MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “Authoritarian Leadership”

U.S. Treasury fines ExxonMobile meager $2m for violation of the Russian-Ukraine Sanctions!

Some days you wonder if the connections of the New York isn’t to strong for the moment. When the joys of their loot and their power is not making them lose their senses. The common sense is clearly gone, as the company formerly run by Rex Tillerson, the now State Secretary of United States. Who couldn’t care less about the relationship between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. As the illegal and not internationally accepted annexation of the Crimea from the Republic of Ukraine happen. Still, even as that was happening the former Standard Oil baby ExxonMobile decided to be a trading partner and create opportunities in the vast resources in Russia and Russian territories. Now today they we’re fined, but that was a little slap on their wrist, as the real wealth inside the deal shows how much they really could have earned. Therefore, the crime and the penalty doesn’t fit. The Company gets away with a heist, but has to pay small interests for doing so. Now they are waiting for the possible time for their giant payoff and this will be simple write-off in their results in the next quarterly estimates. This sort of fine isn’t that serious, as it can easily chop it off and continue to eat.

First we will look into what the Wall Street Journal wrote about the deal between Russia and ExxonMobile, the second and third are about today’s fine and you see why it insulting fine to give.

A U.S. official said the new penalties would affect Exxon’s current drilling in the icy Kara Sea with its Kremlin-controlled partner, OAO Rosneft, though the extent of the impact was unclear Thursday. No other Western energy company has as much direct exposure to Russia as Exxon, thanks to a $3.2 billion deal giving the company access to a swath of the Arctic larger than Texas that could hold the equivalent of billions of barrels of oil and gas. Officials in Europe, which has extensive trade links to Russia, have insisted that Western nations share the fallout from sanctions against Moscow. Russia has said it would retaliate against additional sanctions with measures of its own, further heightening the risks to companies operating there, legal experts said. Exxon is “assessing the sanctions,” said Alan Jeffers, a company spokesman. “It’s our policy to comply with all laws.” (Gilbert, 2014)

ExxonMobil Corporation Assessed a Penalty for Violating the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations: ExxonMobil Corp., oflrving, Texas, including its U.S. subsidiaries ExxonMobil Development Company and ExxonMobil Oil Corp. (collectively, “ExxonMobil”), has been assessed a civil monetary penalty of $2,000,000 for violations of the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 589 (Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations). Between on or about May 14, 2014 and on or about May 23, 2014, ExxonMobil violated§ 589.201 of the Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations when the presidents of its U.S. subsidiaries dealt in services of an individual whose property and interests in property were blocked, namely, by signing eight legal documents related to oil and gas projects in Russia with Igor Sechin, the President of Rosneft OAO, 1 and an individual identified on OF AC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (the “SDN List”) (referred to hereinafter as an “SDN”)” (U.S. Treasury, 20.07.2017).

OF AC considered the following to be aggravating factors: (1) ExxonMobil demonstrated reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements when it failed to consider warning signs associated with dealing in the blocked services of an SDN; (2) ExxonMobil’s senior-most executives knew of Sechin’ s status as an SDN when they dealt in the blocked services of Sechin; (3) ExxonMobil caused significant harm to the Ukraine-related sanctions program objectives by engaging the services of an SDN designated on the basis that he is an official of the Government of the Russian Federation contributing to the crisis in Ukraine; and (4) ExxonMobil is a sophisticated and experienced oil and gas company that has global operations and routinely deals in goods, services, and technology subject to U.S economic sanctions and U.S. export controls” (U.S. Treasury, 20.07.2017).

So it’s okay, the company ExxonMobile was fined for intervening in a Republic and inside a state where there was clear sanctions against trade. That was something Rex Tillerson knew and also the Russian counterparts, but ExxonMobile didn’t care. They just wanted the profits and earn on the fragile arctic and also into areas like the annexed Crimea. This shows the intent of profiting while being under sanctions and not respecting the laws of the United States and being a registered company residing in the United States.

This show the ethical backdrop of the New York Gang and the Administration of today, we cannot know how much the company earned before the stop between Rosneft and ExxonMobile. The suspension of activity between them. What we can imagine is that it was vastly more than the little they paid for breaking the law. Peace.

Reference:

Gilbert, Daniel – ‘Sanctions Over Ukraine Put Exxon at Risk’ (11.09.2014) – Wall Street Journal

Tired of President Museveni’s “1986”!

I know I am born in 1985, but I am tired of the year of 1986 and the year National Resistance Army (NRA). The now National Resistance Movement (NRM) and President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. The liberation movement that has run the republic since 1986. This war lasted from 1981 to 1986, the NRA went out of the Milton Obote II government after the illegitimate election of 1980s. Which from then on has been used as the scapegoat and the ones to put to blame for ever since.

The 1986 is the magical year that Museveni entered into supremacy. The Supreme kingpin and mastermind of all it. Sowing the mustard seed and creating a newer safer Republic. The one time the peasants was supposed to have their say in government and make the republic a democracy. The Republic of Uganda was going from strong-men and big-men to run the Republic. Instead, it has been now three decades with manufactured democracy in-line with the vision of Museveni.

President Museveni have used all techniques to fix election results, paying villagers and making new government forms to fit his paradigm. Instead of releasing his promises he has built elite around him that is loyal to his brown envelopes or public fearing his security organizations. This is a special coming from the man promises all the possible governance and government structures needed, if he got into power. Instead, he has done the opposite.

