View previous stories
	Don’t mention the "C"-word by Global Witness, Transparency International   May 2013   Don’t mention the "C"-word, by Simon Taylor.   At Global Witness, we have been writing about corruption for nearly 20 years. We like to name the political leaders, banks and companies that have been guilty of it, revealing the systems that facilitate it. But for many diplomats, news organisations and even other campaign groups, it’s a word that’s hard to utter.   Global Witness has recently been investigating a series of scandals in Africa, where Western companies have hopped into bed with senior figures from the political elite to secure precious mining and oil assets. It is very difficult to prove corruption in all cases, of course, but even in these cases we do have enough evidence to speak about the high risk of corruption at the very least.   But time and again in the news, it is recounted that we are concerned over “transparency” – not corruption. Newspapers will say there “is no suggestion of wrongdoing,” when clearly there is. Radio interviewers will instruct us that, if we do talk about corruption, not to mention any company by name. Recently, after raising concerns about the possibility of corruption related to a major Nigerian oil-field acquisition at the AGM of the Italian oil company Eni, we faced what can only be described as a media blackout there. Apart from one article in La Repubblica, the rest of the journalists simply presented the company’s annual results as if we had been invisible.   Fellow campaign groups find it hard to speak the “C” word too. Some say it is better to work in partnership with companies, rather than naming and shaming them. But as we have found in our investigations, these so-called ‘partners’ are often some of the worst perpetrators.   Imagine if the same reluctance was applied to human rights abuses. A massacre is perpetrated in plain view of diplomats, journalists and international campaigners – and the most that is reported is that “shots were fired” but “there was no suggestion of wrongdoing.” This would be not only grossly irresponsible, it would allow the perpetrators to get off scot-free and make further atrocities more likely.   I would suggest that a failure to report on corruption, or the risks of corruption, in the face of strong evidence is arguably as great a failing. Grand corruption and state looting - the kind that leaches entire countries of a sizeable chunk of their GDP - makes already poor populations desperate, often denying all prospects for development. Whole generations end up without access to education, and healthcare and sanitation become unaffordable luxuries. Disease spreads and people die of malnourishment.   Keeping silent on corruption means the problem will never be tackled. Talking about it only in generalities and never in specifics achieves nothing beyond empty promises.   Campaigners who fear turning the public off development aid are shooting themselves in the foot: not talking about corruption only makes matters worse. Taxpayers are rightly outraged when they learn that billions of dollars are being spent on development aid to countries, where leaders steal their countries’ resources. A feeling that this behaviour has been hidden from them will only deepen the resentment.   Given the secret nature of corruption, it is usually impossible for anyone but law enforcement to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. So, one must be prepared to talk about the risks of corruption. For example, if in country x, the president’s wife is found to have routinely been granted a 50% shareholding in every oil deal struck over a five-year period, the risks of corruption would be glaringly obvious - even without a tape-recorded conversation or a bank account statement providing incontrovertible evidence. Waiting for the smoking gun will mean that corruption will remain unchallenged or that it will be allowed to continue for far too long, destroying countless lives in the meantime, and sometimes tearing countries apart.   Earlier this month the Africa Progress Panel, led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, published a report looking at how Africa could capitalise fully on its oil and mining assets. The report discussed the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo, describing how the country lost a minimum of $1.36 billion over a three-year period due to the undervaluation of state assets in sales to opaque offshore companies. That is about twice the country’s annual health and education spending combined.   Global Witness has expressed further concerns over these deals, arguing in detailed briefings that the assets may have been obtained through corruption – something that is vigorously disputed by the companies concerned. Now one of those companies, the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), is under investigation by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in what is emerging as one of the London Stock Exchange’s biggest corporate scandals. It has been reported that the SFO is zeroing in on at least one of the Congo deals in question.   