Adrian Croft

[CROSSPOST blog: 30 post: 2198]

Original Post Text:

An expectant crowd packed the room on the 11th floor of London's City Hall, which has a spectacular view over Tower Bridge, for the announcement of the winner of this year's $5 million Ibrahim prize for achievement in African leadership.

The prize committee, including Mary Robinson, former U.N. high commissioner for human rights, and Salim Ahmed Salim, one-time secretary-general of the Organisation of African Unity, files in.

A hush falls over the room as former Botswana President Ketumile Masire goes to the podium to read the prize committee's statement. And the winner is ... nobody!

Although they had considered some "credible candidates", Masire said the committee could not select a winner for the prize which rewards former African leaders who set examples of democratic government.

Despite repeated questioning from journalists, neither Mo Ibrahim, the Sudanese-born telecommunications magnate who funded the world's richest individual award, nor any member of the prize committee would say why they had not awarded the prize for the first time in its three years of existence.

Unless the committee was so deeply divided it could not choose between several equally deserving candidates, which seems unlikely, the only possible explanation appears to be that none of the 11 or so African leaders who stepped down between 2006 and 2008 met the standard to win the Ibrahim prize.

Although Ibrahim denied it, that appears to be a snub to former presidents such as South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, Sierra Leone's Ahmed Tejan Kabbah and Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo, who all stepped down between 2006 and 2008 and therefore were eligible for the award.

Africa has well-documented problems with corruption. Six of the bottom 10 nations in watchdog Transparency International's 2008 Corruption Perceptions index were in Africa. Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, has long had to struggle with endemic corruption, shambolic infrastructure and weak regulation. Tanzania's anti-graft agency is set to bring two or three big cases to court soon as part of a drive against corruption that has already claimed several senior officials. A minister in Sierra Leone said in May he was running one of the most corrupt government departments in the country.

Despite the bad headlines, there have been glimmers of progress. Improvements in governance are often cited among reasons why the investment climate in Africa has been getting better.

The 2008 index of African Governance, released by Ibrahim's own foundation, said governance had improved in almost two thirds of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In this year's survey, Mauritius ranked first in Africa for governance, followed by Cape Verde and Seychelles.

Former World Bank governance head Daniel Kaufmann said recently that the global financial crisis would widen the gulf between countries in governance and corruption, with some states hastening reforms but others using economic distress to justify doing nothing. In Africa, he predicted a growing divide between troubled Kenya and countries like Ghana, Rwanda and Liberia, which were improving.

But are rich countries in Europe and North America in any position to preach to Africa on corruption or governance?

Britain, for example, has been riveted for months by tales of how its politicians spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money cleaning their swimming pools or repairing their tennis courts. In 2006, Britain's Serious Fraud Office dropped an investigation of allegations of bribery of Saudi Arabia officials in an arms deal. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair said the probe threatened national security.

Nevertheless, by refusing to say why they decided not to award the prize this year, the Ibrahim Foundation has squandered a great opportunity to highlight problems of poor governance in Africa. By being open and stating clearly that African leaders had fallen short of the standard required to win the prize, the committee could have focused attention on the problem of poor governance and started a debate about what to do about it.

Do you agree with the decision not to award the prize?

Do all African leaders who stepped down in the last three years fall short of the standard? Who do you think should have won it?

Is it a good idea to reward a leader with $5 million for doing the job they were expected to do?

An expectant crowd packed the room on the 11th floor of London's City Hall, which has a spectacular view over Tower Bridge, for the announcement of the winner of this year's $5 million Ibrahim prize for achievement in African leadership.

The prize committee, including Mary Robinson, former U.N. high commissioner for human rights, and Salim Ahmed Salim, one-time secretary-general of the Organisation of African Unity, files in.

A hush falls over the room as former Botswana President Ketumile Masire goes to the podium to read the prize committee's statement. And the winner is ... nobody!

Although they had considered some "credible candidates", Masire said the committee could not select a winner for the prize which rewards former African leaders who set examples of democratic government.