It was supposed to get into a middle-Income Country instead of the Less Developed Country, which is the state is in now. The LDC that Uganda now is because of the state of government that President Museveni has created around him. That can be seen with amounts of debt, the massive overspending on the State House and the pledges around the President. Government of Uganda, GoU have been built around Museveni, instead of institutions and procedures. Therefore, the state are following the orders of the President and his Presidential Handshakes.

That is why, every-time in a speech at any sort of occasion the President will mention 1986 and how the state used to be. As of today 1 out of 5 in the Republic or 21% are between 15 to 24 year old. And by 2016 there we’re only 2% who are older than 65 years old. Which means that the President are part of a minority age bracket. President Museveni 30 years old rule are older than many of the youths in the Republic. They should also wonder what is so special about the years they never we’re living and about governments they never lived under. There are big proportions of the population who cannot remember or has been apart of the first years of the NRA or the civil-war during the 1980s.

They would be like me, they would feel the same fatigue of the NRA and Museveni rule, the extension of the liberation from Obote and Amin. The ones that Museveni mention whenever he needs someone or somebody to blame. Certainly mention 1986. The 1986 that are the most important year since independence, therefore, the NRM Day, the 26th January 1986, liberation day. Instead of the Independence Day 9th October 1962. That one is not so often mentioned by the President, since he didn’t get them out of the British Empire and not be a British Protectorate anymore.

Still, the 9th October 1962 doesn’t seem to be important for Museveni, the 26th January 1986 is the most vital one. The one that sets the standard, the day that changed everything and gave him total access. Therefore, the celebration of 1986 is so key and be levied at any occasion, and at any speech. President Museveni praises his overthrow of Amin, Obote, Okello and Biniasa.

They all just had to be overthrown, he had to make coup d’etat and make folklore out of it. So his name can ring out and be praised. Let it be clear, the President sings 1986… 1986… 1986… like a jingle never stopping. Peace.

Opinion: President Museveni said “I am tired” and want to indirectly reinstate the Movement System!

It is just one of these days when the President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni reveals that he wasn’t in favor of the Multi-Party Democracy, even if he claims to be elected and have credible elections abroad. It is always his vision and his perspective that matters, the others should just follow and listen to the high and mighty Musveni. No-one else has a vision like him and his party, which bow their knees, gets Presidential Handshakes and also kisses ring when they have too. That is something the Opposition MP’s doesn’t do, except for the “Good DPs” and the level-headed UPC MP’s. Still, he has something obvious to say today!

President Museveni addressing Bulago Primary School in Buyengo Sub-County in Jinja District:

I am tired of wars. I want you to vote for pro-NRM members of parliament like our party flag-bearer, Mr Moses Walyomu.” (…) “I don’t want to go back to the bush to fight again. Don’t send me people who will disagree with me in parliament. I fought in 1986 and I am tired.” (…) “He said people who are not of his party fear to discuss with him matters that are pertinent to the development of the country. And for that to be avoided, he will need Members of Parliament who share his ideals and vision for the country” (…) “He threatened that should Kagoma voters vote for an opposition candidate, their wish for good roads and other crucial utilities such as power will be no more”(Kirunda, Nakato & Katabulawo, 2017)

He is clear, if you disagree, that means war, not negotiations or discussions to find a level middle-ground. Since it is only one-man with a vision in Uganda, and that is the President. The Wonderful Dictator who is on his 7th Term, not 5th, even if he is rigged in 5 times in row. There was still a decade that gets shaved off in the calculation. I will write that until my ending. Since he deserves to count all years from 1986 and not only from 1995. While we are on that. Under President Museveni, there wasn’t always Multi-Party Democracy.

Three years after the Coup d’etat:

As already noted, the 1989 elections were held under strict anti-party rules since the NRM government had suspended all political party activities. Indeed, the Resistance Councils and Committees Elections Regulations, 1989, forbade all use of party symbols, sectarian appeals, and threats of force, the offer of food or drinks and the display of candidates’ posters. The absence of open campaigning made it impossible to discuss policies” (Bwana, 2009).

So as President Museveni forbade other parties and their political parties after taking power. He created together with the NRM/A a Movement System to control the local party politics and have structures that he could have oversight of from the State House. This was not a Multi-Party System. A special system that are now overturned into the Local Government system, still it is inherited by the RC system, that the party unleashed in the end of 1980s and tried for a long while. Explained by this Scottish student in 1993!

Importance of Movement System:

Two statutes, the Resistance Councils and Committees Statutes 9 (1987) and the Resistance Committees’ Judicial Power Statute 1 (1988), codified and expanded the system of local Resistance Committees that had sustained the NRA in its war against the second Obote regime. The genesis of the Resistance Committee system can be traced to the Mayumba Kumi (or ‘Ten Houses’) experiment of the UNLF in the early 1980s, which in turn was linked with the Tanzanian Ujamaa philosophy (Oloka-Onyango, 1989; Baringo, n.d.).” (…) “The RC statutes divided each of Uganda’s 34 (now 38) districts into 5 administrative zones; village (or ward in towns and cities), parish, sub-county, county and districts” (…) “The extent to which the RC system offers the levels of popular participation claimed by the NRM/A also requires consideration. The RC Electoral system operated in 1987, 1989 and 1992 of direct elections only at RC1 level means that the population is excluded at every stage from choosing candidates for higher office. This limitation on direct popular participation in the RC system recurs at a higher level where the links between RC4/RC5 and the NRC and government ministries become rather uncertain. By 1992, there existed no power of recall for members of the NRC beyond elections day itself” (Smith, 1993).

