Opinion: President Akufo-Addo message on development is what the world needs!

Yesterday, the Ghanian President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo addressed the Press together with the French President Macron. As he did this he asked serious questions about governance and development. Akufo-Addo proved with brilliance what many people are saying about the African continent, but isn’t heard from the people in power. Akufo Addo actually wants like all other sovereign states to be charging his own people for the services they are getting and not handouts from strangers abroad. That isn’t noble, that is Statesmanship and responsibility. As he don’t want aid, but trade. The President wants Ghana to make it on its own and with its own resources, instead of billing the tab from afar.

All nations and all presidents should seek this paradigm. His own words are powerful and it is needed, in times when states are either addicted to aid or borrowing funds at levels that are destroying the economies. These words and shift should be taken by all states who are used to aid. So they can prepare their citizens and their institutions to be built. So that governance and the government can deliver services to their public.

“Addressing a press conference with France President Emmanuel Macron during the latter’s one-day working visit to Ghana on Thursday, President Akufo- Addo said African countries cannot continue to make policies based on the support the Western world can give. He said, “Our responsibility to charter a path which is about how we can develop our nations ourselves. It is not right for a country like Ghana, 60-years after independence to still have its health and education budget being financed on the basis of the generosity and charity of European taxpayers” (…) “We need to have a mindset that says we can do it… and once we have that mindset we’ll see there’s a liberating factor for ourselves,” he said. Akufo-Addo said the only way Africa can stop its young men and women from migrating to other countries to seek greener pastures is to put in place systems that work. “We want to have those energies working inside our countries and we are going to have those energies if we begin to build systems that tells the young people of our country that their hopes, the opportunities are right here with us,” he stressed” (…) “Our concern should be with what we need to do in this 21st century to move Africa away from being cup-in-hand and begging for aid, for charity and for handouts,” he said” (Ghanaweb, 2017).

I’m European, I don’t care what Macron said or wanted to say after hearing Akufo-Addo speech. It was powerful and needed. The words that is expressed and the needed shift is there. Not that charity or aid should automatically stop. But the world, the leaders and the states themselves. Needs to find their way to sustain and develop mechanism for collecting revenue and also tax properly services. Secondly, needs proper guidelines and institutions to sufficiently create growth and stagger inflation. Combined with investment in not only extraction and producing crops, but also create products with it. So that the state don’t only get the low value export, but get refined and developed products on the world market. That isn’t an easy fix and has been tampered-on ever since independence and the world order hasn’t made it better too.

Initially, the power lays in the hands of the leadership. In the hands of people Akufo-Addo and others. Who can leave behind institutions and markets, that can leave behind educated and industries that brings wealth not only to a chosen few, but to the GDP of their respective nations. While stopping the current fix and re-up of more aid donations and charity from European taxpayers.

I hope that the African leadership are listening to this and actually follows this. To be truly independent. Be developed and generate the wealth the African people deserve and the stability of institutions it also should create to prosper. Maybe, not leadership as western-democracies, but in states and elected leadership that takes responsibility and uses the skills and resources for the benefit of all citizens. Not only for corporate citizens, but all of them. Building states and building democracies where the people and state are working for a common-goal. The betterment and changing today for the future. Not awaiting handouts from Berlin, Paris or London. The Ghanaian republic deserve this, they deserve to handle on their own, all former colonies and former protectorate deserves this. Just like the European republics and kingdoms are responsible for their own finances and economy. They are not awaiting funds from China or US to save them…

The same we should wish to say about African state, who are begging for donors and loans to fill the void of own taxation and revenue. Therefore, the speech from President Akufo-Addo deserves credit, not because he is African and wants to get rid of the hands-out. But because he speaking the truth in general. Every single statesman on planet earth, should work for this goal, no matter which continent and whatever country they are running. It doesn’t matter, all citizens and states should work for this common goal that President Akufo-Addo speaks off. Also, European Nations that are struggling with debt and with deficit like Greece and Italy, should also work for this goal and not be saved by other institutions. This is a world-wide issue, not only on the African continent. Peace.

Reference:

Ghanaweb – ‘Africa must stop depending on foreign aid – Akufo-Addo’ (03.12.2017) link: https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Africa-must-stop-depending-on-foreign-aid-Akufo-Addo-606111

Opinion: The rich are so poor nowadays!

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

Well, this time in history will be remembered, in the times that the multi-national corporations have most of them fled their regional scenes and put their headquarters and main operations into tax havens. Therefore, with this in mind, the states and republics that actually is where they make the profits get less tax and get fewer monies to spend on public services. That does not make them poor, but smart someone might say. This is legal and the openness of the economies let them do it, but to be frank, we should question this big giant corporations for their fleeing fortunes abroad.

The corporations are not alone in all of this, the rich people themselves cannot sustained this, they cannot afford to pay reasonable taxes, and they need tax-relief so they can salvage their Monte Carlo and their Lamborghini’s. They have their massive mansions and stalls of cars, but cannot pay the percentages on the tax as ordinary working-class do. In addition, the working-class use decades on end to pay down the mortgage on the house and loan on their Ford Fiesta. If they can even afford a house and a car at his point.

The American enterprise and experience is really seeing it, as they plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, because the wealthy are too broke or to selfish to help the working-class who made them rich. That the working-class and industrial worker are falling behind as new schemes to outrun their possibilities. The corporations and the believers of free economies want more flexibility, but do not give equal wages or compensations. Therefore, the loser in the transactions are the workers and not the companies. Secondly, the states earn less without added productivity.

It is naive that the businesses care about other things than the bottom-line is vicious, like the wealthy have the capacity to share the spoils, which they have earned on the commoners and the citizens. Therefore, the spoils, which in some industries entails sweatshop workers and exports to the Western hemisphere with grand profits for the clothing and appeal giants. Something that the workers in Bangladesh or Pakistan doesn’t see anything delivered back, than a filthy industrial complex and possible health hazards for their hours work on end for a lousy T-shirts.

The others are the ones who are doing mining and extraction for the technology and IT businesses that has no issues with the illegal and militias taking controls over mining fields and black-market trading of rare earth minerals or cobalt for that matter. As long as the giant companies trading computers, smart-phones and whatnot get their profits. Certainly, the CEO and other leaders in the corporations should worry of the implications and the lives destroyed while their businesses are earning loads of monies. There should be some sort of certification of the weak trading points; if they knowingly paid, some of the monies on technology could fund militias and illegal armed conflicts.

