meant that Tanzania has been unable to benefit from what is clearly Tanzania’s greatest single “pot of gold.”

According to this week’s Arusha Times, government experts “verified that the mineral being scooped in Samunge is actually gold, but that should just be windfall for the residents of the surrounding village as well as other artisan miners because the government won’t allow large conglomerates to start excavating the newly found treasure.”

Woe is luck. Without good commercial exploitation, the Wild West Samunge Gold Rush will make a couple folks rich but most of them just miserable, especially children.

The continuing inability of Tanzania to get it together and benefit from the luck of being one of the richest natural resource countries on earth is enough to start a revolution.

But the days just go on and on. A few politicians and disreputable businessmen get rich from time to time, and the masses race for seasonal rivers in them thar hills.

Follow The Law Or… ! Sing

Follow The Law Or… ! Sing

FollowTheLawThroughout sub-Saharan Africa the now distant revolutionary “spring” is continued only by the youth’s music.

Movements for real reform heralded by the February, 2011 “spring” have all but disappeared. Governments that came to power then have turned autocratic defending security and ignoring reform, all in the name of “fighting terrorism.”

Music like the Kenyan Sarabi Band seems all that’s left of the original revolutions. These highly charged politically progressive art forms are massively popular … but I guess not popular enough.

I concede it’s hard not to call kidnappers of the Nigerian school girls, Boko Haram, terrorists. But the reaction of Goodluck Jonathan’s government far surpasses America’s overreaching Patriot Act.

Using the tragedy as justification, Jonathan ordered a full-scale military war in the north of his country, grossly exceeding his constitutional powers.

In Kenya the implementation of a new constitution in 2012 that was widely praised worldwide has systematically been eroded by the current government’s successful power plays hog tying the theoretically independent legislature.

Feeding tribalism like a hungry dog, President Uhuru Kenyatta has rewarded support for a whole series of small measures in the legislature that in sum hugely increases his own power. All in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

Sunday afternoon the country’s largest stadium was packed to capacity with cheering crowds that only slightly exceeded the number of armed policemen and deployed military. When the president arrived in his new “bullet-proof” presidential Toyota, the crowd went mad with applause.

But his increasing authority lets him pick and choose which laws to enforce. Sarabi Band’s hit song, Fuata Sheria, means literally “follow the law” and implores Kenyans to look back to the constitution, away from corruption.

The song approaches desperation. “Follow the Law” is historically hardly a revolutionary slogan, but in this case it is. It’s a plea to return to the idealistic values of Kenya’s youthful constitution, currently circumvented by most of its leaders.

Terrorism is not new, but these overreaching reactions to it were begun by America and now are being adopted by much of the developing world.

I don’t think they work. The reduced terrorism in America since 9/11 is short term. Jihadists and other revolutionaries work through generations, not decades. Successful efforts against terrorism are not as wholly militaristic as America has taught the developed world they should be.

Britain in its fight against the IRA, or Spain against the Basque separatists; Germany against the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Japan against the Red Army, and even Peru against the Shining Light should be the models.

Those all included military components, but negotiations that conceded power and social policy to the adversaries were more important.

And they worked.

In the still maturing and youthful societies of Africa, America’s approach to terrorism has fomented retrogressive moves to dictatorship and large losses of human rights for entire societies.

The old leaders are all back, and their corruption seems now vindicated as they legislate new authority for themselves to “fight terrorism.”

Who Gets The Ivory?

Who Gets The Ivory?

justafewexceptionsA nasty America is emerging in response to new Obama rules to prohibit the sale of ivory within the U.S.

It’s never been fully recognized that the second largest market for ivory sales after China is the United States.

*****
EleStip: My necessary interjection whenever I write of poaching or ivory is to stipulate that I don’t believe that poaching is the most serious problem facing African conservation, today, or even elephants themselves. It’s (a) the human/elephant conflict; and separately (b), elephant overpopulation.
*****

Readers of this blog and other conservationists might not realize that there’s a huge part of America which doesn’t like conservation.

When the Obama administration first proposed the rules in February, there was a huge outcry. Hunters, musicians, retailers and rich grandmothers protested so vehemently that the rules have been toned down.

Fish & Wildlife’s new rules will not formally be implemented until June and can be continually downgraded as the public outcry increases. But I expect they will be severe enough to curtail the ivory market in the U.S.

Sales, auctions, and even gifting of preowned ivory will likely be prohibited.

The theory is that constricting the demand for something reduces its commercial value, which is precisely what conservationists want to happen with elephant tusks.

But the devil is in the detail, and while I applaud the overall move to further regulate ivory, note the alarming exceptions likely to be promulgated with the new regulations in June:
– trophies from shot elephants;
– antique ivory owned prior to 1976; and
– ivory acquired “legally” before 1990.

Those exceptions (and probably others) are so remarkably political in nature that they grossly undermine whatever morality the Obama administration is trying to evince.

It reminds me of the fact that Obama himself is the only chief executive in the history of the world to have issued a waiver to a hunter to bring a shot rhino from Africa back home.

So while the rules are severe enough to massively reduce the trade of ivory within the United States, the few exceptions are the politically powerful NRA, celebrity antique dealers and other rich well-connected families whose inheritances are now more secure.

In other words, big donors.

Worldwide, in fact, the ivory market is constricting. More and more large commercial retailers in Asia are themselves banning the sale of ivory.

This follows numerous moves throughout China over the last several years to ban retail sales of ivory.

I’m sure that these much publicized efforts have their loopholes, too, but it is discouraging that in America, far from where elephants live, the closest to the elite that rule our country and the richest and most powerful are exempt from doing what’s right.

In The Cover of Darkness

In The Cover of Darkness

nairobiprotestA pitifully small yet very well organized protest in Nairobi yesterday was squashed by dozens of police using teargas as Kenya moves more and more into the darkness.