With all this in mind, the tiredness of having opposition. It seems that the President is ready to control the Parliament, the Local Government and have only local cadres that are his. The ones that he knows he can bribe and have under his structure. That means he wants to back to late 1980s and early 1990s when the Movement System and Resistance Councils were the thing. Where the Ministry of Local Government could fire a Resistance Councilor or others, if they didn’t follow the direct orders of the President and his State House. This seems real now.

This seems like the thing, as he wants to take away development and public service if they doesn’t follow his orders in the By-Election in the Jinja District. That proves the lack of democratic values and wish to honor the ballot. But hey, he has for 30 years rigged himself in and made sure his cadres has gotten positions, why else would Gen. Kahinda Otafiire still be a Minister? Not because of his brilliant intellect, but for his loyal assets and following orders of the President.

That President Museveni wants to have men and woman who listens to him and doesn’t challenge him. Therefore, he is telling in Jinja District, that he didn’t go to war in 1986 to have people questioning his rule. His legacy now will not be that he re-released the Multi-Party System, neither that he Constitution delivered a fresh start, as his lingering time in power. Proves that he has gone backwards and become alike the men he overthrew. There isn’t anything different between Dr. Milton Obote distrust in Institutions and Political Affiliations, the only difference is the names and the times. The misuse of army and police to harass the opposition is not different either. The use of government resource in elections are also facilitated for the Movement to counter the opposition. Therefore, the wonderful dictator is alike predecessors, only difference is his ability to overstay!

President Museveni is tired, because he cannot understand that people still question him. That people still doesn’t believe in his vision. That is because he forgot to deliver, he didn’t care to deliver and wanted all along to control it all from the Okello House. There wasn’t with prompt and glory that the Multi-Party Democracy became law, it was two elections and amendment of the constitution that the President didn’t want to deliver. President Museveni wanted it all inside the Movement and the Resistance Councils, which he could assess and control. So now he had to allow other people create their own parties, where they have their own guidelines and programs, not his! They doesn’t have his vision. That is so tiring for him. Therefore, he now want to return back in time, to the Movement System and the Resistance Councils.

He wants total control and he says it, because he is tired of men and woman who doesn’t accept his vision. The vision of looting, dismantling and disorienting the citizens for the wealth of the Museveni family. The rest is history, as the value of currency, the added state debt, the lacking of transparency and patronage is extensive. Therefore, he doesn’t want it question of his state and his system. It is all what he created and made over the decades as the supreme executive. Certainly, the glory days and the days of hope is gone. Just like the days stalwart Besigye would help the old-man creating the Resistance Councils as well. Peace.

Reference:

Bwana, Charles – ‘Voting Patterns in Uganda’s Elections: Could it be the end of the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) domination in Uganda’s politics?’ (2009) – LES CAHIERS D’AFRIQUE DE L’ N° 41

Kirunda, Abubaker; Nakato, Tausi & Katabulawo, Andrew – ‘I don’t want opposition in parliament, says President Museveni’ (09.05.2017) link: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/I-don-t-want-opposition-in-parliament–says-President-Museveni/688334-3919496-71atniz/index.html

Smith, Justin McKenzi – ‘Breaking with the Past – A Consideration of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s National Resistance Movement, and of social and Political action in Uganda during its government’ (1993) University of Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom.

A look into Donald Trump’s possible nominee for Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson, what has he said and done?

tillerman-putin-award

“Whether I choose him or not for “State”- Rex Tillerson, the Chairman & CEO of ExxonMobil, is a world class player and dealmaker. Stay tuned!” – Donald J. Trump on Twitter 11.12.2016.

We have to scrutinize and look over the men that possibly will be the most powerful men and woman in the Trump Administration, as they should not be forgotten what they did in the past. Especially when Trump himself has branded Obama Administration as ‘hopeless’ and ‘bad’; therefore his Administration should be better, though by the men and woman who is already picked his stature for military and rich-men is staggering, more than the qualifications for each role in Government. That is what is worrying. This time around it is the current Chairman of ExxonMobile, a negotiator and deal-maker for the grand-oil empire from Texas, the Rex Tillerson who is connected in Venezuela, Russia and Kazakhstan. He is the next in line for the possible task of Secretary of State!

“If you ask the average person on the street about U.S. energy and U.S. oil in particular, our situation, most Americans would say, ‘Oh, we’re energy poor; we don’t have enough oil; we don’t have enough natural gas.’” – Rex Tillerman

What he even wished to happen inside the US in the midst of the Obama Administration:

“Q: President Obama has outlined a plan to cut oil imports by one-third over the next 10 years. Is this feasible?

A: We expect gasoline demand in the U.S. to decline about 17% over the next 20 years. And that’s a function of both efficiency standards that have been put in place for automobiles, but also an ongoing penetration of hybrid and hybrid-electric vehicles. There’s going to be a natural decline in demand for motor fuels from that. That will be partially offset by increasing demand for heavy-duty fuels like diesel. That, along with the penetration of bio fuels, is going to result in a mitigation of imports. Whether we eliminate a third of the imports is hard to say. Another piece of our success will rest on whether the U.S. government decides to make available the lands that it controls, because 60% of the remaining oil resource in the U.S. is on federal lands and 40% of the remaining gas resource. It’s up to the federal government to allow the industry to explore those lands and develop those resources that could have a big impact on supply in the future” (Bartiromo, 2011).

Secretary of State does: “The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development” (Secretary of State, link: http://www.state.gov/secretary/).