Despite repeated questioning from journalists, neither Mo Ibrahim, the Sudanese-born telecommunications magnate who funded the world's richest individual award, nor any member of the prize committee would say why they had not awarded the prize for the first time in its three years of existence.

Unless the committee was so deeply divided it could not choose between several equally deserving candidates, which seems unlikely, the only possible explanation appears to be that none of the 11 or so African leaders who stepped down between 2006 and 2008 met the standard to win the Ibrahim prize.

Although Ibrahim denied it, that appears to be a snub to former presidents such as South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, Sierra Leone's Ahmed Tejan Kabbah and Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo, who all stepped down between 2006 and 2008 and therefore were eligible for the award.

Africa has well-documented problems with corruption. Six of the bottom 10 nations in watchdog Transparency International's 2008 Corruption Perceptions index were in Africa. Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, has long had to struggle with endemic corruption, shambolic infrastructure and weak regulation. Tanzania's anti-graft agency is set to bring two or three big cases to court soon as part of a drive against corruption that has already claimed several senior officials. A minister in Sierra Leone said in May he was running one of the most corrupt government departments in the country.

Despite the bad headlines, there have been glimmers of progress. Improvements in governance are often cited among reasons why the investment climate in Africa has been getting better.

The 2008 index of African Governance, released by Ibrahim's own foundation, said governance had improved in almost two thirds of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In this year's survey, Mauritius ranked first in Africa for governance, followed by Cape Verde and Seychelles.

Former World Bank governance head Daniel Kaufmann said recently that the global financial crisis would widen the gulf between countries in governance and corruption, with some states hastening reforms but others using economic distress to justify doing nothing. In Africa, he predicted a growing divide between troubled Kenya and countries like Ghana, Rwanda and Liberia, which were improving.

But are rich countries in Europe and North America in any position to preach to Africa on corruption or governance?

Britain, for example, has been riveted for months by tales of how its politicians spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money cleaning their swimming pools or repairing their tennis courts. In 2006, Britain's Serious Fraud Office dropped an investigation of allegations of bribery of Saudi Arabia officials in an arms deal. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair said the probe threatened national security.

Nevertheless, by refusing to say why they decided not to award the prize this year, the Ibrahim Foundation has squandered a great opportunity to highlight problems of poor governance in Africa. By being open and stating clearly that African leaders had fallen short of the standard required to win the prize, the committee could have focused attention on the problem of poor governance and started a debate about what to do about it.

Do you agree with the decision not to award the prize?

Do all African leaders who stepped down in the last three years fall short of the standard? Who do you think should have won it?

Is it a good idea to reward a leader with $5 million for doing the job they were expected to do?

The Conservatives will get a chance to show they are ready for office at their annual conference in Manchester. After 12 years in opposition, the party could be on the verge of returning to power in an election due by next June.

Conservative leader David Cameron has said they will set out plans this week for reducing the country's gaping budget deficit and unveil a "massive" programme to cut unemployment.

Our team of reporters will be looking for details of what a Conservative government would hold in store and aim to give a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the conference. Comments are open so please share your thoughts and opinions!

Is soaking the rich the best way for Britain to dig itself out of the deep hole the public finances are in?

Labour seems to think so -- it will raise income tax on high earners to 50 percent from next April. The LibDems seem to think so too judging from Vince Cable's proposal for a tax on homes
worth a million pounds or more.

The attractions of such schemes to politicians are obvious.

It looks fair for those with the capacity to pay more to help fill the black hole in the public finances.

Such plans affect relatively small numbers of people and therefore are unlikely to cost many votes.

They satisfy a widespread thirst for revenge on wealthy bankers who are judged to have got us into this mess.

They are also classic examples of the law of unintended consequences.

Cable's proposed "mansion tax" prompted angry letters to The Times pointing out it would hit pensioners whose home was their main asset but who had only a small income.