The protest was mounted by a group of sophisticated, highly educated and talented older Kenyan youths including some local music celebrities and disgruntled journalists, who seem well organized and funded.

In fact the Kenyan foreign ministry immediately accused the U.S. government of bankrolling the protests as soon as police had dispersed them.

The U.S. strongly denied the accusations and called for an immediate meeting with government officials to officially clear the air. Yet I found in the ambassador’s remarks a slight nod to the protestor’s complaints if not actions:

It’s true, our ambassador said, “we work with a variety of social organizations.”

What’s going on?

The protest looked extremely professional. Usually African protests are characterized by flimsy handwritten placards carried by angry youths in ragtag wear.

This group was in Gucci outfits with perfectly minted protest signs and some impressive props: giant SpongeBob like balloon things that were supposed to represent corrupt officials.

Despite their “business persons smart-casual” look, the protesters used rather juvenile tactics. Diapermentality.com was the ostensible organizer of the march. Spyce magazine was another supporter. These two very new and very sophisticated sites are technically polished, very well funded and well, just sort of juvenile.

Some of the phrases on the protest signs like “Who Killed Mboya?” represented generation-old issues that really have little to do with the present. Leaders, however, were trying to form a theme that Kenya is 50 years old but still in diapers, in part because these old issues were never resolved.

The titular heads of yesterday’s protests were a punk cleric, Timothy Njoya, and a former Kenyan journalist on a rampage, Bonny Mwangi. The two are perfect examples of where Kenya’s protests are going today … to the bank.

Joining the minister and journalist leading the protest yesterday was a famous Kenyan band leader, Sarabi. Together the three represent a highly privileged and successful but increasingly frustrated class of soon-to-be middle-aged Kenyans truthfully fed up with their government.

And incapable of doing anything about it. Even as they personally prosper.

But the Kenyan government’s reprise that the western world and America are to blame is comic. The last thing the Obama administration wants to do, now, is jeopardize its drones over Somalia, dependent completely on Kenya’s full participation.

The police response to this pitiful protest is troubling. It’s equally troubling that Kenya’s largest newspaper didn’t cover it (except in a photojournalism essay), leaving it to newer and more courageous local media and one good radio station.

An effete protest it was, in a troubled and darkening society.

The Kikuyus Will Rule Again

The Kikuyus Will Rule Again

newgadoThursday the ICC trial against the President of Kenya will likely stop, the trial against the Vice President will proceed and for all the world this looks to me like a setup by one tribe to demolish another in Kenya, replaying centuries of vicious racism.

A year from now, the Kikuyus will once again rule the Kalenjins.

It’s hard to connect the obvious dots in this story without massive restraint. The alliance of the current president’s and vice president’s tribes that now rules Kenya, an historic burying of bloody hatchets, is on the surface nothing less than a society maturing and rising above petty politics and racism.

President Kenyatta is Kikuyu. Vice President Ruto is Kalenjin. There are 43 tribes in Kenya and most hate everyone else, but there are few Hatfield/McCoy gun rivalries as great as the Kikuyu/Kalenjin. I can’t think of a good analogy to America, but something like a Elizabeth Warren/Liz Cheney alliance.

Unbelievable.

The president was the king of his tribe, and the vice president was the king of his tribe, and in the 2007 election they were pitted against one another. After the election they started massacring each other.

1300 people were killed but even more notable, nearly a quarter million were displaced. The genocide would have been much worse if the outside world hadn’t quickly stepped in. The settlement forced on Kenya by the recently retired UN Secretary General, African Kofi Annan, was a triumph of international diplomacy.

Part of the complex, tedious settlement included determining the masterminds of the violence and punishing them. As if they weren’t known, and that was the problem: Everyone knew the masterminds: William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta.

But shortly after the settlement brought peace and prosperity to Kenya, many especially educated Kenyans were ready to move on beyond racism and fear. A commission was created by Kenyans to investigate the violence.

The Waki Commission was impressive. Drawing on the most prominent professionals in the country, it determined by volumes of evidence who was to blame (no surprises) and suggested they be prosecuted. But its tome of evidence and accusations were sealed by law until Parliament created a judicial process for proceeding.

Parliament couldn’t. Twice it defeated legislation to create the tribunals. Time was passing. The horror of the violence was receding from those in power and the quarter million displaced persons were being swept into the dustbin of history.

So by default in the Annan agreement, justice fell out of Kenya into The Netherlands. The World Criminal Court (ICC) was now mandated with the investigation and trial.

It was a singular disappointment for the African mastermind of the settlement: “Politicians hungry for power have long exploited Kenya’s ethnic divisions with impunity,” Annan wrote in the New York Times. Annan knew exactly what wasn’t going to happen.

The ICC had to fight tooth and nail just to get the details in the Waki Commission, and absent of much of its evidence began its own investigation in Kenya.

The chief ICC investigator, Moreno Ocampo, was an Argentinian well experienced in dealing with the big guys. He was the lead prosecutor of the Argentinian generals who had devastated his own country in the horrible post-Peron era.

After five years of investigations and the unbelievably expensive collection of evidence, the trial began in The Hague last year. Witnesses were whisked and hidden in secret places in the world to protect them. The indictments included Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto.

So far so good? Not exactly. In typical Machiavellian fashion the two kings of the arch enemy tribes struck an alliance against … against what? Against justice.

They ran on the same ticket for President and Vice President. And they won. The country of Kenya freely elected as its leaders the very people who had murdered and displaced them.

Speaking out for the first time since term limits forced him to retire last year, Ocampo told Radio Netherlands recently:

“Kenyatta and Ruto were allegedly killing each other, their groups, and then they were smart. They made an alliance and they presented themselves as the reconciliation process.”

Ocampo is depressed that justice as such will now never be served. But he is realistic, too, and he believes that the role he played forced a reconciliation between two leaders who would never have dared to sit in the same room together, before.

But now, there’s a new twist.