So as the foreign affairs job has lots of responsibility to be the face of the nation when the President self cannot travel or negotiate, even do diplomatic missions to keep up with alliances and treaties that the US Government have or currently in the works. So the position should be done by somebody with tact and courtesy for the will of the US Government and the foreign dignitaries so that the person doesn’t offend either party while working for the common good. That is something that the possible former ExxonMobile chairman Tillerson has to do.

jeff-simon-exxon

Negotiations in Venezuela:

“According to the XM executives, the last significant contact XM had with the BRV or PDVSA was XM Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson’s May 16 meeting with Ambassador Bernardo Alvarez. During the meeting, Tillerson told Alvarez that XM must have a confidentiality agreement before it could begin negotiations on the remaining migration issues. In addition, he stated book value was not an acceptable basis for compensation for lost value. Finally, Tillerson said XM was looking for a win-win solution but warned that XM was willing to go to arbitration if it had to do so. The executives later mentioned that PDVSA’s stake in the Chalmette refinery was mentioned as a possible component in a compensation package. They did not specify who raised the topic” (…) “When asked if other IOCs had entered into negotiations with the BRV, XM executives replied they did not believe any companies had entered into meaningful negotiations. They stated they met with Total executives on May 22 to discuss the general situation. The Total executives stated their company has also rejected book value as a basis for compensation for lost value. In addition, they told the XM executives they believe the Sincor strategic association will be hit with a large tax assessment in the near future. Seniat, the BRV tax authority, presented CP and Chevron earlier this month with tax bills for close to USD 550 million for back taxes for the Petrozuata and Hamaca strategic associations for the years 2003 to 2005” (WikiLeaks, 2007).

In 2008 – Trading oil in Kazakstan:

“(Note: The one exception was a threat by President Nazarbayev in a December meeting with Tillerson’s deputy to use the subsoil legislation. Nazarbayev, however, reverted to his previous public line when he reassured the Ambassador privately the next day that the legislation would not/not be used against any existing contract. End Note.) In the end, both ExxonMobil and ConocoPhilips confirmed that the GOK used tough, but legitimate business pressures to pursue their case” (…) “ExxonMobil told us that CEO Rex Tillerson had decided that Exxon was going to hold the line on this issue. However, all our sources indidated that Tillerson was subjected to very strong pressure in the final negotiations, both by the other CEOs and by the Kazakhstani side. According to our in-country ExxonMobil contact (who was not in the meetings but who was extensively debriefed about them), it was the lure of future business in Kazakhstan that eventually led Tillerson to reverse course, and to agree to a “below market price” figure of $1.8 billion as the valuation of KMG’s increased share. (Note: Determining the “market price” for this share is essentially impossible, as different financial models will yield wildly varying results depending on the assumptions used. That said, all parties involved agree that $1.8 billion is a “below market price,” even if they can not tell you how much below market. End Note.)” (WikiLeaks, 2008). In 2011: “0100 Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev meets Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobile corporation, and Dhimitrios Khristofias, the  president of Cyprus, within the framework of his visit to New York to  attend 66th session of the UN General Assembly. Video shows meetings;  Rex Tillerson and Dhimitrios Khristofias, speaking to camera” (WikiLeaks, 2011).

“Experience tells us that a good foundation is critical for success in the Arctic and elsewhere. ExxonMobil’s Sakhalin-1 project with Rosneft is an example where we have put this experience to work.” – Rex Tillerson

On Russia:

“Tillerson said he valued the efforts of the Russian government to improve the tax regime and that it would have a positive effect on Russian and foreign investors.The moves will help expand cooperation in the complex situation in Russia, he said. Tillerson said he was encouraged to see Russia move to create a competitive environment, taking into account the experiences of other tax regimes in other countries” (WikiLeaks, 2011). “Prime Minister Vladimir Putin yesterday put the total of direct  investment in joint projects by Rosneft and ExxonMobil at 200-300  billion dollars, but “if we are talking about infrastructure, the construction of the necessary buildings, and surface facilities, the  investment could reach 500 billion dollars”. However, ExxonMobil expects  its agreement with Rosneft to encourage the Russian authorities to ease the tax regime for the industry. “Such steps will help the government to  expand cooperation in the difficult situation that is taking shape in  Russia,” the head of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, explained” (WikiLeaks, 2011).

xom-nyt-2000-3-23-unsettledscience-p1-normal

On Fracking:

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson speaking at a January 2010 congressional hearing concerning the $41 billion merger of Exxon with XTO Energy (one of the worlda**s biggest natural gas drilling companies), said he could support revealing toxic frack mixes. He added that, by combining the hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling processes a**we can now find and produce unconventional natural gas supplies miles below the surface in a safe, efficient and environmentally responsible manner.a** Exxon has threatened to nix its XTO acquisition if Congress makes fracking a**illegal or commercially impractical.a**” (WikiLeaks, 2010).

Article about Tillerson faith in Global Warming:

“They’re clearly cognizant of global warming – they employ some of the world’s best scientists, after all, and they’re bidding on all those oil leases made possible by the staggering melt of Arctic ice. And yet they relentlessly search for more hydrocarbons – in early March, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told Wall Street analysts that the company plans to spend $37 billion a year through 2016 (about $100 million a day) searching for yet more oil and gas.

There’s not a more reckless man on the planet than Tillerson. Late last month, on the same day the Colorado fires reached their height, he told a New York audience that global warming is real, but dismissed it as an “engineering problem” that has “engineering solutions.” Such as?” (Bill McKibben – ‘Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math’ 09.07.2012).