While the LibDems estimated the tax would affect just 250,000 homeowners, they didn't bargain for opposition from millions more who dream of living in million-pound homes or who object to the principle of being taxed on a property you have worked hard to buy.

Some experts question whether Alistair Darling's planned 50 pence tax rate on people earning more than 150,000 pounds will bring in much extra revenue.

Higher taxes tend to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit and wealth creation that the country will desperately need as it struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in decades.

The TaxPayers' Alliance, which campaigns for lower taxes, argued in a report that the 50 pence rate would push the total tax burden on high earners to crippling levels, leading to fewer
entrepreneurs and jobs.

High taxes tend to fuel tax avoidance schemes and may encourage some high earners to leave the country, depriving the Treasury of their taxes altogether.

Darling's 50 pence tax, announced in this year's budget, was always seen of something of a trap for David Cameron's Conservatives. If they promised to scrap it, it would fuel Labour jibes that they are the party of the rich.

The Conservatives -- traditionally committed to cutting taxes -- say they would keep the 50 pence rate if they win the election, at least initially. However, Cameron told The Spectator magazine this weeek the tax could go "at an early stage" if it turns out to raise no extra revenue.

But it's not only the rich who are going to have to tighten their belts. The middle classes also look set to be clobbered.

The days of universal benefits, such as child benefits, may be numbered. Such benefits could in future be means-tested to help poorer families while abolishing them for the better-off.

With government borrowing set to hit a record 175 billion pounds this year, big spending cuts or tax rises, or more likely a combination of the two, will certainly be needed.

So far, the politicians have floated schemes that will not hurt many people, such as Cameron's pledge to scrap the national identity card scheme.

Big-ticket defence items, such as the replacement for the Trident or two planned aircraft carriers, could be vulnerable.

Schools Secretary Ed Balls has gone farthest in spelling out the scale of the cuts, saying he could save 2 billion pounds from the schools budget without damaging teaching quality.

While the politicians like to make out that there are painless ways to save billions, the fact is whatever steps they take are going to hit some group or social class harder than others.

That's why they are reluctant to detail the cuts or spell out the full extent of the belt-tightening that will be required before the election.

Even if they do give a glimpse of it before election day, expect more shocks and a rise in industrial action by affected workers once the next government is safely installed in office.

 Peter Mandelson gave a glimpse of Labour's strategy in the next election on Monday, trying to scare voters from choosing the Conservatives by forecasting they would take the country back to the harsh days of the early 1980s.

    The business secretary invoked former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her hardline ministers as he
sought to portray the modern Conservatives as unchanged from
their predecessors who broke the unions and shrunk the state in
Thatcher's Conservative revolution after 1979.

    In a speech to the Labour thinktank Progress, Mandelson
raised the spectre of figures loathed by the Left such as Norman
Tebbit, the Conservative cabinet minister famous for recounting
how his unemployed father had "got on his bike" to find work in
the 1930s.

    Mandelson's speech sounded like the opening salvo in the
phoney war leading up to the general election that Prime
Minister Gordon Brown must call by next June.

    Polls show Labour, whose decade of boom culminated in the
worst bust in post-war British history, has a mountain to climb
if it is to cling to power.

    In a shift of strategy, the Labour government now
acknowledges there will be pressures on public spending once
Britain is through the recession.

    Mandelson said Britain will have to "prioritise and
economise", contrasting this with the deep cuts he says the
Conservatives are eager to make.

    According to Mandelson, the Conservatives will cut public
spending if they win the next election not because the move has
been forced on them by the Labour government running up huge
debts, but because they are secretly itching to complete an
attack on public services started by Thatcher.

    His theory is that the Conservatives are relieved that the
economic crisis allows them to drop the modernising image they
have adopted under David Cameron.

    In fact, Mandelson's attack may reflect Labour alarm over
polls showing that Cameron's attempts to remake the Conservative
Party into a more caring party and shake off the old "nasty
party" image are having success with voters.

    Labour, traditionally seen as the defender of the National
Health Service, can no longer count on enjoying that position.