This is real poverty, that we have systems, salary structures and imports that hurt local areas, while the businesses earn fortunes, that again is flying on the merry to a tax haven in the pacific through a shell-company set-up by lawyers in Panama. In addition, this is legal and just, by law and in society. That the same companies telling their workers that they cannot afford more wages, since they have to stack millions upon millions in the British Virgin Island. So that the shareholders and stakeholders can earn profits for the toils and sweat of fellow workers.

So when I hear that the workers cannot ask for bigger salaries, while the states and republics create tax-holidays and tax-breaks, incentives for “investments” while the big-men are doling away vast fortunes in the middle of the day. Like a legal heist, a theft of both tax and salary, the salaries that could be used more in the system to gain growth, and secondly the added tax that could build roads and infrastructure that the company could need. However, hey, we do not need proper roads and wages, as long as the rich can travel to Monaco and St. Tropez whenever they feel like it. We are foolish to think otherwise!

When you hear that the rich has to get tax-breaks and their taxes cut, know that they are poor in spirit and heart. They may have vast fortunes and riches, but their hearts are empty. They do not see the problems of the day-to-day basis of the ones creating their empires. They do not see the people who buys their labeled products and services. They only see the bottom-line, the empty shells companies’ accounts and the schemes to hide the monies. That is because these wealthy people are so poor; they cannot afford to be like the rest of us.

The wealthy are so poor, they are so poor that they have to avoid taxes or pay taxes, because if they were paying taxes they would be like us. They would have the same responsibilities and have the same understanding of welfare and public services. Therefore, since they do not need the public service, they can afford to travel abroad for health-care; they can afford to send their kids to private schools and can afford to import goods. Then they do not need the support and the base line of the republic or the state. Like you and I do. Therefore, with that in mind, which is why they are so poor. Their poverty is in the mind and in their spirit; they cannot be a part of us, because they want to shield themselves from us. Still, earning our monies and taking our cheap labor, no problem!

This poor people need help, they need guidance, their riches might fall out of their hands, might be lost in coup d’état or worse than they get bankrupt. Than they need the states to salvage their business or their bank, with our tax-monies, without any hesitation, but when it was booming. That was the time they had no need of paying taxes or paying amends to the state through the regulations. Like we do and pay for our right to live and use the needed services of the states.

In these interesting times of ours, we have the riches seeking to pay-less, while the working-class is footing the bills or trying too. While the republics and states make it harder for public service and make it more expensive to pay for the needed services. This are all made in the hands of the wealthy and the multi-national corporations, without considering the implications of the commoner, the working-class nor the middle-class that are all sinking on the behalf of the rich. Certainly, the belief that the trickle-down economy should be a project avoided, but to many still have faith in the paradigm. While very, few have any social mobility or have the capacity to go from one class to the next. Peace.

Opinion: It is easy to trigger missiles, but not easy to find sustainable solutions to the Syrian civil-war!

Aleppo, Syria

“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” – Ernest Hemingway

Now that for the Second time that the President of United States orders attacks on foreign soil, we can wonder, what sort of effect this will have. The broader sense is that President Donald Trump tries to prove his point and that he is right. He would not have pulled the trigger if he thought he was wrong. Even if he has no knowledge of what the consequences of his actions.

We can know for certain know after the bombings in Syria and the Military Operations in Yemen, know that the intelligence or the efforts are sporadic and will be only with his judgement, not with a sense of the aftermath of his action. He do not seem to have the mental capacity to continue a long pattern of similar behavior neither also to sustain the ability to understand the complexity of the warfare in either Iraq, Syria or Yemen.

Therefore, the response that so many justifies will open up new wormholes and new problems that the President has to undue or fix. Therefore, with this in mind, the President has to and need to address. Not just, pull another gun and fix another rocket. That cannot change or significantly alter the scenario in these countries, as the allies and the other counterparts has agendas on their own. Certainly, something that should have be considered before the blasts, but seems far-fetched today. Therefore, with this in mind, the Trump Administration has a lot of responsibility since they have effectively now put their stakes into the conflicts.

So the United States have now more responsibility, neither if the issue is Bashar Al-Assad government, Islamic State insurgency or the White Helmets, nor any other affiliated group that create havoc, even if the Russian sponsored government create massive amounts of atrocities. The reality in Syria is that US government cannot just blame Russia, Turkey or anyone internally, as the Presidential Decree has now clearly used their weapons.

The order to bomb the airport and violate the airspace clearly indicates the newfound trigger-happy President that is in Washington. That President Trump do not think of the consequences is clear and will show with coming time. President Trump will not reconsider or properly evaluate the evidence on the ground, as he never conceded his loss when the faulty towers approach to Yemen earlier in the year.

 

So know that State Secretary Rex Tillerson will carry the water of the President, as all allies will do to, to please the current leadership, even if the ending is wrong and historians will see the operation as pointless. Did we learn anything by these actions; I doubt it, since the only end game is more death and destruction. Certainly, the victims, the civilians in Syria will beg to differ, the refugees that cannot even get into safe-haven in United States, should feel betrayed, that the President who stops them from entering their shores can blow their country into pieces.

The civil war that has lasted for 6 years, which has been bloody, where the United States, United Nations, Turkey and Russia, have not solved, neither has the parties inside Syria. There are no indications that this will create anything better between the ones who invest in the civil war. If you learn anything from history, the involvement of external powers inside the civil war in Spain in the 1930s.

“A war when more children and women die than grown armed men is a very dirty war.” – UN Special Advisor for Syria Jan Egeland.

There is clearly evidence of what the UN Special Advisor claims, as the chemical warfare of the Assad regime isn’t positive, still the Trump paradigm will not change the pattern on the ground. Since the Trump ways of solving issues is sporadic and unclear, not like he going to invest his time and efforts to understand the complexity, not that he is interested to listen to advice. If he did so, he wouldn’t just send a few tomahawk missiles towards an airfield, but actually make a difference. It is easy for big-men to pull the trigger and destroy something.

There is time for Trump Administration to figure out how they want to deal and maneuver inside the civil-war in Syria. Triggering a few missiles will not make more damage than has already happen, towns, village and cities are already bombed into dust, fleeing Syrians citizens are on the outside of the Republic and the leadership, which needs a change. That is well-known as the six years of conflict hasn’t created anything positive inside Syria. Therefore, Trump could have known better, but his ego stands in the way.

Time to consider and reconsider, the added deaths and bombs won’t create anything, the ammunition and bloodshed from either military groups will not show the world… that there are a solution or anyone who will govern or give ways to peace. There are enough people who has died, enough people who fled the Republic, while the internal battles continues. The innocent always dies in the war and certainly the missiles from the United States killed a few of those. Not that this defends the chemical warfare of Assad, but all bloodshed should be condemn.