David Fenton sent an E-Mail titled: “Murdoch climate campaign” on the 19.02.2015 to Clinton Campaign Manager John Podesta that said: “Hi again. Here is the plan to go after WSJ and FOX on climate. I have 500,000 of this pledged if I can raise another million. It’s a real pledge from Graeme Wood in Australia. I sure hope something like this can happen it’s long overdue. Thanks again, David”. This E-Mail had an attachment where this we’re said:

“1)       A climate science ad series (surprisingly affordable) on the Wall Street Journal’s opinion page, sponsored by a mainstream institution like Columbia University’s Earth Institute or the Union of Concerned Scientists.  These would be unassailably factual and scientific but also compelling, memorable and clear. They would show the facts the Journal denies — Co2 from fossil fuels traps heat, the earth has warmed, the CEO of EXXON believes it why not this paper? This series would stress consequences for the economy and mainstream support from groups like the World Bank, International Energy Agency, PWC, NAS, the Royal Society, etc. Of course the Journal would attack the series in editorials, which will help it get more attention” (WikiLeaks, 2015).

This here shows some of the stories of the man in the past, Rex Tillerson who has apparently massive faith in fracking and negotiation with Putin for the business he was running ExxonMobile. The WikiLeaks stories are special in themselves, but there other lost tales that needs to show the character of the man.

Like the Kurdistan adventure:

“Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Rex Tillerson refused Tuesday to answer questions about a controversial deal the oil company has signed with the Kurdish government in northern Iraq” (…) “Exxon, (XOM, Fortune 500) which holds big contracts with the Iraqi government to develop oil fields in the southern part of the country, was sharply criticized by Iraqi government ministers last month over the deal. The Iraqis suggested Exxon might be sanctioned over the move, possibly putting their deals in the southern part of the country in jeopardy” (…) “Iraqis in Baghdad are loathe to see oil companies sign separate deals with the semi-autonomous government in the Kurdish north, preferring instead that all deals go though the central government” (Hargreaves, 2011). So the next Secretary of State is ruthless in trade for fortunes that he picked deals with Kurdistan government over the Southern Iraqi Central Government that counters the diplomatic way that the governments do with Iraq. So Rex Tillerman could surely do the same in charge of the State Department under the Trump Administration.

pipeline

Here is a story in the inner workings in Chad:

“There was Exxon’s meddling in a 2006 standoff between Idriss Déby, the authoritarian leader of Chad — a Central African country with rich oil reserves — and Paul Wolfowitz, then the leader of the World Bank. Déby wanted weapons to fight rebels supported by nearby Sudan, but good-governance clauses in loans Chad had received from the World Bank restricted the country’s ability to purchase arms. Wolfowitz was ready to freeze some of Sudan’s bank accounts, prompting Déby to threaten to effectively kick Exxon out of Chad. That could have cost the company billions of dollars. So Exxon lobbied the U.S. ambassador to Chad to fix the problem, which led to Déby getting his weapons and Exxon its oil” (…) “By now ExxonMobil had made its own choice clear,” Coll writes. “It was more interested in the survival of Chad’s oil production than it was in the World Bank’s experiment in nation building.” (Walsh, 2012). So he would use World Bank loans to trade weapons to make sure that the ExxonMobil get the possibility to the Oil Reserves in Chad. That proves how far the man will go for profit, that the authoritarian leaders needs for arms can be meet, if he get the oil as long as he makes a killing.

Than you have the story of how he worked in Guyana:

“US oil giant ExxonMobil made waves in Guyana last Thursday by announcing it had confirmed a “world-class discovery” of oil offshore. The company said results from its exploration well in the Stabroek block, about 120 miles (193 kilometres) offshore Guyana, found between 800 million and 1.4 billion oil-equivalent barrels” (…) “The waters around Guyana are largely unexplored. According to a Forbes story quoting Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, the 3-D seismic survey that Exxon conducted in the area was its largest in history — “the equivalent of 1,400 Gulf of Mexico blocks” (…) “In November 2015, Guyana’s government faced accusations that the state didn’t have the capacity to independently monitor ExxonMobil’s compliance with environmental regulations. The worry arose after it was alleged that ExxonMobil was promoting and funding climate change denials” (Abdelwahab, 2016).

So now that he is peculiar connected into the oil developments outside Guyana, as it was profitable for the company without considering the environment of the ocean and the sea as the we’re even paying climate change deniers in Guyana. That the billions of barrel is more important that the effect that oil drilling will have on the nation.

This from the guy that are key part of the former Standard Oil companies that we’re re-merged from Exxon and Mobil Oil Companies, that we’re too powerful in the United States. The US Company now are now so big Multi-National that they can secure the World Bank to fund Chad Government loans so they can buy weapons, and exchange give possible oil fields to the ExxonMobil. If that doesn’t say anything nothing does. This sort of fellow will now run the Secretary of State, not to talk about the Foreign Affairs of the United States. The diplomatic correspondence and according to due procedure of the Trump Administration; that will be interesting as the CEO Tillerman has been focused on profits and not on anything else. We can wonder what will be his Modus Operandi as a Secretary of State, what his policies and foreign affairs chief under Trump. Peace.