For some reason – who could possibly concoct why – the ICC’s witnesses against Kenyatta have all started to disappear. The reason given is that they have withdrawn their stories. The real reason is as Ocampo knows, “… the defence has the right to know them. And after that, it’s much more difficult because they can go to see them in London or wherever they are. And people can threaten their families.”

Kenyatta has the power of the Kenyan government to go anywhere he wants. Ruto as unpowerful as vice presidents everywhere, doesn’t.

The case against Kenyatta is falling apart. Thursday I expect a “status meeting” of the ICC will drop the case against Kenyatta.

But the cast against Ruto proceeds.

One tribe will be convicted. One tribe will be released. Opposites again, the Kikuyus will rule the Kalenjins.

Black, Blackie or Blacker?

Black, Blackie or Blacker?

KillToSaveTexas hunters, National Geographic, President Obama and one old hippo in the Cleveland Zoo .. My gosh, what a ‘tail to tale!’

By now you must have heard about the Dallas Safari Club’s auctioning off
a “black rhino hunt” in Namibia that fetched $350,000 … for black rhino conservation.

I just don’t get what all the fuss is suddenly about. This isn’t the first time. The exact situation happened before and the Obama administration even blessed it. No problem then. Why so much attention, now?

Do you know how wonderful the Redwood smells? I think we should start a campaign now on MoveOn to auction off a few trees from Muir Woods and then donate the proceeds to Redwood conservation.

And I think we can just keep the ball rolling, then. Based on personal experience, I’ve also always felt that if you just get rid of a few of us old farts now rather than wait for us to keel over, society would be so much more attractive!

We have entered, truly, the world of the absurd: Kill it to save it.

Yet it isn’t the first time, folks! It’s not the second or tenth time, in fact. And such lofty characters as National Geographic and the Obama Administration have been fully invested in such ideas until now.

Kill it to save it” is not a new concept. And it is the principle by which so much hunting – including in Africa – has been done for years and years.

Deer harvests are the most obvious example. Deer hunting has been a carefully regulated and nurtured social activity for six to seven generations, and today management of the deer population is a science extraordinaire. Were deer hunting to be summarily banned, there are plausible arguments that the entire population would crash.

And with a crash in one species, a panoply of similar and related species are jeopardized. Everything from their predators and scavengers (like wolves and crows) to the plants they consumer (like mustard garlic).

Of course it begs the question why hunting deer was ever nurtured then regulated in the first place. But that takes us well back into the 1800s and is such a lengthy period of human management of nature that the explanation is probably mute.

In Africa big game hunting, of which the black rhino was once an essential ingredient, was always regulated in a way that at least appeared to contribute to conservation.

Hunting reserves whether intentionally or by default surrounded the fully protected wilderness areas where no hunting was allowed. Those areas became known as the “buffers.”

Big game hunters in Africa are notoriously tyrannical. I have little doubt that when they lose their jobs they became commanders in blood diamond wars. So the “buffer” area around the national parks was policed in ways African governments could only hope could be the case inside the parks.

That protected the parks from poachers.

More to the point, people pay so much to kill a big African animal that the revenue stream into Africa was simply too much to refuse. This revenue stream was at least in part supposed to be used to nurture the fully protected parks.

This, in fact, is the argument used by Safari International. In October, though, CBC radio unmasked the real intention in a thoughtful interview of the safari auction’s lawyer. He admitted that the main reason hunters want to conserve anything is to be able to kill them, later.

Abe Lincoln once said something about being able to fool people but not always. Well, the public has been fooled for a very long time about hunting. You don’t kill something to save it.

In the current situation, the Dallas Safari Club’s most invoked second argument (after the first argument that the proceeds aid conservation) was that the rhino chosen was an old marauding male that was interfering with otherwise expected successful breeding in his community of wild rhinos.

Uncle Tom at a dashing 75 could charm the buttons off every prom girl in his community, and there were members of the family who wanted to bump him off, but we prevailed.

Don’t end this story, here. Remember that it was President Obama’s administration which was the first in the history of the Endangered Species Act and its worldwide equivalent, CITES, to issue a presidential waiver to a hunter
in Wisconsin to bring back a rhino he had killed in Namibia.

That hunter purchased his Namibian rhino hunt at a safari club auction.

The argument used by the administration was that the money the man had spent on the hunt would contribute to rhino conservation.

And more recently, National Geographic criticized attempts to “list lion” as endangered and thus stop all lion hunting, because according to this lofty magazine, hunting can contribute to conservation.

The Obama Administration’s action was abhorrent. NatGeo’s arguments were as thin as the Dallas Safari Club’s.

But it gets worse with NatGeo, because this time around they’ve criticized the Dallas auction. So add hypocrisy to abhorrence and you get absurdity.

So what do we do with old creatures no use anymore to procreation?

We do exactly what the Cleveland Zoo did for decades of agony to its budget. Yesterday, the oldest hippo in North America, Blackie, died at 59 years old.

Blackie was a pain. When I was first introduced to him he tried to attack me. Years later he just floated in an off-site enclosure that was built at great expense and tended to with the greatest care.

But he was alive. And zoos and real conservation organizations are interested in life.

The Dallas Safari Club, the Obama administration and NatGeo, seem to have more important priorities.

Important Stories for 2013

Important Stories for 2013

Important 2013 StoriesMisreported elephant poaching, a changed attitude against big game hunting, enduring corruption, a radical change in how safaris are bought and sold, and the end of the “Black Jews” in Ethiopia are my last big stories for 2013.

#6 is the most welcome growing opposition to big game hunting.

It’s hard to tell which came first, public attitudes or government action, but the turning point was earlier this year when first Botswana, then Zambia, began to ban big game hunting.

Botswana banned all hunting in December, 2012, and a month later Zambia announced a ban on cats with an indication they would be going further. Until now big game hunting revenues in Zambia were almost as much as tourism’s photography safari revenues, that’s how important these two countries are to hunting. (Kenya banned all hunting in the 1980s.)