Trump, the President of United States, the Commander-In-Chief has now ordered to military operations outside of the United States, these will prove his army capabilities and his use of intelligence, as he is more on the ego of himself, more than on the results of his actions. President Trump cannot say he has made a difference in either Syria or Yemen, the problems are still there and the operations has only made temporary bloodshed, not made significant change on the ground.

If Trump does that, he will invest troops, get use of locals and strategic military intelligence instead of sporadic sending battalions and missiles. That will not make the wished end game that the Syrians nor the Yemeni people deserves. That is if he cares about their lives and their future, because I doubt he cares about anyone else, than himself. Peace.

PepsiCo ‘moments content’ ad were trivializing real-life demonstrations!

“…they’re weak, petty, so apathetic about this gift of life as if it were all a mere Pepsi commercial.” – Marisha Pessl

We live in interesting times, where a soft-drink company’s advertisement can spark this sort of outrage, I wonder if people could have used this anger against the brutality and the violence around the world, when it comes to government sponsored authorities. I wonder, because this sort of act of discontinued discussions usually appears in culture, when there are something real behind it.

That it was, it was something real, the Pepsi Corporation together with a marketing company went together and made a fake ‘Black Lives Matter’ protest, but instead trying to say, “We will bring harmony to the world if you listen to Skip Marley’s and drinks Pepsi Coke!” Yeah, brother!

Well, the ad is trivializing the protest movements and their demonstrations, that is clear, making it seem so simple, while everyone around is drinking and giggling on the Pepsi. The way they have made it is with such flair and so look like it is a manufactured reality, which it seems that there should not be any police brutality when demonstrations appear. They should just be smiling and giggly, wearing designer clothes and be top-notch mood, while all are drinking Pepsi.

Therefore the company had to come out with this statement:

PURCHASE, N.Y., April 5, 2017 – “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position.” (PepsiCo – ‘Pepsi Statement Re: Pepsi Moments Content’ 05.04.2017).

That demonstrators worldwide and organizers feels a bit betrayed by the motivation and the use, is understandable, that Piers Morgan defended the corporation was to be expected. Corporations can do as they please and especially if it is benefits the likes of Piers Morgan, who we for some strange reasons doesn’t know why is famous or why he acts entitled to the world to care about his opinion. Well, let go back to the ad in question.

It is not like PepsiCo and other corporation’s tries to tap into the youth culture, the company of Pepsi have made fortunes doing so and selling stories that fits that paradigm. So that they trying to fit themselves into BLM, the growing resistance against Trump or any movement that is questioning the powers-to-be. That seems a little beneath a soft-drink company. It seems a bit insincere. Since a company of this stature and this size are blend into the establishment and the greater state, who is not that favorable of demonstrations.

That there will be trivializing this is natural, that will be people not understanding the outrage, but next time, the corporations might tap into your struggles and your fights to get justice in society. Than you up next homie. Your definition of understanding, of justice and freedom, liberty and fight for better society might be portrayed in a sugarcoated reality by Coca-Cola, will you accept it?

There is healthy reasons to question PepsiCo and their management for their use of demonstrations, which has inflicted pain and suffrage for many, as they have been there because of the violent police force, who has brutally used weapons and tactics to disperse fellow citizens. Around the globe, the police use all sort of methods to keep the demonstrations at bay and detain unlawfully citizens. Still, that was not in the sweat dreamy portrait of Pepsi.

We do not have to wonder, to know that the PepsiCo tried to tap into protest movement and be more edgy, as the world have become more fragmented and use of international model and reality star in Kendall Jenner would peak interest. Therefore, she jumped on the project in the faith of the PepsiCo as she considered this a good move and secure move to get even more exposure. Something she did, but not on the purpose as she anticipated. She anticipated the sort of glare and glory as Nespresso commercials does for George Clooney. That she should be an iconic commercial and a game-changer. Instead, it all has boiled down to controversy!

The misuse of public anger and of injustice in trying to sodas does not seem like a good idea, but for one or more in the boardroom of PepsiCo, it did for a brief moment. The ideals behind the demonstrations and the acts against violence on fellow citizens was supposed to tap into with persisting a message, if you drink Pepsi, there will be peace. That story no one else believe, than the ones stuck inside the boardroom.

Therefore, when a multi-national enormous corporation as Pepsi tries to sell their soft drinks, they should consider the stories they are sending! It is not rocket science. It is very simple; do your drink supposable taste better than the competition? If YES, sell that; is the drink more affordable than competition? If YES, sell that; is the drink more environmental friendly packed or produced? If YES, sell that; but a product and a company of this magnitude will never be symbol a protest. They are the same establishment that the Occupy Wall Street in 2011 would go against. Not only the Merrill Lynch‘s of this world and the other banking buddies, but also the core food and beverages producers as well.

So next time Pepsi tries to start a campaign, go back to the basics, the reasons why you still exists was that you became the cheap alternative to Coca-Cola and was the one for use in the kitchen. Time reconfigure out that message to the public! Peace

Opinion: Eric Trump are right, under the Trump Administration, the US is becoming a “Third World State”!

“It’s really sad that we’re in an environment where tax returns are leaked by whoever it may be” (…) “Just think about it. Think about how dangerous that is, how third world that is on a practice that happened. When personal information is put out by people for political agendas. As a civilian, it’s actually scary” – Eric Trump on Fox News (Tani, 2017).

It is just one of these days where the sons of President Donald Trump speaks their mind and hits the nail. The nail is in the coffin, with the knowledge of the plans to make the republic less attractive, less business-friendly, more lassiez-faire and more focused on army than on progressive financial instruments and regulation to create growth. Trump Administration is busy with deporting millions, building a wall and starting trade-wars. The U.S. Government does not need to be transparent or accountable while doing so. Especially, not in the minds of one of his sons. That claims something unique and special. I have claimed in the near past that under President Trump, the U.S. Government could turn the Republic into a Banana Republic, a sort of style government that could be described by others as a third world one. Therefore, let the dictionary explain that!

Eric Trump needs a definition of the Third World:

“1: a group of nations especially in Africa and Asia not aligned with either the Communist or the non-Communist blocs” (…) “2: an aggregate of minority groups within a larger predominant culture” (…) “3: the aggregate of the underdeveloped nations of the world” (Merriam-Webster).