    A ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday last month
showed only 39 per cent of voters agreed that the NHS was safer
with Labour, while 47 per cent disagreed.

    That was despite the embarrassment Cameron suffered in
August over Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan's attack on the NHS.

    Despite promising cuts in public spending, the Conservatives
have pledged increases in NHS spending in real terms.

    Mandelson may also have been stung by Conservative shadow
chancellor George Osborne's bold claim last month that the
modern Conservative Party was now the dominant progressive force
in British politics.

    "Real reforms to public services, allied to a commitment to
fiscal responsibility, means cuts on the frontline can be
avoided and we can deliver more for less," Osborne said.

    A glance at recent speeches by Cameron's front-bench team
shows they have tackled social issues ranging from the need to
regenerate inner cities to tackling the causes of crime.

    That suggests Mandelson and his Labour colleagues may have
difficulty portraying Cameron's Conservatives as a reincarnation
of Thatcher's team.

Stopping off in New York during a marathon, 18,000-mile diplomatic offensive before next week’s G20 summit in London next week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recalled a conference held in eerily similar circumstances in London 76 years ago.

Sixty-six nations gathered for the June 1933 London Monetary and Economic Conference which was aimed at lifting the world’s economy out of the Depression.

But amid American opposition to European plans to return to a system of fixed exchange rates, the conference collapsed and the world put up trade barriers, jobless ranks swelled and the rise of Fascism took the world into war.

“There was no further progress other than a resort to protectionism for the rest of that decade,” Brown told a business audience during a five-day pre-summit tour that has taken him to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, New York, Brazil and Chile.

Brown must be hoping desperately that history will not repeat itself when he hosts a meeting of leading industrial and developing economies in London on April 2 to try to chart a way out of the worst global financial crisis since the 1930s.

Again there have been signs of transatlantic division in advance of the summit, with many Europeans resisting U.S. pressure for more fiscal stimulus to boost the economy, while the Europeans put the emphasis on tightening regulation of the financial sector.

Mirek Topolanek, prime minister of the Czech Republic which holds the current European Union presidency, was quoted this week as saying U.S. President Barack Obama’s huge economic stimulus plan was “the road to hell”.

Many countries are suspicious that their neighbours are resorting to protectionist policies to try to safeguard jobs at home.

Currency questions have caused friction between the United States and China, whose economies are now closely inter-dependent. Paul Volcker, a senior Obama adviser, gave short shrift to China’s proposal for a new world currency when asked about it at a New York roundtable with Brown this week.

Volcker said he understood restiveness about the “lopsided nature” of the current international monetary system but he said pointedly that the Chinese “didn’t have to buy those dollars in the first place”. A new international monetary system which suddenly devalued the dollar’s role was not practical, he said.

As Brown jetted around the world to bolster support for concerted action to lift the economy, he came up with a variety of ambitious and expensive proposals to revive trade and get the economy going again.

But he runs the risk of setting expectations for the London meeting too high, perhaps bringing crushing disappointment in its wake.

“If the G20 becomes a meeting just to set another meeting, we’ll be discredited and the crisis can deepen,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said at a press conference with Brown in Brasilia.

Brown’s G20 envoy, Mark Malloch-Brown, voiced similar fears earlier this month. "If indeed we get anodyne committee conclusions where all substance has been taken out of them, the markets on April 3 will be something of a disaster zone, I have no doubt," he said.

Brown has called for a doubling of IMF resources to $500 billion and for a $100 billion trade financing facility to help reverse a slide in exports. He has also called for an insurance policy for countries with big foreign currency reserves, such as China, so that they will feel able to use some of their reserves to boost the economy without fearing a run on their currencies.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who Brown met in New York, urged the G20 to support a $1 trillion stimulus plan for developing countries.

With so many other demands on their cash, it is doubtful that even the powerful G20 economies will be able to find the vast sums needed for all of these programmes.

The huge media focus on the gathering of Obama and other world leaders in London, and the big protests that are expected to accompany it, will only heighten the anticipation.