Given the huge sums involved for one of the world’s poorest nations, it was clearly important that we raised the corruption risks surrounding the deals. Now the SFO can seek disclosure from companies, banks and everyone else involved to get to the bottom of the matter. If no one spoke up, figures in the Congolese elite and international companies would be freer to carry on with business as usual, without anyone poking their noses in.   The British government, which is emerging as Congo’s biggest aid donor, has said nothing about this controversy. The International Monetary Fund has been outspoken on transparency in Congo but studiously avoids talking publicly about corruption risks, thus stopping short of dealing with the core issues.   Despite the silence from many quarters, the matter is finally being investigated in the DRC. Meanwhile, fear of mentioning the “C” word means that many other countries are being leached of their wealth without a peep. http://www.globalwitness.org/   May 2013   Arms trade, foreign bribery and the role of the state: can we square the circle, by Nicola Bonucci.   On April 2, the United Nations General Assembly adopted an important Arms Trade Treaty, whose object and purpose is to “establish the highest possible common international standards for regulating or improving the regulation of the international trade in conventional arms and prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and prevent their diversion.”   This treaty - the first of its kind - is certainly a step forward, but it is also a missed golden opportunity in a number of respects, notably in the fight against international bribery, as it does not contain any real anti-corruption measures with respect to export control.   The only explicit reference to corruption in the treaty is to be found in article 11, on “Diversion,” but it is a very weak one. There is also no reference to bribery in article 7 (on “Export and Export Assessment”) in spite of the numerous anti-bribery conventions adopted since the mid-90s and in spite of pressure from NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Transparency International. It is even more striking and depressing to note that previous drafts did in fact contain such references to corruption… therefore, we are not facing an omission but a deliberate silence.   Is this surprising? I am afraid the answer is no. In fact, it would have been surprising to find any such provision in the final text of treaty.   Arms trade is certainly one of the areas more prone to corruption, but it is also very lucrative, and very tightly and quietly controlled by states, be they on the supply side or the demand side. While there are no official figures available, most estimates of annual sales of arms have risen to around $50 to 60 billion in recent years.   Nobody, therefore, has any interest in rocking the boat, as recently noted by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who - while referring to allegations of bribes paid by an Italian company to India government officials to secure a helicopter contract - said, “Bribes are a phenomenon that exists and it’s useless to deny the existence of these necessary situations when you are negotiating with third world countries and regimes.”   The sad reality is that arms trade deals are quasi-government-to-government contracts, that are protected by national security and foreign policy considerations and that are very difficult to investigate and prosecute.   The adoption of an arms trade treaty with a powerful anti-bribery provision would have signaled the world’s commitment to the fight against transnational bribery in all circumstances, and an encouragement for all who believe in it.   However, in spite of having been adopted on April 2 and not on April 1, the arms trade treaty sadly looks like a fools’ day joke!   * Nicola Bonucci is the director of legal affairs for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).   http://www.ti-defence.org/publications/799-why-a-robust-arms-trade-treaty-needs-strong-anti-corruption-mechanisms   May 10, 2013   Transparency International says now is the time for G7 Finance Ministers to act against financial secrecy.   Transparency International called on Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from the Group of Seven leading economies (G7) meeting in London this week to create greater transparency across the financial sector and put an end to a system that allows the corrupt to hide behind secret bank accounts.   UK Prime Minister David Cameron has taken the lead in pushing for greater cross-border sharing of financial information, noting that the current state of affairs damages individuals, societies and economic development. This is an important step but must be accompanied by action to force hidden corporate structures into the light.   “Too many people have been able to hide behind a secret bank account far beyond the reach of justice. The world is expecting G7 countries to do more to finally increase financial stability, restore trust and prevent money laundering,” said Transparency International Chair Huguette Labelle. “Transparency can shed light on the illicit flows that too often sidestep investigators.”   