So the United States can itself soon be fitted, not that it is an Asian or African nation, neither Communist, but still it is getting underdeveloped by the way the financial framework and industry is set-up under the Trump Administration. Where the Industry and Financial industry has the Administration by the balls and no eager of taking care of nature or the resources, except for eating the profits without giving anything back to the Republic. Just like the Oil Industry in Nigeria or in Ghana. The same as the mining and mineral industry in the Democratic Republic of Congo. So the United States under President Trump, will be similar. Eric Trump is not so far off, just not the way he thought he would be.

Another man’s vision:

“This brings about complete dysfunction. It makes everything — economy, politics, roads, bridges, police, school — broken and shitty. Those who can leave do. Making it worse. This leads to more extremism, and more corruption, and more cynicism. And sometimes extreme violence. Because the other side becomes evil” (…) “The US has been shifting towards all four of these over the last 30 years, with inequality leading the way. We are more divided, economically and socially, then we have ever been (we are less divided racially. But only marginally so.)” (Arnade, 2016).

So when you have a system on the brink of collapse, a wealthy elite eating of the government plate and settling score to not pay their bills to the public, while the citizens and middle-class cannot build a steady life or afforded needed services, you know there are something wrong with the system and the state. That makes the Eric Trump words so right, that United States is becoming more like a third world country, with a sophisticated army, but cannot afford health care, schools or infrastructure. Just like the countries President Trump doesn’t want to affiliate with or been seen with. Since him and his advisor Bannon are supposed to be superior, and like a dictator in a Third World country, he believes he is always right and isn’t wrong.

So one smudge of evidence of his fathers Tax Returns from 2005 leaked to MSNBC Rachel Maddow, proves the realization of the state, that the Trump Administration would dislike. As they are not capping the debt, neither taking into account their ideas of taxation and tax-releases, as much as their will to deregularte industry and financial institutions. Therefore, leading the space of more expenses and negative environmental policies, that damage earth and only gains profit for a slim elite. Just like a Third World Country.

This is degrading for the United States, but the harsh truth, the ideas and policies in the making, the killing of health insurance, the idea of building the giant nuclear silos, while not paying for food for the starving. Proves that the U.S. Government are no closer to countries it does not want to be affiliated with, but still can be consider to be assimilated with. President Trump and his administration is clearly not wishing to be differing from chauvinistically taking charge and not caring what effect it has. Clearly, it is only his image that matter, just like any big-man and authoritarian leader.

So, soon we can say that the United States is underdeveloped and need aid, as their waters are daft, the industry is lacking technology, the roads are more potholes than tarmac, the bridges are weak, their railways not working and often not trusted. The United States has soon more expensive foreign imported goods, than what they produce and is losing money on their export of cash crops as soya and other grain. Therefore, President Trump leading his Republic to become underdeveloped or become a Third World Country.

Reference:

Arnade, Chris – ‘USA: A Third World Country in the making’ (05.10.2016) link: https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/usa-a-third-world-county-in-the-making-14064ea5c534#.ah2gi0loi

Tani, Maxwell – ‘Eric Trump blasts Trump’s tax return leak on Maddow: ‘Think about how dangerous…how third world that is’ (19.03.2017) link: http://nordic.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-tax-return-leak-maddow-third-world-2017-3?

Merriam-Webster – ‘third world’ link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third%20world

EU letter showing continued support for Energy Markets in Ukraine (13.03.2017)

Mine tanker om French-Saken og Nordmenns dobbeltmoral!

James Bamford skriver dette i artikkleN ‘Raiders of the Congo’ i GQ Magasin den 7. November 2012

“Moral er forsvaret for de forbrytelser som er gjort”– Helge Krog

“Kunne jeg gått tilbake åtte år, så hadde jeg gjort absolutt alt jeg kunne for å ha kjøpt Joshua fri. Det er det første vi skulle ha prøvd. Så har det bare ballet på seg og nå er vi avhengig av en diplomatisk løsning” – Kari Hilde French (Præsttun, 2017)

Moralen i historien som vi blir lært i norske medier er solid og klar. Der til og med moren til Joshua French i intervju uten å blunke sier at hun skulle ønsket at hun hadde betalt statelige ansatte penger for å frigjøre sønnen. Dette hadde hun ønsket at hun hadde brøte med alle kjerneverdier fordi hennes sønn skal kunne gjøre akkurat som han vil. Det er slik det kan tolkes. At familien French og slike som han kan reise til utlandet, leke soldater og ta med seg våpen fra Uganda.

“I de første meldingene fra Kongo ble det hevdet at Moland og French var leiesoldater, tilknyttet selskapet Special Intervention Group (SIG). VG omtalte dette allerede 13. mai, dagen etter pågripelsen ble kjent. Det private sikkerhets- og livvaktselskapet SIG var godt kjent i Norge, etter at det høsten 2007 kom fram at Politiets Sikkerhetstjeneste etterforsket selskapet for mulige krigsforbrytelser i Irak” (…) “Under VGs første besøk i Kisangani fikk vi tilgang til deler av militærtribunalets etterforskningsmateriale. Dette skjedde etter en dialog med sjefetterforsker Roger Wavara, som viste det fram for å underbygge mistanken mot nordmennene. Blant dette materialet var to visittkort fra SIG. Det ene bar navnet Tjostolv Moland, oppført som ”Security Consultant” i SIG. Det andre bar navnet John Hunt, oppført som ”Chief Operation Officer” i SIG. På kortet stod samme adresse til SIG Uganda som vi hadde funnet i vervebrosjyren fra 2008. VGs team i Oslo kontaktet Friksen for å konfrontere ham med visittkortene. Han hevdet Moland flere år tilbake hadde fått et standardkort som mange som hadde ønsket å knytte seg til SIG hadde fått. John Hunt ville han ikke si noe om, ei heller Mike Callan. Han avviste igjen at det hadde vært noe samarbeid mellom SIG og de fengslede nordmennene i Kongo” (…) “Under arbeidet med denne saken søkte VG i de to ulike våpenregistrene i Uganda for å undersøke om riflen beslaglagt i Uganda eller pumpehaglen de ble tatt med i Kongo var lovlig registrert – slik Moland og French hadde hevdet overfor flere norske medier. VG søkte på deres ekte navn, på deres dekknavn, og på kombinasjoner av disse. Men ingen av våpnene var oppført i registrene” (Johsen, Riseth & Hopperstad, 2009).

Hvis du lurer på om SIG var bare oppsspinn så kunne man lese i en dansk avis i 2008 dette om selskapet: “Otte danskere har arbejdet som livvagter- og lejesoldater i det borgerkrigshærgede land Uganda. Flere har været gennem danske kurser” (…) ” det borgerkrigshærgede nordlige Uganda har otte danskere arbejdet for det norske sikkerhedsfirma SIG-Protection – som arbejder i gråzonen mellem lejesoldater og livvagter” (…) “»Hvis vi bliver skudt på, så skyder selvfølgelig igen. Vi skal beskytte vores kunder,« siger direktør Torgeir Friksen til Nyhedsavisen” (Fogt, 2008).