The decision to ban a traditional industry is major. While some animal populations are down (lions and elephants) many like the buffalo are thriving, so this is not wholly an ecological decision. Rather, I think, people’s attitudes are changing.

Then in October a movement began to “list lion” on CITES endangered species list, which would effectively ban hunting of lion even in countries that still allow it. There was little opposition in the media to this, except surprisingly by NatGeo which once again proved my point the organization is in terrible decline.

The fact is that public sentiment for big game hunting is shifting, and from my point of view, very nicely so.

#7 is the Exaggerate story of elephant poaching. I write this way intentionally, to buff the hysteria in the media which began in January with a breaking story in Newsweek and the Daily Beast.

Poaching of all animals is showing troubling increases, and elephants are at the top of that list. But in typical American news style that it has to “bleed to read” the story has been Exaggerate to the point that good news like China’s turnaround is ignored and that the necessary remedies will be missed.

Poaching today is nowhere near as apocalyptic as it was in the 1970s, but NGOs are trying to make it look so, and that it infuriates me. Poaching today is mostly individual. Unlike the horrible corrupt poaching that really didn’t nearly exterminate elephants in the 1970s and 80s.

Poaching today also carries an onerous new component that has nothing to do with elephants. It’s become a revenue stream for terrorists, and the hysteria to contribute to your local NGO to save elephants completely masks this probably more urgent situation.

And so important and completely missed in the headlining is that there are too many elephants. Don’t mistake me! I don’t mean we should kill them off. But in the huge difference in the size of African people populations in the 1970s and those of today, the stress of too many elephants can lead to easy local poaching, and that’s what’s happening.

#8 is a tectonic change in the way safaris are being bought and sold.

The middle man, the multiple layers of agents inserted between the safari and its consumer have been eroding for decades. But in one fell swoop this year, a major South African hotel chain sold itself to Marriott, leapfrogging at least the decade behind that Africans were in selling their wares.

Most African tourism products are not bought by Americans, and so how safaris were are has mostly been governed by buying habits in such places as Europe. America is far ahead of the rest of the world in direct tour product buying, and the sale of Protea Hotels to Marriott signals to all of Africa that the American way is the world trend.

#9 is a depressing tale. After a number of years where Africa’s overall corruption seemed to be declining, last year it took a nosedive.

The good news/bad news flag came in September, when France’s President Hollande ended centuries
of deceitful collaboration between corrupt African leaders and the Élysée Palace.

Many of us jumped on this as a further indication of Africa’s improving transparency, but in fact, it was just the reverse and Hollande beat us to the punch. In November the European union gave Tanzania a spanking for being so egregiously corrupt.

And then Transparency International’s annual rankings came out. It’s so terribly disappointing and I’d like to think it all has to do with declining economies, but closer looks at places like Zimbabwe and South Africa suggest otherwise. I’m afraid the “public will” has just been sapped, and bad guys have taken advantage … again.

#10 is intriguing and since my own brush with “Operation Moses” in the 1980s, I’ve never stopped thinking about it. The last of Africa’s “Black Jews” were “brought home
” to Israel October 31.

A tribe in Ethiopia referred to as the “Falashas” has an oral history there that goes back to the 3rd century. Israel has always contended they were migrants from the land of the Jews, possibly the lost Tribe of Dan. Systematically, through an extreme range of politics that included the emperor Selassie, to the Tyrant Mengistu to today’s slightly more democratic Ethiopia, Israel has aided Ethiopia.

For only reason. To get the Black Jews back home. And whether they all are or not, Israel formally announced that they were on October 31.

Corruption Index Disturbing

Corruption Index Disturbing

kenyacorruptAfrica remains the most corrupt continent, according to a report released today by Transparency International (TI).

Although Africa’s 54 rated countries represent just less than a quarter of all the countries in the world, Africa’s countries make up more than half of the most corrupt.

TI’s list and voluminous explanations were released today. Technically the list ranks “transparency” as defined by a complex compilation of surveys and parameters. But in a nutshell, it ranks corruption, and TI in fact refers to the indices as CPI’s or “Corruption Perceptions Index.”

TI’s executive, Alejandro Salas, explained to Reuters today that what the index shows best is the implementation of good policies to fight corruption. Many countries have good policies, but many fewer actually implement and enforce them.

Kenya is the quintessential example of this. Despite adopting one of the most progressive constitutions in the world last year, it has proved unable to implement those parts that fight tribalism, nepotism and corruption. Kenya remains stuck in the bottom quarter of the world’s most corrupt nations.

Changes in ranking from year to year reflect not just that own country’s standing, but the standing of the world as a whole. If the whole world becomes less corrupt, then those countries that haven’t changed fall in the list.

In the Reuters interview Salas said there was no significant change in the last decade in the world’s overall corruption except … in Africa, where it has increased although slightly, (and in Central America where the increase in corruption is greater than in Africa).

In the actual incremental changes, 24 African countries improved, 20 declined, 9 stayed the same and one (South Sudan) appeared on the list for the first time in 2013.

However, those that improved had an aggregate increase of 124 position ranks, and those that decreased had an aggregate decrease of 164 position ranks, and this is the key factor. It means overall the continent is definitely getting worse.

The ten most egregious African countries are (in order of least to most corrupt) are Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, Sudan and Somalia.

Botswana remained the least corrupt and continued to occupy the most favorable rank of 30. (The United States is ranked 19.) The next 9 least corrupt countries in Africa were Cape Verde, the Seychelles, Rwanda, Lesotho, Namibia, Ghana, Sao Tome & Principe and South Africa.

But there’s much more to the story. Rwanda may indeed be relatively transparent, but it is a horrible dictatorship. It just doesn’t pretend to be anything else.

Senegal had a considerable improvement, increasing 17 ranks. Lesotho, Burundi and Swaziland also saw significant improvement.