Reference:

Abdelwahab, Alex – ‘ExxonMobil’s significant oil find off Guyana leads to questions about the country’s future’ (05.07.2016) link: http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/headline-ExxonMobil’s-significant-oil-find-off-Guyana-leads-to-questions-about-the-country’s-future-30969.html

Bartiriromo, Maria – ‘ExxonMobil CEO: Open more federal land for oil and gas’ (18.04.2011) link: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/bartiromo/2011-04-18-bartiromo-rex-tillerson-exxonmobil.htm

Hargreaves, Steve – ‘Exxon silent on controversial Iraq oil deal’ (06.12.2011) link: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/06/news/international/Exxon_Iraq_oil_deal/

Walsh, Bryan – ‘Inside the Death Star — Also Known as Exxon’ (01.05.2012) link: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2113546,00.html

Wikileaks –‘KAZAKHSTAN: ALL SIDES SMILING WITH KASHAGAN DEAL’ (18.01.2008) link: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08ASTANA91_a.html

WikiLeaks – ‘FAJA NEGOTIATIONS: NO NEWS IS BAD NEWS’ (25.05.2007) link: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07CARACAS1030_a.html

WikiLeaks – ‘KAZAKHSTAN/CYPRUS/UK – Programme summary of Kazakh Khabar TV “Zhanalyqtar” news 1400 gmt 21 Sep 11’ (21.09.2011) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/71/711052_kazakhstan-cyprus-uk-programme-summary-of-kazakh-khabar-tv.html

WikiLeaks – ‘RUSSIA/FORMER SOVIET UNION-Exxonmobil Hails Russian Government Efforts to Improve Tax System’ (31.08.2011) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/25/2574477_russia-former-soviet-union-exxonmobil-hails-russian.html

WikiLeaks – ‘Murdoch climate campaign’ (19.02.2015) link: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/27241

WikiLeaks – ‘Re: FRACK – W.Va. eyes fluid disclosure; quote from Lachelt’ (09.03.2010) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/38/386876_re-frack-w-va-eyes-fluid-disclosure-quote-from-lachelt-.html

WikiLeaks – ‘RUSSIA/CANADA/MEXICO – Russia’s oil firm signs partnership deal with ExxonMobil’ (02.09.2011) link: https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/70/705223_russia-canada-mexico-russia-s-oil-firm-signs-partnership.html

My letter to Jean-Claude Juncker on the proposed EU Army!

juncker-army-quote

Dear Jean Claude Juncker, the President of European Union Commission and former Prime Minister Luxembourg; you had a moment of glory or you might thought so honourable Jean-Claude.

I am just a member of EFTA by default as a Norwegian citizens and since my country isn’t a Member State; I’m sure in your opinion my opinions doesn’t exists because the ones that matters are the citizens inside the Union. Still, I want to write to you as citizen of the world and worried about you Napoleon complex and hereditary idea of stronger federalism of Europe. This happens in the same week the underlings of you doesn’t’ want to be accountable in the European Parliament; this are the Member States who has Members of European Parliament (MEPs). So with this in mind are these the men and woman who should be responsible for deciding warfare in the name of the Europeans when we can’t know how much they spend on the taxpayer’s funds while representing their states in the Union?

Well, I know I am trading waters now and sound a bit strange, but the hesitation on the matter is the inaccurate faith you have in the EU and their institutions. The general European is not there with you as the disregard for the daily life of European feels estranged from the boulevards of Brussels where you are stationed unless you commute from Luxembourg. That is not for me to judge. What I will more judge is the idea of a European Army!

European Army is setting the precedence that the 28 Member State’s will comply and accept to donate and keep the strengthen defence and military upkeep through the Union. That is also to connect the defence budgets and the military equipment production stronger in the EU. That must be put into the calculation. Not only keep a solidified borders as the Commissioners fear the Islamic Terrorism and the refugee crisis to the levels that Europe needs a bigger and wider army. That is controlled by the unaccountable MEPs and EU Head of States, the Consilium that will order this giant army.

greek-bailout

A unknown giant army that will base by the 28 member states and put a prerogative of the federal state controlled by Brussels, as they already have issued currency, bills and now a Army. So the missing piece for you is the army and king. Honourable Jean-Claude you are acting with spite and fear if you enforcing the idea of an European Union Army and Defence. That is not the sign of peace or collaboration Europe needs. Especially with the ways that Cyprus and Greece economy has been liberated and sold to foreign investors while the taxations are slimming even more with the policies from the Central Institutions of the EU.

With those acts of spite and diligent betrayal of common sense in the banking industry of Greece and Cyprus; not even saving but bailing out with the whole-sale of nations. That coming with effect of the Brexit recently, you want the unaccountable MEPs to run an Army from Brussels. Do you know how insulting that is the European people and citizens, Jean-Claude?

Can’t you just take control of the Eurovision Song Contest or something; make sure the trade-laws and negotiations between Member States are following the guidelines of the Brussels accords. The Union you currently abide to is a currency-union, free-movements of people and goods and ‘universal’ policies that they have to follow no matter which country you live in. In that sense an army is needed, but that gives powers to Union and something Europe not seen before.

We have had the NATO that many of the current members of Union are obliged to serve and follow the codes of the agreement. As much as the European States has co-operated in military unifications it’s been training and peace-operations that many of the Member States has participated in.

If you think it is healthy to have a giant army directed from Brussels than the powers of the Union is more giant multi-national state, federalism and centralized in Belgium than people might express wishes for. Europeans want their states to have power and keen that their representatives have power and accountability within their domain; if the Brussels thinks it is good idea to take the guns and ammunitions from Madrid, Prague, Vienna and Copenhagen. Than they will have to ask what their own armies are supposed to do? How are the pecking orders of the EU General and Danish General? Are the orders from Brussels trumping the ones of Stockholm?