Så SIG hadde norske og danske livvakter og leiesoldater. Blant disse to nordmenns om var plutselig på oppdrag i den Demokratiske Republikken i Kongo. Selskapet SIG er idag nedlagt fordi de ikke hadde lisens til drift i Uganda og deres lyssky virksomhet var kritikkverdig også i hjemlandet til de som drev selskapet. Derfor ville de slutte med sin virksomhet, ettersom Politiet i Norge og også i Uganda visste om dette. Ettersom i VGs egen etterforskning snakket de da med IGP Kale Kayihura, som er øverste kommanderende for Politiet i Uganda.

Dersom man er leiesoldat og livvakt, i et selskap uten lisens i utlandet, tar med seg våpen over grensen mellom Uganda og Kongo. Da er du ikke der på safari, ei heller så veldig uskyldig. Dette bør vites. Jeg legger bare frem disse gamle bevisene for å vise hvorfor dette er dobbeltmoral. Det er moralsk ukorrekt å ønske Joshua French hjem. Da bør alle som har drept for penger løslates i Norge, siden Joshua French kan bli benådet for sin forbrytelse, hvorfor kan ikke dette skje med de som gjør det her i Norge? Er han så spesiell siden han var med på kriminelle handlinger i Kongo? Står nordmenn over Kongolesisk lovgivning?

Dette stod i Sunday Monitor i Uganda den 7. Oktober 2009:

“It’s true the owner of Back Packers rang me one evening that he had got some security “I went there and he informed me that he had heard about two Norwegians arrested in DR Congo. He said the two had been his clients and after he got the news of their arrest, he checked in their room,” Gen. Kayihura narrated” (…) “He led me to the room and we found an assortment of military fatigues and one sophisticated rifle. They had different types of military uniform including the Monuc (UN peacekeeping outfit in DR Congo) uniform. “I wondered how they managed to smuggle in military things into the country and even how they smuggled them to Back Packers yet the place is guarded by security,” Maj. Gen. Kayihura told Sunday Monitor at his office, adding that “since the matter had issues to deal with military hardware, I handed the matter to CMI for further investigations. information he wanted to share with me,” Maj. Gen. Kayihura told Sunday Monitor” (…) “Definitely it’s an issue that also puzzles us but we are investigating. They did commit any crime while in Kampala but definitely if they came back, we would have arrested them and interrogated them.” (…) “Maj. Gen. Kayihura said that the two are said to have planned to start a security firm here but that he did not, as the authoriser of private firms, receive their application” (Obore & Izama, 2009).

I 2009 sa kommandøren av politiet i Uganda Gen. Kale Kayihura at han ville ha avhørt de for deres selskap alene uten lisens i landet der han er politisjef. Så det viser at French har ikke bare brutt loven i Kongo, men også i Uganda. Likevel, skal vi alle bare være positive til den tidligere leiesoldaten fordi moren vil ha våres sympati. Han har etter mest sannsynligvis brutt lover i Kongo også i Uganda. Er det greit?

La meg være litt breial: Hvis to kongolesisk personer hadde vært med i et dansk livvakt og sikkerhetsselskap. Der de hadde bedret lyssky virksomhet og øvd med våpen, uten lisens i Danmark for så å komme over med Color Line til Norge. Hvor da de plutselig på oppdrag dreper den norske sjåføren på vei mot Oslo, ikke så langt unna Arendal ved Harebakken. Da ville det ikke blitt aktuelt å frigjøre eller vise ydmykhet etter 8 år for drapet på den norske sjåføren. Etter endt rettssak ville disse måtte sone sin straff og følge de rettslige vederlag som er pålagt enn. Uansett om moren hadde flyttet til nærmeste by der person var fengslet. Det norske folket ville ikke hatt sympati og ettergitt. De ville heller ikke godtatt om moren hadde prøvd å betale den norske stat penger for å frigi sin sønn. Dette ville bli sett som fornærmelse mot den norske stat.

Men siden Joshua French er i fengsel i Kinshasa, i Kongo, så er både korrupsjon og drap greit. I alle fall hvis norsk media tar pulsen. Så lenge en ikke dreper som leiesoldat innen norsk territorium. Man kan være nordmenn i utlandet å være kriminell og drepe, men da skal man skape nok sympati, få hjelp av Rune Edvardsen og plutselig er de en helgener. Selv om man var leiesoldat og livvakt i et selskap uten lisens, med våpen som ikke var registret i Uganda eller Kongo. Der en var på oppdrag nær Kisangani uten direkte bekreftelse på hvem de var eller på  hvordan oppdrag de hadde. Dette er alt greit i Norge virker det som!

Ville det vært greit om Kongolesiske leiesoldater/sikkerhetsvakter for ett ulisensiert Dansk selskap hadde gjort oppdrag i Norge, uten rett og lov til dette. For deretter å drepe eller gjøre straffbare handlinger. For deretter få Kongolesiske styresmakter til ønske overflytting av de dømte personene og forvente at disse ville være frie-mennesker i Kongo. Ville ikke dette ødelegge hvor forståelse av hva som er rett. De gjorde en straffbar handling i Norge og når de kommer til Kongo så er de fri?

Ville vi godtatt og klappet i hendene, ønsket dette og latt dette skje uten å stille spørsmål. Det er både krenkende og usaklig at en ikke anser den selvstendige republikken som en rettslig stat som har sin rett til å dømme French og andre som misbruker sitt besøk innen sine grenser. Det samme ville vi spørre oss om det samme hadde skjedd her.

Derfor er det begredelig dobbeltmoralen og ønske om å frigjøre han etter den dommen han fikk. Ettersom han kobling til firma som drev med leiesoldater/sikkerhetsvakter i Uganda, der også Dansker var med på virksomheten. At nordmenn tror at de kan bedrive slik virksomhet i utlandet og komme unna er ubegripelig. Å at familie og venner vil bruke media for å få sympati. Der en tilslutt også sier i 2017 år etter en var dømt for udåden. At en ønsket at kjøpe seg fri fra mord og få frihet etter å tatt liv. Det er det moren til French sa og at ‘ballet på seg’ så nå må hun ‘diplomatisk løsning’. Dette er provoserende!