British officials are trying to dampen expectations that a big new fiscal stimulus package will be approved at the G20 summit, saying they do not expect countries to put their national budgets on the table next week and suggesting that the results of the summit will be seen over the next year, rather than on the day of the summit.

Harsh economic reality may also force Brown to rein in his own wish to pump more resources into the British economy.

While he was away cheerleading for the G20, events back home kept intruding.

First -- in a move one opposition lawmaker described as a “coup” -- Bank of England Governor Mervyn King warned the government on Tuesday that its soaring budget deficit meant it would have to be cautious about any new stimulus for the British economy.

On Wednesday a sale of British government bonds failed for the first time since 2002, sending a warning to Brown that the markets may balk at financing ever higher British government deficits.

Then on Friday, Brown was given a lesson in economic management by Chilean President Michelle Bachelet who described how the money Chile had put aside in good economic times had enabled it to pump more cash into the economy during the downturn.

Brown’s Conservatives opponents at home say this is exactly what he failed to do during the years of prosperity – reduce the budget deficit so he had more financial firepower to help people through a recession.

As his ambitions clash with harsh reality, Brown may have to lower his sights both for the G20 summit and for the British economy.

[Photo: Prime Minister Gordon Brown (L) listens to Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva during a news conference at the Alvorada Palace in Brasilia March 26, 2009. REUTERS/Roberto Jayme]

Gordon Brown has not had the best of luck since replacing Tony Blair as British prime minister a year ago. Now it seems Brown's bad luck has followed him overseas.

On a trip to Iraq and Israel this weekend, he had the misfortune to have U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama following hard on his heels -- and grabbing the lion's
share of media attention.

Obama, who has pledged to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if he wins the November election, arrived on Iraq on Monday, just two days after Brown's whirlwind tour of Baghdad and Basra. He is due to arrive in Israel just hours after Brown's plane took off on Monday to return to London.

Brown, known for his dour personality, could not compete in the charisma stakes with the senator from Illinois, the focus of intense interest as he makes his debut on the world stage with a tour of Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Left-leaning Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noting the lack of impact Brown's visit had made in Israel, sympathised with the British leader. "Visiting Israel in the same week that Obama is expected to arrive is like being the opening act for The Beatles," it said.

Obama fever has swept some of the countries he is due to visit as people there get a first close look at the politician who takes on Republican Senator John McCain in the race to succeed U.S. President George W. Bush in the White House.

Brown, on the other hand, has little novelty value because, while he is a relatively new prime minister, he spent a decade before that as finance minister and so is well known to many of the leaders and ministers he held talks with.

On the streets, though, Brown is not as well known as Blair, now an international Middle East envoy. "I knew Mr. Tony Blair before, but Brown -- I don't know what he's like," said Palestinian taxi driver Saddam Musa, 55.

The newspaper said there were other reasons for the little coverage given to Brown's visit, saying he lacked the political clout of former British leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

Brown, making his first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories as prime minister, was granted the honour on Monday of addressing the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, the first British leader to do so. He recalled how, as a child, he had watched film of Israel,
shot by his father, a Church of Scotland minister who learned Hebrew and regularly visited Israel.

Brown promised $60 million in new aid for the Palestinians and d said a Middle East peace deal was within reach, but his call on Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion was rebuffed by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Brown's message drew criticism from Israeli commentators.
"Unfortunately, he parroted conventional European Union wisdom, which assumes that the road to progress is paved only with further Israeli concessions and requires condemnation of the life-saving security barrier," The Jerusalem Post said on its website. "Nothing could be more counterproductive." The right-leaning newspaper was referring to the fence Israel has built on occupied Palestinian land which it says keeps suicide bombers out of its cities.

Haaretz said visiting leaders had developed a habit of comforting the Palestinians with financial aid while compensating the Israelis by recognising their right to live in
security and comfort. "Yesterday, it was the turn of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to contribute to this depressing ritual."