Mali and Gambia had considerable declines, each falling 22 ranks. Also falling significantly was Guinea-Bissau, Libya, Yemen, the Congo Republic and Uganda.

While Americans tend to pooh-pooh anything that suggests they aren’t at the tip top of any ratings, I think that wise Africans take this annual ranking very seriously.

“Kenya’s score has remained disappointingly low and stagnant over a long period of time. Evidently whatever efforts that have been put into the fight against corruption have borne little results,” said Samuel Kimeu, Executive Director of TI-Kenya.

“The country’s little-changed score,” South Africa’s Times Live opined this morning, “could be attributed to the level of outrage expressed by the public in the form of service delivery protests and eagerness to report corruption to independent civil society-based organisations.”

TI doesn’t report angst, just corruption. Over my life time I’ve seen a great increase in angst especially among Africa’s youth. There is a feeling of shame, a feeling of outrage, that didn’t exist before.

So we wait anxiously for the mobilization.

Getting to the Bottom of It

Getting to the Bottom of It

getting to the bottom of itWhile the battle against corruption in Africa is mostly going well, it’s hit a brick wall in Tanzania. Yesterday, most of the aid-giving free world (less the U.S.) chided Tanzania for dragging its feet.

The donor group, calling itself the “General Budget Support” (GBS) Group, gives Tanzania approximately a half billion dollars annually as direct cash into its general budget fund, about 10% of the country’s projected national budget.

The U.S. in comparison plans to give Tanzania this year approximately $1.15 billion.

The difference with USAid is that it doesn’t flow without conditions into the country’s general fund as is the case with the GBS, but towards specific projects and programs, many of which are outside the Tanzanian government’s budget programs.

Specificity in aid is a hallmark of U.S. assistance, and a controversial one. It’s not only a hallmark of USAid, but of Tanzania’s other principal donor, China.

By specifying what the money is supposed to be used for, the vendors receiving the funds are often U.S. and Chinese companies.

And the U.S. usually does a pretty good job; China often doesn’t.

It’s been less than a year since China finished the Namanga/Arusha/Dodoma road, and it’s collapsing already.

I’ve traveled that road multiple times annually since 1973. It’s rare to be in very good shape, but the best period was from about 2000 to 2008, a legacy of Japanese aid and workmanship.

But no road lasts forever, and even less so when a country is developing and its trucks and commerce are growing.

So we were all extremely excited last year, despite the delays of construction, that this “new road” would bring new speed to the country’s prosperity.

Junk aid is the controversy that surrounds specificity of aid, which is the practice of the Chinese and Americans. Many European countries that have developed real expertise in aid to the developing world, like the Netherlands and Norway, prefer to work through world bodies like the World Bank, or directly with country authorities as is the case with the GBS.

So while it may seem counter-intuitive that giving unspecified aid battles corruption, that’s exactly what this does, as evidenced yesterday by the sweeping indignation of the GBS and its threats to hold back some of what is being pledged.

It’s the same policy that the European Union applied to Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal. There was no specificity to the cash, other than you better get your house in order.

That’s what the GBS is doing in Tanzania, and from my point of view, it has a lot more effect than America and China’s grandiose claims that their aid avoids causing corruption.

An enormous percentage of USAid, for example goes to a handful of corporations, like Halliburton. (The exact percentages take institutions to figure out, and clearly are being intentionally made difficult to determine.)

Just as in Tanzania the Chinese road corporation, China Geo Engineering, received the funds to rebuild the Namanga/Arusha/Dodoma road.

These mega corporations then pay themselves and their country cronies for such things as equipment, and often for expertise and management as well. The Chinese actually are far more guilty of this than the Americans. It is hard to find a Chinese project with any locals above basic laborer.

That isn’t to say it doesn’t help the local economy, but advocates of the GBS form of aid argue it leads to much greater corruption.

And the corruption begins at home. Halliburton, like China Geo Engineering, is rife with nepotism, cronyism and just simple outright graft. Removed from many of the accounting restraints that would attend them for projects within their home country, they are essentially set free to work as they wish.

Bribing is par for the course.

And whether a Chinese or American capitalist monster, the bottom line is what counts. And that doesn’t seem to be effected by where the bottom of the road goes.

Beating The Wrap

Beating The Wrap

beating the wrapWhile the trial of Kenya’s Vice President in The Hague continues it’s increasingly difficult to believe that Kenya’s President will actually show up for his trial on November 9.

The future of the International Criminal Court hangs in the balance, and it’s a bum wrap for a good global institution based on noble ideas.

But western powers are lobbying that the trial of Uhuru Kenyatta, Kenya’s President, either be postponed or that Kenyatta be excused from the proceedings in The Hague, because of the national crisis that followed the Westgate Mall attack.

Pressure particularly from the U.S. seems to be winning the day, and if Kenyatta does attend, it may be only briefly for the opening session. The world’s obsession with security trumps everything, and it seems this simple equation is that “crimes against humanity” are less important or severe than terrorism.

Over the weekend a BBC analyst put it this way:

“Many experts in international law believe that his case reflects the apparently incompatible demands of historical restorative justice versus future global security.”

Those of us who believe – and there are many if not a vast majority of Kenyans – that Kenyatta and Ruto are, in fact, guilty as accused, are not getting much support from the ongoing process of the ICC.

The trial hasn’t gone well for the prosecution. Many witnesses have been dropped, and of the first half dozen on the stand, there were flip-flops and easily rebutted innuendos.

It just hasn’t seemed a very tight prosecution. Moreover, so far all the evidence has been circumstantial. Ruto has been implicated in lots of hocus pocos similar to Free Masonry or other quasi secret organizations. He’s been implicated in funding groups of known thugs and referenced as giving a pass or nodding to illegal actions.

But no witness has accused him of killing anyone or of specifically telling anyone else to kill anyone.