Det er dobbeltmoralen, at hun har rett til å frigjøre sin sønn som har gjort en forbrytelse, at hun skal betale for drapet på sjåføren, mens han hadde ulovlig våpen, for et uregistrert sikkerhetsselskap som hadde krysset grensen på et oppdrag der en ender opp med drap. Dette skal hun ha retten til å kjøpe seg fri fra og bruke norsk diplomati for å frigjøre sønnen.

Hvis Kongolesiske myndigheter hadde prøvd samme her, så ville ikke det blitt noe sympati eller hjelp. Det ville gått på verdigheten løs til vår stat og vår ide om vår rettstat. Om det som har mistet sin sønn eller datter, ettersom de kongolesiske leiesoldater gjorde ved Arendal. Bare tenk på det og da tenk om det forsatt er rett med benåding av French. Ville vi benådet en drapsdømt leiesoldat i Norge fra Kongo? Ville vi virkelig det?

Referense:

Obore, Chris & Izama, Angelo – ‘Uganda: Mercenaries Set Up Base in Kampala’ (07.10.2009) link: http://www.ocnus.net/artman2/publish/Defence_Arms_13/Uganda-Mercenaries-Set-Up-Base-in-Kampala.shtml

Johnsen, Nils, Riseth, Kim & Hopperstad, Morten –  SKUP Prisen ‘Kongo-fangenes hemmelige sikkerhetsselskap’ (2009) VG.

Fogt, Lars – ‘Danske lejesoldater slås i Uganda’ (27.07.2008) link: https://www.avisen.dk/danske-lejesoldater-slaas-i-uganda_13238.aspx

Præsttun, Christine – ‘Jeg angrer på at vi ikke kjøpte Joshua fri’ (24.02.2017) link: https://www.nrk.no/urix/kari-hilde-french_-_-jeg-angrer-pa-at-jeg-ikke-kjopte-joshua-fri-1.13397287

EU’s own ‘Preliminary Assessment’ of the Brexit is daunting a soft break of ties!

The Brexit and the questions running on the triggering of Article 50 has been up-in-the-air since the referendum election in 2016. The sudden win in Britain and United Kingdom has not yet arrived into negotiations with the European Union, as the Tories government under Prime Minister Theresa May has tried to keep her cars at bay, while hoping for mercy from the counter-parts in Brussels. As the EU Parliament and EU MEPs might think otherwise, with the knowledge of the sleek ‘White Paper’ from the Tories Government, the legal committee of the European Union has done more preparation or delivered are more detailed document, that can tell what the British government and negotiation team has to assess. They will not have a job or getting off easy.

This document is addressing the matter with fierce tone and with clarity that hasn’t been seen from the British counter-parts. They have been more secretive or less visions on how to fix the questions of the economic and legal problems that arrives with United Kingdom leaving the EU as a Member State. That opens a lot of doors, but closes also some. The EU certainly has some bargain chips and can be it horrible for the UK government as they want to leave with something worthwhile for their electorate.

As been said in the report: “The principal of acquired rights may well apply to the continuance of specific entitlements acquired validity in the past – for example, the right to a pension or the right to be considered the owner of real property. However, the principal of acquired rights cannot logically be extended in a such way as to confer an unrestricted ongoing entitlement to specific advantages in cases where the legal framework for those advantages has fallen away, as is the case when a Member State leaves the European Union. It cannot, therefore, be considered that a person who is no longer a Union citizen will continue to have unrestricted rights such as that to live, work and study in the European Union, or to benefit from social security arrangements such as reciprocal healthcare entitlement’s unless, of course, as may be hoped, special provisions are made for the continuance of such rights. As far as the conditions under which UK nationals may reside in other Members States are concerned, it is submitted that these are matter of national laws” (EP CLA, P:2, 2017).

This specifically says if nothing special issued between the Tories and the ones in Brussels, there might be harder for UK nationals to live and work in EU Member States, which isn’t an issue today as the free movement and such has graced the opportunities for British people to reside in Spain, Italy or France for that matter instead of living in Brighton or in Swindon. This is something that will be hard question and not easy bargain for either EU or the UK government.

“The most important legislation in the area of civil justice cooperation is the Brussels I regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2012/1215) on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, which would no longer apply between the UK and the Member States, meaning judgements will no longer be recognised or enforced in other jurisdictions automatically. Older bilateral agreements such as the existing between Germany and Britain may go some way to bridging the gap, but will not suffice completely. Brussel I could be replaced by the Lugano Convention (as is the case for Switzerland and others) or by ad hoc convention (as is the case for Denmark, which is excluded from civil justice cooperation). That being said, as it currently stands, the Lugano Convention was signed by the EU and not individual Member States. According to Art. 70, the United Kingdom is not one of the states entitled to join the convention” (EP CLA, P: 3, 2017).

That United Kingdom leaving the Union seems to not only have implications for the UK citizens who live and works inside the Union, but legal authorities and co-operations like the Brussels I regulation. So the civil lawsuits and the legal breaches between the nations might be altered with the restriction of UK from the Union. That will make it harder for the UK government and businesses to get legal authority or even solve legal matters on the continent, as they are not involved like they are today. So they need even to apply to Lugano Convention and follow procedures to have another way in, like the Danish government has done in the past. That means for a fixed amount of time, there will be issues between the EU Member States and UK government.

When it comes to UK businesses this is scenarios and such that will affect the state and their operations: “The Shareholder Rights Directive: The European Parliament reached an agreement with the Council on 7 December 2016 on a final text on the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of the long-term shareholder engagement. A vote in plenary is planned for March” (…) “In case of Brexit it takes effect before the time-limit for its transportation (for the most part, 2 years after publication), the UK will not be obliged to implement this directive. Even if the Brexit takes place after the date nothing guarantees that the UK will transpose it. In any case, after Brexit becomes effective, shareholders of UK companies will not enjoy rights under this directive” (EP CLA, P: 5, 2017).

This will show the aftermath of the businesses and how they will have to implement it to make sure they still are following guidelines for businesses inside the EU. That shows that even as a sovereign nation or state, they have to be parts of some long-term engagements that is evident with this one.

As continued with: “European  Company (SE): Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE) allows for the creation of a European public liability company, known as the Societas Europaea (‘SE’)” (…) “When Brexit becomes effective it is likely that any UK companies that have adopted SE status would lose that status. If they want to maintain it, they may need to relocate their registered office if the UK becomes a non-EEA state following a Brexit” (…) “With Brexit, this regulation will no longer apply unless the UK incorporates its contents into domestic law or makes other arrangements to maintain it. Cross-border insolvencies will become more complex as there will be jurisdictional issues to determine. Further, UK insolvency professional (notably liquidators) will not be automatically recognised as competent in other Members State” (EP CLA, P: 6, 2017).