It said there was not much value in Brown's plan for an "economic road map" to boost the region's development as long as the West Bank was dissected by innumerable roadblocks.

Back in London, Brown will brief parliament on Tuesday on Britain's future role in Iraq and brace for Thursday's crucial parliamentary election in Glasgow East. Defeat in the Labour stronghold, seen as unlikely, could lead to Brown being forced to step down.

After that, he will barely have time to draw breath before Obama finally catches up with him. They are due to hold talks in London on Saturday.

For Gordon Brown on his U.S. trip it has been a case of when the cat is away the mice will play. While Brown was at the White House working to shore up the "special relationship" with President George W. Bush, rebellion broke out in Labour ranks at home.

First, Labour peer Lord Desai launched an extraordinary attack on Brown, telling the Evening Standard: "Gordon Brown was put on earth to remind people how good Tony Blair was."

Then it emerged that a junior member of Brown's government, Angela Smith, was threatening to resign over Brown's abolition of the 10 pence tax rate -- a move that many Labour MPs fear will hit the low-paid and hurt Labour in May 1 local elections.

Smith's on-off resignation was played out in real time on the 24-hour news channels. And just as Brown was about to give a news conference with Bush at the White House, news that Smith had told colleagues she was ready to quit broke.

The threat evidently caused consternation among Brown aides. A resignation of even such a junior minister when Brown was striding the world stage would have been hugely embarrassing.

There was silence from Smith's office for several hours as, behind the scenes, Brown got on the phone to Smith to persuade her to change her mind. Then Smith issued a statement saying:"Resignation of my post ... is not envisaged."

So have the rumblings of discontent over Brown been blown out of proportion during a quiet news week? Or does it signal that his 10-month-old premiership is in irreversible decline?

When parliament reopens on Monday, Brown faces a revolt among Labour backbenchers over the removal of the 10 pence tax rate and over Brown's controversial plans to extend the time terrorism suspects may be held from 28 to 42 days.

Brown may be forced to compromise on both issues if he is to avoid a humiliating parliamentary defeat.

More than 60 MPs, many of them Labour, have signed a parliamentary motion urging the government to change the tax system to make sure the low-paid pay less tax.

Brown's poll numbers are terrible. A Sunday Times poll this week showed the collapse in Brown's personal popularity ratings was worse even than the drop suffered by Neville Chamberlain after Hitler's invasion of Norway in 1940.

The Conservatives opened a 16-point gap over Labour in that poll, and worryingly for the government, are now consistently scoring above the 40 percent of the vote mark that could give them a breakthrough at the next general election.

To make matters worse for Brown the credit crunch has tarnished the reputation for economic competence that was his main trump card. A Financial Times poll this week showed Brown was less trusted than any other major western European leader in being able to steer his country through the financial whirlwind.

And Brown can't seem to buy any luck at the moment. After chafing in Blair's shadow during a decade of prosperity, the sub-prime crisis broke within months of Brown taking power, bringing down Northern Rock and sowing worries about job losses and falling house prices.

Brown even chose to visit the United States the same week that Pope Benedict was attracting huge crowds there, pushing the little known British leader into the shade.

The slide in their party's fortunes has unsettled Labour politicians, some of whom are beginning to pine for Blair's sure touch which won Labour three elections.

Lord Desai said Labour was on track for a "bad result" in the May 1 local elections. If Labour's Ken Livingstone loses the London mayoral race, "it would be absolutely traumatic for the party," he said.

Desai was quoted as saying that many senior figures in the party were already thinking about who will succeed Brown. However, most experts dismiss talk of a leadership
challenge any time soon.

Brown can claim some success from his U.S. trip. He appears to have firmed up the initially shaky relationship he struck up with Bush. And he scored an undisputed diplomatic triumph by arranging meetings with all three U.S. presidential candidates.

It was a sign of the importance they place on the U.S. relationship with Britain that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain found space in their busy schedules for strictlyequal, 45-minute meetings with Brown.

Brown must hope he can carry as much weight with his own restive backbenchers.