The reason so many mobsters in the U.S. ultimately went to jail was for tax evasion, a strange wrap for murder. But it’s unlikely that the Capones, Genoveses or Salermos would ever have been convicted of crimes against humanity.

The fact of the matter is that Uhuru Kenyatta has probably less blood on his hands than Dick Cheney, or a bunch of top American politicians long since dead and forgotten.

That shouldn’t be a reason for Kenyatta getting pass, it should be a reason for trying Ronald Reagan rather than letting Oliver North go to jail for him.

The World Court is a magnificent idea. And the handful of people it has so far tried and jailed include some of the worst monsters in modern history. But none of them were nationally elected to lead the countries they were accused of previously destroying.

I’m convinced that Ruto and Kenyatta are culpable of the crimes they’re accused of. But The Court has so far not presented an air-tight case, the west (not much less Kenya itself) is now newly worried about terrorism in Kenya, and I’m just not sure that the people of Kenya would not rather have these two men as leaders than jailed criminals.

I’m not saying the country has forgiven them, because it’s still deeply split tribally and socially. But where Kenyans do seem to have come together is that the election process should be considered paramount, even more important than the judicial process.

Kenyatta and Ruto were fairly elected although the contest was phenomenally close. But the country truly seems, from all sides of the aisle, to be rallying around that concept that the election was fair.

And if criminals have been duly elected, they should duly rule. And no one presumes this can be done from a jail.

It’s been true of not but a few of our own top politicians.

BACKGROUND
Kenyatta, Kenya’s president, and its VP William Ruto, have been charged with crimes against humanity by the World Court in The Hague. Ruto’s trial is ongoing. Kenyatta’s is scheduled to begin in two weeks.

Before they won Kenya’s presidential election last March, they were powerful men within political parties that were closely linked to various tribes. When Kenyatta’s party lost the election to Ruto’s party in 2007, horrible violence broke out throughout Kenya.

About 1300 people were killed, some brutally, and anywhere from 180-250,000 people displaced. Many of these displaced persons remain in state-run camps, today.

The peace treaty brokered by the U.S., the U.K. and Kofi Annan worked magnificently and included a provision that the perpetrators of the violence be named and tried.

The Kenyan Parliament, unable to agree on a process for trials, asked the World Court in The Hague to undertake the trials, which is now happening.

Meanwhile, the two arch enemies formed a political alliance and won the election.

Ban East African Hunting

Ban East African Hunting

LionHuntSports hunting has long been characterized as a conservation tool. That is absolutely not the case in East Africa, where all trophy hunting should be outlawed.

Kenya banned all hunting in 1977, then later allowed some bird hunting. But the other nations of East Africa promote sports hunting.

This article shows why sports hunting throughout all of East Africa should be banned. I think it likely with time the ban should extend throughout all of sub-Saharan Africa.

Botswana recently banned hunting, and Zambia recently banned the hunting of cats. I think it inevitable even the big hunter destination of South Africa will finally also ban trophy hunting.

But right now the evidence is so compelling to end hunting in East Africa, that’s where this article focuses.

The power of the sports hunting industry and the gun manufacturing industry cannot be overstated as we approach this debate. Sports hunting, even big game hunting in Africa, is far less contentious than gun control in the United States, for example. But the industries and lobby of wealth organized to promote gun ownership has virtually fused itself with the issue of sports hunting.

Americans constitute the largest single group trophy hunting in Africa. So American institutions, money and lobbying are integral to this African debate. “Americans are by far the most keen to spend around $60,000 on trophy hunts in Africa,” writes Felicity Carus recently in London’s Guardian.

The balance of American money and power supporting hunting is woefully unfair, and it isn’t just the NRA. Sportsmen’s Alliance and the National Shooting Sports Foundation are both funded by multiple large foundations whose donors are kept secret. Journalists shy away from reporting negatively about these monoliths and politicians give them a wide bay.

My intention, here, is not to take on sports hunting per se, nor gun ownership. The issue of big game hunting in Africa specifically has reached a uniquely critical threshold. In Africa – right now – big game hunting is a threat to conservation and rural development.

I fervently believe there are philosophical and ethical arguments against many types of sports hunting. But that is actually secondary to the more compelling reasons today in Africa that big game hunting should be ended.

The main reason big game hunting should be immediately ended throughout almost all of Africa is corruption and bad policy. The same reasons that conservatives use to deplore even humanitarian aid to emerging nations is grossly evident in Africa’s management of sports hunting, today.

We’re reaching a critical point in Africa’s wildness. It’s a tipping point. The growth of African societies is exceptional, and basically good. Bigger human populations are developing at breakneck speed. It’s hard for an American to imagine how fast, for example, Kenya is developing.

Many of my clients are repeat visitors to Africa. It’s amazing to watch their jaws drop when they return after even as few as five years. Highways, factories, residential developments .. it’s an unending serious of hopeful and modern progress.

And at what cost? At the cost of the wild, of course. That’s not a surprise and it’s not new. But it is changing.

Only a decade or two ago, safari tourism was critical to the economic health of Kenya, vying with the production of coffee and tea for the top spot on Kenya’s GDP. Today, tourism overall in Kenya represents only 5.7% of GDP (2011) and arguably half that is non-animal, beach tourism.

And while it’s likely Kenya’s tourism is falling behind other sectors of its economy because of recent terrorist acts, neighboring and quite peaceful Tanzania’s trends are even more exaggerate.

Tourism as a part of the Tanzanian economy is expected to drop to 7.9 per cent by 2020 from 8 per cent recorded in 2010. Like Kenya, by the way, it is likely that the single biggest growth within tourism in Tanzania is the beach, not animals.

This emphatically doesn’t mean that safari tourism isn’t growing. What it means actually is that so many other sectors of the economy, like oil production, are growing much more rapidly.

Oil is more important than lions. It wasn’t in Teddy Roosevelt’s day.