So this is initially saying that with the loss of the EU Member State will implicate the companies’ legal status and their rights to markets that they have through the SE status in the European Union. So the UK companies have to either flee their headquarters in the United Kingdom or use time to reregister their businesses as the companies turn into new territory when their state turn into a non-EEA state, which indicates the taxation and regulatory means of their transactions and their portfolios will be changed or has to adapt to the new regime. This can be costly for the international businesses and financial markets like this can hurt the City of London.

By just these measures the UK companies and EU companies will be registered differently, if not their headquarters has to be moved to Belgium, Luxembourg or Poland to be sufficient for the regulatory bodies in the EU as their businesses will be seen as non-EEA state corporations. That affects a dozens of corporations, their employees and the financials flows in and out of the United Kingdom.

There we’re many other factors who we’re in play in the report, but they’re on the copyrights and staff regulation in the EU Organization. These are important to, but deserve to be taken on own accord and questioned by somebody who feels like it.

All the issues here brings to the clarity and must be hard read for the ones that thinks Brexit will be easy and soft for the United Kingdom when they becomes a Non-EEA State. This is a proof of the inner workings and preparations done by the diligent civil servants in the European Parliament in the Brussels. This paper sheds more light than before and also the indications of the future for political and transactions between the United Kingdom and the European Union; as the negotiation starts after the triggering of the Article 50! Peace.

Reference:

European Parliament – Committee on Legal Affairs: ‘Report on the Consequence of Brexit’ (13.01.2017)

U.S. Republicans are now putting forward a law to terminate the EPA by 2018; because the Republicans want to pollute without consequence!

The Republicans under the Trump Administration are going all in. Their ideas are the wet-dream for Conservative Party, which wants to transform the laisses-faire, industrial wonderland, where waste, industrial waste and low-taxes can go side by side. The green-gases only belong in fairy-tales and in sagas of the liberals.

Therefore Republican representative Matt Gaetz from Florida is the sponsor of the bill; his co-Sponsors the Republican representatives are Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Steven M. Palazo of Mississippi and Barry Loudermilk of Georgia.

The Republicans doesn’t care about toxins in water or water-taps, therefore if Detroit or Flint Michigan is dangerous, it doesn’t’ matter, because this people should afford their own tap-water, not buy licenced water from the state. If they had wealth they should have dig for wells in their gardens and in the public housing, instead of trusting the state with deliverance in the modern age after the millennium. That is too much to upon the Republic Party.

The other reasons are for the diligent work of Environmental Protection Agency, when it comes to fracking and regulating of the gasses into the water, has been tormenting the agency, as they have backpedalled and their own internal document have proved differently from the study they delivered the public. The Pro-Fracking lobbyist has sometimes even persuaded the EPA to change their stance, as the real reports if their internal documents of 2015 where right. That all parts of fracking could cause all sorts of toxins, in waste-water, in the dirt and the nearby-taps; something the Republicans of our day doesn’t want to hear.

However, EPA could also have intervened in the building petroleum pipelines like Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Where the reports could shadow the fact that pipes usually leaks and this could damage import forests and rivers through a dozens of states. The state could be seen with possibility of putting sanctions on the reopening of coal-mines and their waste in various states.

The EPA tried to keep regulatory actions on stuff like the Clean Care Act of 1990. Where the value of different toxins in the air if the Republicans would get their will would be doubled from 2010 to 2020; this values would for instances be Mortality Ozone values from 4300 to 7100. For instance Asthma Exacerbation in 2010 be 1,700,000 and in 2020 become 2,400,000. This proves how little they care for the environment, as long as it gives fortunes for the people who run the companies.

The financial industry and industry itself wants to earn cash and massive profits without care of environment, diseases or any sort of spill. Therefore the Republicans who are in the pockets of big-oil, big-tobacco or Wall Street don’t need the EPA. So with this in mind the Republicans are now not only silencing the EPA and wanting to edit their studies and reports on climate change, which in the mind of President Trump is a hoax.

The 4 representatives are doing the business, the industry a favour, but not Mother Nature or the ones living in it. They want to make sure the ones creating waste-lands and all the pollution as the polluters are free men without any charges. The Industry and the ones extracting resources don’t have to fear the state or government bodies, as they might not even exist. They don’t need to force their jobs into regulations that are costly as they can just drill, extract or even use the worst methods to get the gases, petroleum or coal.

Certainly, the Republicans when they have raised the water-levels above the 51^st street of Manhattan, when they have destroyed the lakes and rivers of Middle-America. Than the riches can move to Liechtenstein with the rest of the Alt-Right Banonesque government official existing! Peace.

Leaked UN Monitoring briefing showing lack of oversight in dozens of nations on communication surveillance!

As noted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:

“a lack of effective oversight has contributed to a lack of accountability for arbitrary or unlawful intrusions on the right to privacy in the digital environment. Internal safeguards without independent, external monitoring in particular have proven ineffective against unlawful or arbitrary surveillance methods. While these safeguards may take a variety of forms, the involvement of all branches of government in the oversight of surveillance programmes, as well as of an independent civilian oversight agency, is essential to ensure the effective protection of the law.” (United Nations, P: 2, 2016).

This here is evident that State and Government uses their force with their communication surveillance without transparent or use of the legal aide to gain data on their own citizens and also their communications. That means the data and meta-data we leave behind can be stored and checked by the security agencies, where they can surveillance and follow us to secure that we are not misusing or contacting wrong people. This can indirectly make people guilty before conducting crimes. The Police and Security Agencies than can follow and investigate without warrants or court-orders citizens without any jurisdiction. Therefore the real big-brother can follow all communication and use this as evidence of conspiracy and criminal intent if needed be. This information can again be delivered in reports to Central Government that will again take the whole groups of people as a den of thieves instead of activist and political opposition.

This sort of work can and will often cross the belief of a difference between a private and public sphere. Where the communications between citizens can be taken into account in investigations and that is done without knowledge of the citizens. So with that in mind, the United Nation Special Rapporteur on the rights of pricy briefing from November 2016 is telling stories on how this is done in dozens of nations. Their stories are not peaceful and the possible interference shows how their own citizens are shadowed by their own government. Just take a look!

Rwanda:

“In Rwanda, interception warrants are issued by a prosecutor designed by the Minister of Justice. As such there is no requirement of prior judicial authorisation. Nor there seems to be independent judicial oversight on the application of the law: the only monitoring envisaged is by inspectors appointed by Presidential Order. The Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the law “permits the interception of communications without prior authorization of a judge” and recommended, inter alia, that the State party “ensure the effectiveness and independence of a monitoring system for such interception, in particular by providing for the judiciary to take part in the authorization and monitoring of the interception.” (United Nations, P: 3-4, 2016).