An European Army is the answer to fatigue and gesture of complex gravitas as the European Member States deserves their sovereign and rights to defend themselves within the military alliances and military benefits the nations. If the EU thinks it is wise to counter this and control it centrally than they can initially take over all powers and make a EU Police. Then all of the law’s and orders will controlled by the Brussels under the new federal jurisdiction of EU Commission and the Consilium. That in the end will be voted over by the unaccountable MEPs in EU Parliament. So they can decide if the army need to invade or guard Gibraltar or Guernsey from the Pirate Bay.

juncker-treaties-quote

Let’s be clear Jean-Claude Juncker, the one man in Europe with clearly a Napoleon complex! It’s time to whine down and take a beer. It is time to render the times of not-so much peace in Europe and wonder what the EU has lost. What powers the EU has taken in times of Peace and less hostility. What kind of powers the centralized Brussels decrees are burdening the towns and villages of Europe that you never will put your foot in Mr. Jean-Claude.

The Army you propose to counter foreign invaders is absurd and worrying. The EU Army will only be beneficiary for a un-elected aristocrats who will use it to silence criticism and the citizens who disobey the command of Brussels. It will not be a defence organization that can be sustainable to keep greater powers out. This army will only cause frictions and be a power that can be used in Neo-Colonial affairs for the former European Empires to control their former colonies. This will not be an army for peace; it will create more bloodshed in the names of spoiled rich EU observers and their elites. Is that what you want Jean-Claude?

Your EU Army will not be a tool for peace, but for rivers of blood, for loss of lives and loved ones. For the concern of foreign dignitaries and their allies; this create a hatched hiccup of world order and the destination unknown as the EU Parliament who will obey the command of their leaders will send their citizens to wars for resources at one point or another as recessions and market-crash’s happen once in-while. It is just a matter of time before a legit war intervention becomes an excuse to export needed minerals to Europe. That is what the Army will be for right, Jean-Claude?

You should first implement the Federalism fully before pledging the idea and dream of multi-national army those bounds of future conquests and current problems as they want to have fortified walls and gates of Europe. If the EU Commissioners start to think of the EU as Rome Empire than he has also lost the plot as the twist and turns of the vague Union; if he wants the weak Union to grow stronger there needs more trust between Berlin, Prague and other capitals nota army to silence the ones who disobey. Does he want to be emperor… new royal lord of Europe instead of a possible statesmen; the greed of a man who forgot the principals and dynamic of Europe as he sits in the bureaucracies of Brussels. Peace.

Opinion: MEP’s arrogance over accountability for their expenses shows the lack of integrity from Brussels!

jacques-delors-quote

It comes this day and times when giant organizations, Multi-National Organization that are having the oversight of most of the European Nations under the Umbrella of European Union, where the elected men from each nation represent the values of each nation in the European Parliament. In this perspective the European Union and the European Parliament should be more open and more transparent. This they should think about, especially in a time where the Parties and People grow tired of the arrogance of Brussels and the bureaucracy made in the Belgian capital.

So when the news coming out that the Members of the European Parliament (MEP) doesn’t have the guts or heart to put it into paperwork to show the citizens through the media their benefits for representing the Member States. MEP is lucky to be there and represent the nations of the Union. They should be giddy for the accessibility for representing people and with the low turnout to the elections the marginal rate of the population caring about their seats. They should honour that minority even more. Instead they are showing arrogance. They are showing blistering ignorance for justice and accountability. Why should all the citizens pay taxes and show their income to the states. As they can be searched for online by all citizens, but the ones representing them in the European Parliament cannot show their salaries and benefits? Seriously are you that high on the pedestal that you cannot absorb the injustice by keeping that at bay?

You MEP are a public servant if you represent the Pirate Party, UKIP or any kind of Green Party who has seats in the Parliament. All of you represent the European citizens and their member states. You are there on behest of the European People and the Member State you come from. You are not of noble blood or royal family. You are elected by the people in rigid ballot election in your home country.

ep-lobby-transparency

If the MEPs we serious about representing their citizens they would have no trouble disclosing this information as the citizens are the ones that in the end are paying their salaries through the taxes. MEPs are not above the citizens they are there on the behalf of them. Still, when they get defensive and take it court for something that should be natural for them to do!  

The MEPs has to respect the people as they are in the hands of the people. They are not there for the EU Commission or EU Parliament President; they are there for the German, Dutch, Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italian etc. The Citizens have the right to know their bills and their pay for representing them.

If the MEPs wants to be representing them than it is time to show them what they think their worth and how much the citizens of Europe has to raise to keep the upkeep of the European Parliament. The arrogance and ignorance of their duty has to stop. If they want to be taken serious and justify their role in Europe and decide to make changes in the best interest of the continent; not like now when it seem it is more a personal pride to get there and stay there than actually work for the greater good. If so can please the EU Commission just whine down the Parliament and only the Consilium or the European Council that has the Head of State from the Member States who could just make all decisions instead of the Representatives in the unaccountable and not trustworthy Parliament in Brussels; is that what the MEPs trying to do or want us to believe?

If so, good riddance we will not miss you and your accountability, as you cannot even open up about how much we facilitate for your time sitting in Belgium for all of Europe. Is that so much trouble are you so much compensated that you are worried about the backlash that you will look like a greedy Scrooge instead of a Public Servants as you are expected to be? Is the plane tickets and paid allowances together with the salaries too big to defend?

If so than you should fix that as you have the legal and opportunity to take back the high pay and allowances as you are the one behind the legal framework and representatives. That is if you have heart and not just greed to compensate with fortunes for working for the commons.

MEPs you are disgusting if you think you can eat taxpayer’s money without accountability. You are like dictators and authoritarian leaders who disrespect their commoners while you are the ruling regime on the hill and let everybody in slopes; the ones who gets the shade and rainwater has to pay for the MEPs for their luxury. MEPs are in service for the ones in slopes of the hill, even if they run everything from the top of it. They could not have the Parliament if it weren’t for citizens. MEPs should humbly beg for forgiveness and be accountable. With taking this to court you are officially a disgrace to democracy and to the people of Europe.