Transparency International called on Ministers of Finance from G7 countries to eliminate secrecy surrounding the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts. Governments must make existing company registers accessible to regulators, financial institutions, and the public. Today, information on beneficial ownership is provided by only 4 EU Member State business registers (Estonia, Italy, Romania & Slovenia).   Corporate structures and financial mechanisms in ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ disguise the proceeds of corruption and organised crime. Finding out who ultimately profits from these mechanisms - the question of beneficial ownership - is central to efforts to close down this avenue for ill-gotten gain.   G7 governments can build further momentum by encouraging more countries to join the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information and the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, and support the automatic exchange of financial information. 10 EU countries have taken such steps in recent weeks, but implementation is key.   G8 Heads of State will meet in Northern Ireland on June 17-18 2013 under pressure from civil society to tackle opacity across the global banking system to help prevent another devastating financial and economic crisis. Visit the related web page
	Tibet faces a severe human crisis by Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy Tibet   June 2013   China: End Involuntary Rehousing, Relocation of Tibetans. (Human Rights Watch)   The Chinese government is subjecting millions of Tibetans to a policy of mass rehousing and relocation that radically changes their way of life, and about which they have no say, Human Rights Watch said in a new report published today.   Since 2006, under plans to “Build a New Socialist Countryside” in Tibetan areas, over two million Tibetans have been “rehoused” – through government-ordered renovation or construction of new houses – in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), while hundreds of thousands of nomadic herders in the eastern part of the Tibetan plateau have been relocated or settled in “New Socialist Villages.”   The 115-page report, “‘They Say We Should Be Grateful’: Mass Rehousing and Relocation in Tibetan Areas of China,” documents extensive rights violations ranging from the absence of consultation to the failure to provide adequate compensation, both of which are required under international law for evictions to be legitimate. The report also addresses defects in the quality of the houses provided, absence of remedies for arbitrary decisions, failures to restore livelihoods, as well as a disregard for autonomy rights nominally guaranteed by Chinese law in Tibetan areas.   “The scale and speed at which the Tibetan rural population is being remodeled by mass rehousing and relocation policies are unprecedented in the post-Mao era,” said Sophie Richardson, China director. “Tibetans have no say in the design of policies that are radically altering their way of life, and – in an already highly repressive context – no ways to challenge them.”   The authorities in the Tibet Autonomous Region have announced plans to further rehouse and relocate more than 900,000 people by the end of 2014.In Qinghai province, on the eastern part of the Tibetan plateau, the authorities have relocated and settled 300,000 nomadic herders since the early 2000s, and have announced their intent to turn an additional 113,000 nomads into sedentary dwellers by the end of 2013. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/27/china-end-involuntary-rehousing-relocation-tibetans   29 May 2013   Tibet faces a severe human crisis, by Kiran Mohandas Menon.   Since 2009, more than 100 Tibetans have set themselves on fire, protesting the policies and actions of the Chinese government. These are acts of resistance, caused by the desperation of members of an ancient civilization.   Forty four years ago, Jan Palach, a twenty-year-old Czech student set himself alight in Prague’s historic Wenceslas square. Palach was protesting the Soviet occupation of the nation and the inactivity and what he saw as acceptance by his fellow countrymen of its consequences. The shock and anger that his act invoked lingered on as Czechoslovaks protested against the Communist regime, which finally collapsed after the non violent “Velvet Revolution” of 1989, under the leadership of the late Vaclav Havel.   Six years earlier, in Vietnam, Thich Quang Duc, a Mahayana Buddhist monk, sat himself in a meditative pose in a busy road in Saigon and set himself alight. His act was in protest of President Ngo Dinh Diem’s religiously oppressive policies and persecution of Buddhists. President Kennedy would later describe a photograph of the event taken by Malcolm Browne as “having generated more emotion around the world than any other news picture in history”.   