Zimbabwe:

“In Zimbabwe, the Interception of Communications Act allows senior officials to individually make applications for warrants of interception. The applications are submitted to the Minister of Transport and Communications or “any other Minister to whom the President may from time to time assign the administration of [the] act”. Under the Act, the Minister is the sole arbiter of whether the grounds for a warrant are met and determines the warrant’s duration, up to a period of three months (after which renewal requires the authorisation of an administrative court.) In 2014, using powers granted to him under the constitution, President Mugabe assigned the Act’s administration to the Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC). There is no public information on how these functions are exercised in practice within the OPC, which is an executive body led by the President and the Head of the Civil Service” (United Nations, P: 4, 2016). “In Zimbabwe, the only oversight of the warrant regime comes from Prosecutor-General, but there is secrecy surrounding the process. The Prosecutor-General receives an annual summary from the Minister detailing “the particulars of every warrant which, during that calendar year, was issued by him or her but not renewed.” However, this information is not made public in any form. The Prosecutor-General can also request additional information from the Minister and make binding recommendations to the Minister; however, these recommendations are not public. There is no additional mechanism for independent parliamentary or judicial oversight of the regime as a whole” (United Nations, P: 12, 2016).

New Zealand:

“In New Zealand, there is no judicial prior authorisation for interception of communications or access to communications infrastructures. Instead the relevant warrant is authorised by the Minister. The Commissioner of Security Warrants, a retired judge, is only required to jointly authorise interception warrants when the communications of New Zealanders may be intercepted. Reflecting on this, the Human Rights Committee expressed concern “about the limited judicial authorization process for the interception of communications of New Zealanders and the total absence of such authorization for the interception of communications of non-New Zealanders” (United Nations, P: 4, 2016).

United Kingdom:

“Similarly in the United Kindgom, under the current RIPA there is no requirement for, or process enabling, the prior independent authorisation of the interception of communications. Instead, a Government minister issues warrants without reference to any judicial or other independent authority. There is only qualified provision for judicial authorisation under RIPA for intrusive surveillance by police (but, notably, not the intelligence services), with regards to requests for encryption keys, and when local authorities seek access to communications data” (United Nations, P: 5, 2016). “In the United Kingdom, there are concerns about the Intelligence and Security Committee. The ISC lacks sufficient independence from the government: the Prime Minister has sole power to nominate MPs to the ISC. She also has power to veto publication of any material by the ISC. For these reasons, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights expressed “concern that the executive control of this Committee may be too strong” (United Nations, P: 10, 2016).

Venezuela:

“In Venezuela, for example, although the decision to authorise communications surveillance is made by a judge, judges – particularly first instance judges who are often employed on temporary contracts – frequently lack independence and impartiality” (United Nations, P: 5, 2016).

Russia:

“Considering the interception regime in Russia, the European Court of Human Rights noted that while interceptions may be authorized by a judge, there was no effective oversight, in particular in light of the lack “publicly available regulations or instructions describing the scope of their review, the conditions under which it may be carried out, the procedures for reviewing the surveillance measures or for remedying the breaches detected” (United Nations, P: 6, 2016).

Poland:

“In Poland, there is no ex-ante review system for metadata collection, only a general ex-post requirement of submission once every six months of a generalized metadata report to a competent district court. Further, certain metadata information does not even require the ex-post review” (United Nations, P: 6, 2016)

Mexico:

“In Mexico. Articles 189 and 190 of the “Ley Telecom” impose a two year data retention requirements on telecommunications providers, requiring them to keep their users communications data. There is no judicial warrant requirement for accessing the metadata, and that includes in particular no judicial authorisation for mobile phone location tracking (which can be done in real time)” (United Nations, P: 8, 2016).

Morocco:

“In Morocco, there are at least eight government agencies that can potentially monitor communications. These services operate in near complete opacity. The Human Rights Committee expressed concerned at the lack of clarity regarding the law authorising and regulating the activity of such services and the lack of monitoring mechanisms” (United Nations, P: 9, 2016).

Uganda:

“In Uganda, despite increasing significantly the surveillance powers, there is no clear oversight mechanism under the 2010 Regulation of Interception of Communications Act or the 2015 Anti-Terrorism (Amended) Act in Uganda. None of the intelligence agencies with the power to conduct surveillance under these acts are subject to independent oversight however they all report to the President. Any reporting that may be conduced by the agencies to the President is not made public” (United Nations, P: 9, 2016).

Macedonia:

“In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM), long-standing concerns on the lack of effective supervision and control of the activities of the Macedonian Security and Counter Intelligence Service (UBK) to limit unlawful interference with the privacy of personal communications were brought into sharp focus in 2015, following the revelation that over 20,000 persons, including political figures, members of non-governmental organisations and journalists, were subjected to communication surveillance. The only body authorised to supervise the work of the UBK is a Parliamentary Commission. According to media reports, the UBK’s written reports to the Commission contained no data on the agency’s use of what are called “specific investigative measures”, such as eavesdropping” (United Nations, P: 10, 2016).

These stories give insight into how far the breaches are and how they are done in each country. Certain intelligence that are collected unfairly from the citizens and without permission, not even with court orders and put into structures that can be recollected by the ones who have been followed; this has been in secrecy and with knowledge even from the person with the most power. Those Presidents can interfere and collect this intelligence without having court orders or a warrant says a lot of their breaches of power and how they value the private communication. When they of using technology and using the interception of communication between people to find intelligence and collect their meta-data for later see the pattern of behaviour.

This shows how the National Security is using the private communication into collecting evidence and pattern of behaviour where they can oversee society and use this to detain and arrest dissidents.  What is also worrying is in the power of the Executive and the Central Government who can easily access and take the collected data without the need of the Courts or legislative branches. Therefore this can be done in the dark and they can do this without consent or have any accountability for their work as they use surveillance to follow their own citizens.

This is just a few of the nations of the world. There are certainly more intelligence gathered without knowledge and where the UN Special Rapporteur has gotten know-how of. This briefing is only skimming the surface of what’s apparently going on. We as citizens should at least ask our own government to comply with freedoms and liberty, only use these technologies to incept meta-data and communications between people when courts and real National Security is at risk. Not just when they can, but when it is fit. If not then innocent people are followed without any concern and without any justice delivered. Peace.

Reference:

United Nation – ‘Briefing to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy – Monitoring and Oversight of Communications Surveillance’ (November 2016)