So the threat to the wild is severe in Africa. While the U.S. continues to debate whether the keystone pipeline should be laid over our wild lands, there’s not a moment’s hesitation about a new dam project cutting a chunk out of Africa’s largest wildlife park or slicing away protected marine environments for deep-sea drilling.

It is not surprising, then, that in most of the protected wildlife reserves in Africa, animal populations are falling, often because those reserves are either being reduced in size or because the pressures on their periphery are growing so great.

Sports hunting in Teddy Roosevelt’s day hardly disturbed the ecosystem. The technology of guns was far more limited than today. Animals in rural areas at home and in Africa were truly pests, because there were so many. Most sportsmen (including TR) killed very much for the meat that was essential food for them.

But as societies developed, as Africa is developing today, hunting too quickly began to deplete animal numbers (bison, pigeons, wolves, etc.). Wild environments were protected, and most hunting banned within them. And where it isn’t completed banned, it’s heavily regulated.

The reason is terribly simple: there’s little contest between a hunter and a wild animal, and over time, wild animals lose the number’s game.

Africa has proved itself incapable of banning or regulating. Well managed (regulated) hunting is often considered a buffer against poaching, and so it was in Africa thirty years ago. The outskirts of protected areas were declared hunting preserves, and the symbiotic relationship with the protected area was a healthy one.

Along or within some protected areas in Africa hunting was used as the culling tool, as wildlife managers tried to establish a carrying capacity balance within an areas biodiversity. Hunters paid royally to kill “excess elephants” that lived at least part of their time in Kruger National Park in South Africa, for instance.

All of this worked, once. It doesn’t, now.

“Presently… the conservation role of hunting is limited by a series of problems,” according to two African and one French conservationists writing the definitive scientific paper against hunting published in Elsevier six years ago.

After meticulously detailing all the potential good that sports hunting in Africa could do, the authors take a fraction of the article to document how it sports hunting in Africa fails because of government mismanagement and corruption.

The list of corruptible acts linked to sports hunting in Africa would take a month of blogs to document. Whether it’s Loliondo in Tanzania, where land has been arbitrarily taken from both the Serengeti and Maasai farmers for Arab hunting, or ranches in South Africa recently unmasked as poaching rhinos, the list seems endless.

There are so many pressures on Africa’s wild, today, that it is nonsense to continue to allow a contentious one, sports hunting. The trophy hunting industry is tiny, in monetary terms, compared to overall tourism.

Its effect as explained in the Elsevier article is negative. So why continue it? Just so people can get a rush killing an animal? What other reason remains?

We are fighting the dam in The Selous, uranium and gold mining in the Serengeti, off-shore drilling in Lamu and highways through Nairobi National Park. There is absolutely little reason we shouldn’t also be fighting sports hunting, which provides even less benefit to Africa or its wilderness than mining natural resources or moving morning rush hours.

The time for Africa trophy hunting is over.

(Tomorrow, I discuss a very specific sports hunting issue that is now Africa’s hottest wildlife topic: should hunting lions be ended by listing them as an endangered species.

Stay tuned.)

Hedgefunds Hurting

Hedgefunds Hurting

investmentOK, here’s the deal. Invest a thousand dollars to extract minerals from Africa, today, and your return will be $150,000 … after the rebels win the civil war.

Kilimanjaro Capital is a Belize-based company, with a Canadian website, and European capital listed on some Danish and other northern European exchanges. The CEO, Zulfikar Rashid, was born in Uganda and believes the best way to make money in Africa is to bet on civil wars.

I remember once trying to get into the business center at the Norfolk Hotel in Nairobi, before we were all drowned in wifi, and became a part of a congested line of anxious and poorly dressed white businessmen who were courting the then president of Somalia.

There have been many presidents of Somalia, until the recent spat of stability brought on by the Kenyan invasion last year. This was probably ten years ago.

The poorly dressed white businessmen had contracts coming out of their wazoo, busting briefcases and literally shoving one another to get this mercurial and previously unknown individual to sign his name on a contract for various and many mineral rights.

I’m sure in turn he was paid something on the spot, because I also picked up a few loose Euros at my feet in the line to the photocopier.

I got only a fleeting look at Abdul. He seemed a very thin if frail individual with very large black eyes and a scraggly, narrow black beard. He was dressed in native Somalia, all white robes with a white turban, and was dwarfed by two handlers, or body guards, who looked southern Italian and overfed.

As our line into the business center seemed to stop while one poorly dressed white businessman seemed to be copying the last ten Somalia constitutions, I started a conversation with the pretty rotund slightly dressed poor white businessman in front me.

He was a jolly Scotsman. Just flew in from Heathrow when he heard Abdul was going to be in town. He wanted the fishing rights just off the coast from Kismayo that were currently being pirated by French fishermen.

At the time Kismayo was the capital of world pirates. But this jolly dressed, poor white red-faced Scott was beaming. He wouldn’t tell me how much those rights would cost. Nor did he express sufficient confidence from my point of view that he would be able to fish in the sea dominated by professional pirates. But for some reason, it didn’t seem to matter.

Kilimanjaro Capital, though, is the first of such venture renegades that has achieved such respectability. And its still rather small portfolio is quite diversified, including some normal mineral rights claims even in North America.

But its success depends upon rebels, which are mostly today terrorists, taking control of African land rich with minerals but poor with organized society. Like Kivu province in the eastern DRC, or Biafra in Nigeria, or southern Cameroon.

These are all areas which have seen conflict for more than a half century. The mineral rights are critical to funding the rebel movements.

One of the biggest accomplishments of the Obama Administration from my point of view was a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that made illegal such dealings with American interests.

It’s probably why Kilimanjaro Capital is located in Belize, has a website in Canada, is listed on a Danish exchange and is run by an Ugandan. I don’t think Dodd-Frank extends quite that far.