Since 2009, more than 100 people have set themselves on fire in Tibet, most of them calling for ‘freedom’ for their region from Chinese rule and for the safe return of their spiritual leader, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, who is currently in exile in India. These are acts of resistance, caused by the desperation of members of a civilization with ancient roots which is declining and, in some ways, on the verge of disappearance.   But despite the severe and drastic nature of their actions, nothing of note has changed in Tibet, with the People’s Republic of China’s immediate reaction to most of these incidents being merely to suppress the flow of information. Reports state that Chinese troops often surround the houses of the deceased, preventing villagers and monks from entering the household to conduct traditional religious rituals. Local regions are then threatened that funding and support will be stopped if such acts occur again.   So what is it that drives these generally young men and women to make the ultimate sacrifice?   Despite the international attention that has made Tibet part of popular culture, the country’s real nature and ethos still remain largely misunderstood. In a sense Tibet remains a terra incognita. The Tibet of popular perception may have been a land of ‘enlightened’ monks, ancient monasteries and time-honoured beliefs, but the real Tibet was also a land of nomads and grasslands.   The Chinese government"s historical policies to forcibly remove these Tibetan nomads from their grasslands and ‘resettle’ them elsewhere has deprived them of their traditional way of living, leaving many of these families impoverished.   Further, despite considerable effort by the Chinese authorities to ‘demonize’ the Dalai Lama, he still remains the ultimate authority for the majority of Tibetans. This is exemplified by young Tibetan men and women who risk their lives calling for his return despite the fact that they’ve not even met him. Yet, it still remains a crime to possess photographs of the fourteenth Dalai Lama in the Tibet Autonomous Region.   The massive influx of skilled labourers from elsewhere and the changing social fabric of the region have led to most Tibetans being economically marginalised in their own land.   Today, more ethnic Chinese occupy the Tibet Autonomous Region than ethnic Tibetans. The culture and identity of a nation is being killed, a sort of mental ‘cleansing’, aimed at ‘integrating’ Tibet into the modern Chinese way of functioning, driven by political propaganda.   The days of Hu Yaobang, the Chinese politician who aimed to introduce liberal policies regarding Tibet and Tibetans, particularly the use of their language and protection of their culture, are long gone. Yaobang faced opposition from inside the Chinese Communist Party and was made to resign from his post. Student led demonstrations after his death culminated in the notorious June Fourth incident in Tiananmen Square in 1989.   For now, a land with a complex history faces a severe human crisis. A tragic combination of helplessness and ignorance by the international community has resulted in the people and culture of an ancient land being left to burn.   * Kiran Mohandas Menon is a law student at India’s National University of Advanced Legal Studies.   http://www.freetibet.org/news-media/na/full-list-self-immolations-tibet   http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/18/china-benefit-masses-campaign-surveilling-tibetans   Feb 2013   Lhakar: proud to be Tibetan, by Fiona McConnell and Tenzin Tsering.   Tibet has once again become the centre of international attention after a wave of self-immolations. Beyond these tragic acts, Tibetans are looking for new forms of protest against Chinese rule, such as Lhakar, a weekly celebration of Tibetan traditions.   Tibet has returned to international headlines in recent months in the most tragic of ways. Since 2009, 92 Tibetans have set themselves on fire in protest at repressive Chinese policies. Each has called for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet and freedom for their homeland. At least 76 of these individuals are known to have died. The majority of these cases have taken place in Tibetan areas of Sichuan province where Chinese authorities have been restricting religious freedom by forcing monks to participate in ‘patriotic education sessions’ and to renounce the Dalai Lama. To date China’s response to these courageous acts has been to crack down further on the Tibetan populations in areas where these self-immolations have been happening, and to offer financial rewards to informants on possible future self-immolations.   Whilst these tragic forms of protest have, for the time being, caught a degree of international attention, they are far from being the only form of resistance emerging within Tibet in recent years. An increasingly important, yet subtle and undramatic form of resistance, is a non-violent grassroots cultural movement which is known as ‘Lhakar’.   Tracing the emerging Lhakar movement   A growing number of Tibetans are, every Wednesday, reclaiming and embracing their Tibetan identity and making a political statement by wearing traditional clothes, speaking Tibetan eating in Tibetan restaurants, reciting Tibetan prayers and buying from Tibetan-owned businesses. Though in many ways these activities and practices are nothing new – Tibetans have long taken pride in their language and culture – the labeling of such activities as ‘Lhakar’ and the now global spread of this movement is both novel and significant.   Translating as ‘White Wednesday’ in reference to the Dalai Lama’s soul day, Lhakar can be traced to a series of incidents around the awarding of the Congressional Gold Award to the Dalai Lama in 2007. Communications were received in the Tibetan exiled ‘capital’, Dharamsala, northern India, from a group of individuals from Amdo (Eastern Tibet, now part of Qinghai province) detailing a series of simple cultural practices which were to be observed on Wednesdays.   A formal ‘Lhakar Pledge’ was posted on a Tibetan blog in June 2010 which set out the following ways that Tibetans can assert their identity each week: (This blogpost has since been taken down by the Chinese authorities, but not before screen shots were taken and the pledge translated and replicated on exile blogs such as this one.)   I am Tibetan, from today I will speak pure Tibetan in my family. I am Tibetan, from today I will speak pure Tibetan whenever I meet a Tibetan. I am Tibetan, from today I will remind myself every day that I am a Tibetan till I die. I am Tibetan, from today I will wear only Tibetan traditional dress, chuba, every Wednesday.   I am Tibetan, from today I will speak only Tibetan every Wednesday. I am Tibetan, from today I will learn Tibetan language. I am Tibetan, from today I will stop eating meat and only eat a vegetarian diet and gain more merit every Wednesday. I am Tibetan, from today I will only use Tibetan and speak Tibetan when I call or send a message to Tibetans.   A range of motivations for the emergence of the Lhakar movement have been articulated, including economic marginalisation of Tibetans within Tibet, political repression, and the active erosion of Tibetan cultural and religious practices. Central to the latter is the issue of Tibetan language which is increasingly being replaced by Chinese as the medium of instruction in schools across the Tibetan plateau.   General consensus amongst Tibet watchers and scholars is that resistance to Chinese rule in Tibet took the form of armed resistance from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s, and was then dominated by non-violent, clergy-led protest from the late 1980s to the present. The latter has, until 2008, predominantly taken the form of street protests. However, since the Chinese authorities increased their military presence in Tibet to deter such protests after the widespread uprising in spring 2008, Tibetans have adapted their forms of resistance. The small, weekly actions and cultural practices of Lhakar are a key alternative form of protest. However, what remains the same is that these are driven by individual Tibetans in Tibet rather than pronouncements from spiritual and political leaders.   Given its focus on individual, everyday actions, it is almost impossible to assess the scale of Lhakar and to attribute ownership to a particular group or individual. However when scores, if not hundreds of individuals are doing these actions, their cumulative effect can be compelling. There have been reports of Tibetans in towns in Nangchen county, eastern Tibet, boycotting Chinese vegetable vendors, monks in Sershul Monastery, Sichuan province seeking to protect their mother tongue by fining everyone a Yuan for every Chinese word they use and some Tibetan restaurants in Zorge, Sichuan province, only taken orders for food ordered in Tibetan language. The fact that it is hard for the Chinese authorities to criminalise, arrest or prevent an individual for speaking a particular language, wearing an item of clothing or eating certain food, epitomises both the ingenuity and simplicity of Lhakar.   This assertion of Tibetanness is clearly articulated as Tibetans marking themselves out as distinct from a Chinese cultural and national identity and includes a renaissance in Tibetan music, art and literature. And this unity has, in recent months, extended to the Tibetan community in exile.   With stories of Lhakar activities trickling out of Tibet and being circulated online, members of the diaspora have recently been echoing these practices in their own communities. These include holding candle-lit vigils on Wednesday evenings, wearing Tibetan dress to school, speaking to friends and family in Tibetan and cooking Tibetan food. Lhakar has also been publically promoted by the exile Tibetan Prime Minister, Lobsang Sangay.   Lhakar is a dynamic, innovative and distinctly Tibetan movement. It offers an opportunity for hope and optimism in a situation which continues to be dominated by repression and tragedy.   * Tenzin Tsering is a research officer at the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, Dharamsala, India. Fiona McConnell is a Research Fellow at Trinity College, University of Cambridge. Visit the related web page
	View more stories