Betting on misery is, of course, nothing new. The Great Recession was caused by many such components. But more germane to the moment, I think that Director Rashid is doomed to fail, because rebel movements … well, they just aren’t doing too well lately.

Terrorism, yes. But actual regime changes or national secessions … no. And a contract with Osama probably wouldn’t work.

So let’s just marvel at how amoral, greedy and maybe just crazy part of the investment world is. And let’s just hope that there’s more and more Dodd-Frank worldwide to keep these renegades from spreading.

I’ve got a much better lead on a penny stock, anyway.

A Real Gem of a Guy

A Real Gem of a Guy

GemofaguyAfter several decades of trying to reel in Zimbabwe, the European Union just gave up. Sanctions beginning with mining and diamonds will soon be lifted. Who’s running the show up there in Brussels?

Most Europeans consider Zimbabwe one of their greatest diplomatic failures. The country remains a rogue state ruled by a ruthless dictator who has managed to all but destroy an economy that had one of the greatest potentials in Africa.

Robert Mugabe is 90 years old and has been in power since 1980. He was a freedom fighter much admired in the west when he led a major faction against Ian Smith, the white man who lead “UDI” – Unilateral Declaration of Independence – from Britain in 1962.

Rhodesia, as it was then called, was the brainchild of Cecil Rhodes, who in the last half of the 19th century made the country with brute force. Rhodes was probably the richest man in the world at the time who believed to insanity that Britain should rule Africa from bottom to top.

Britain wasn’t all that adverse to the idea, despite public protestations, so they let the rogue Rhodes into the wilds to massacre tribes, build railways and demarcate his own country.

Rhodesia became one of the most productive, beautiful, peaceful countries in Africa. Its economy blossomed with modern agriculture, mining for a variety of ores including diamonds, and tourism. Although pointedly, all this production was run by whites, British settlers who also believed like Rhodes that Westminster was Olympus.

But when it was time for Independence in the early 1960s, there was only 1 white for every 16 blacks. Ian Smith and his white Rhodesians didn’t need to hire Nate Silver to predict an outcome.

So they took over the country from Britain in 1962. Yes, that’s correct. British settlers took over a British colony. Remind you of anything? Ian Smith more than once called himself the George Washington of Africa.

Times had changed, and the war which followed wasn’t with Britain. It was with blacks like Robert Mugabe, and after 18 years and a lot of European sanctions on white Rhodesia, Britain and the U.S. brokered a peace agreement.

The agreement fixated a constitution for ten years that didn’t give the whites any more power than blacks, but institutionalized the power that they negotiated in the agreement in a way that couldn’t be changed.

For that ten years Robert Mugabe was a very good president … at least we all thought so, and frankly, so did many of the whites. It was a time of tourism explosion in Zimbabwe – since it was now peaceful after so many years.

I was deeply involved with two companies run by two white Senators. They loved Mugabe.

But after that ten years and the constitution could be changed by majority vote, Mugabe did. And his vindictiveness started to show.

He began redistributing land, mostly from white farmers. OK. To be expected, right? But with time it became more and more gruesome and the distribution was hardly fair. The land was given not to people of need but to his supporters. Then his cronies. Then his ministers.

Today the next richest and most powerful man in the country is the head of the army, Minister of Defense, Emmerson Mnangagwa. He is the richest because the land which was given to him by Mugabe includes Zimbabwe’s diamond mines.

Mnangagwa is rich despite European sanctions, and that’s the point of those who argue the sanctions became useless. But the EU itself has estimated that Zimbabwe revenues will increase by Euro 400 million annually as the diamond sanctions are lifted.

Others claim that a major motivation is that Belgium wants the business of cutting the diamonds.

“Too late,” says Zimbabwean spokesman, Rugare Gumbo.

Whatever the reason, Zimbabwe is poised to get much richer. And as time goes on, Zimbabwe is little more than a smaller and smaller and closer and closer group of thugs.

ÇA SUFFIT!

ÇA SUFFIT!

illgottengainsOne white European president is battling three black African despots in what might be the world’s biggest attack on corruption ever seen. Fast cars, Bond’s jet yachts, secret logging of rainforest jungles and the plight of Africa democracy are all at stake.

President Francois Hollande is the first French leader to refuse the cozy, often illegal and until now mutually beneficial relationships French Presidents have developed with Francophone African leaders.

Moreover, he has given the nod to French prosecutors and judges to continue massive investigations into the “ill-gotten gains” by three corrupt African despots.

These ill-gotten gains game from former French presidents. They are the proceeds from business deals removed from regulation by presidential decree, from aid that intentionally required no accounting, and from outright illegal money laundering that former French presidents forbid prosecutors from pursuing. That was the French way.

Says Hollande: “Ça suffit!’

Endorsing the legal nit-picking that a number of progressive French NGOs have been doing for years (see one of the most prominent, Sherpa), Hollande has reversed French policy of nearly the last century.

France’s role in Africa has been huge. Twenty-three of Africa’s current 53 countries were French colonies (compared to only 18 for Great Britain) and the total 2010 per capita GDP in those countries is about a quarter greater than the former British colonies.

America tends to concentrate on the former British colonies like South Africa and Kenya, but France’s role especially in the big oil-producing countries has been huge.

For all the years since African independences in the 1960s and 1970s, French politicians have benefitted enormously from the growing wealth of their former colonies.

In direct contrast with the British, backroom deals and presidential waivers for regulation and other prosecution have developed an incorrigible relationship that has enormously increased corruption at the top, both in France and Africa.

That’s really changing, now.

Hollande is actively going after the “ill-gotten gains” of many African despots, and focused current attention on three: President Denis Sassou Nguesso of the Republic of Congo, President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea and the now-deceased President Omar Bongo of Gabon.

There are others. But these three have enormous financial holdings in France, and there is a good chance the French government will now prevail in taking those back.

It is an enormously positive step for the French to have taken.

Bon chance, Hollande!