Members of European Parliament shouldn’t fear showing their expenses, they secretariat and whatever else they can bill on the taxpayer’s. MEPs show disrespect and doesn’t deserve the honour of being honourable when they cannot even show how much money the use. The Euros they use to facilitate their days in Brussels. MEPs shouldn’t act like Kings and Queens; they are ordinary men and woman elected to represent citizens not Lords and Royals of old!

Time to be accountable and transparent; you can’t be that than you shouldn’t represent anyone else than yourself. Peace.  

President Museveni is not running for his 5th term, but he is running for the 7th! Proving it by going through his previous terms

Uganda-parliament-2

I know for some of you people this will blow your mind; some of you will tell I told you so. Other people will be like? How dare you insult my intelligence, well it depends on how you deem history and how you let the victors rewrite it. As President Museveni has been a victor and won over his predecessors like Yusuf Lule, Tito Okello and Milton Obote, even Idi Amin together with Milton Obote and the Tanzanian Army in late 1970s. So President Museveni has won the power through guns. At the same time as he has lingers he has tried to rewrite history as the people neglect certain fact.

We are supposed to see the people of Uganda to elect the 10th Parliament as this is the end of the 9th Parliament. I will not discuss that matter, as that is not important me. We could discuss if there only been 9 functional Parliament and representative government since independence in 1962, or should we also count the ones that we’re before this since the British introduced Parliamentarism in Uganda in 1882. Then it is with certainty more than 10 of them. If so is that based on the new constitution after independence or the newly written to fit NRA/NRM in 1995? Then so I understand the coming 10th Parliament. Still, this is also worth discussing and the matter of how we value the predecessors and the tools they left behind for the men of today who rule. Feel me?

This here is not a reflection on how Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM) lost and got 4% in the 1980s and 1 seat in Parliament, as this was the first outfit for President Museveni. Museveni didn’t even get a seat as he lost to Sam Kutesa in the distric he was running in; that is a worthy side-note!

m7-1970

His first term – Overthrowing Okello in 1986:

But his first term started as he was sworn in and the New York Times described it like this:

“KAMPALA, Uganda, Jan. 29Yoweri Museveni, whose National Resistance Army descended on this battered capital city last week and overthrew the military Government of Gen. Tito Okello, was sworn in today as the new President of Uganda” (Rule, 1986). Here is in my opinion his start of first term, as he took it by the gun. As he was sworn in as President of Uganda, which initial means he got the appointment of rule as he defeated his opposition at that time.

ReaganMuseveni

 His Second Term – Election in 1989:

“The elections in 1989 also included elections for the majority of seats in parliament. Candidates for all these elections stood strictly as individuals and not as representatives for a party although several of them publicly were known supporters for one of the older parties – including the UPC. The Ugandan constitution was abolished in 1966, and no basic consensus has ever since appeared on the most basic issues like: how to elect a President and whether the country should be an unitary state or a federation including several kingdoms” (P: 40, 1994, Tidemand). “As already noted, the 1989 elections were held under strict anti-party rules since the NRM government had suspended all political party activities. Indeed, the Resistance Councils and Committees Elections Regulations, 1989, forbade all use of party symbols, sectarian appeals, and threats of force, the offer of food or drinks and the display of candidates’ posters. The absence of open campaigning made it impossible to discuss policies” (Bwana, 2009). “Out of a total of 278 seats, 210 members were elected without party affiliation” (African Elections).

This here election was one, and gave NRM time to rebuild and rewrite a new constitution. So this gave way for his second term in my opinion. Since the first term was from 1986 – 1989. From 1989 to 1996 is his second as there weren’t elections towards the parliament and presidential candidates, which means that the country was still controlled tightly by the NRM. Before the 1996 election there was election a Council for writing the new Constitution. That was put into place in 1995.

the-1995-constitution-was-very-clear-on-two-terms-but-museveni-used-parliament-to-remove-term-limits

His Third term – 1996 elections:

“The presidential election was preceded by an aggressive electoral campaign which was dominated by intimidation, vote buying, bribery and promises of material benefits. These methods were employed by both the opposition and the incumbent government during the 39 days which were allowed for presidential campaigns. It would seem that the aggressiveness of the campaign was dictated to some extent by the limited time allowed for each candidate to cover all of the country’s 39 districts, which meant that candidates were allowed one day of campaigning in each district. Again, this arrangement favoured the incumbent, President Museveni who had been in power for 10 years and was therefore well known to the electorate, compared to his challengers. Moreover, the electoral law allowed him the continued use of his presidential privileges which made the 39 campaign days less problematic” (Muhumaza, 1997). “The I996 presidential election was deemed a ‘step forward’ by many Western diplomats, although before the election some diplomats privately questioned how the election could be fair because of the fact that political parties were not able to organise to compete with the political machinery of the NRM (Reuters, 6 May I996). Despite private reservations, the official donor attitude was that the losers of the election should not contest the results. When Paul Ssemogerere went to the European Union Parliamentary Committee on Development to complain about the unfairness of the election, the committee told him to accept his defeat (The New Vision, 3 June I996)” (Hauser, 1999).

Interesting allegation about campaign money to Museveni in 1996:

It was for instance alleged that one presidential candidate received funds equivalent to 600 million shillings (US$600,000) from certain foreign organisations while on a pre-election visit to Europe; and that another candidate had been funded certain Islamic countries. Similar insinuations were hurled against President Museveni who was alleged to have got financial contributions from the Indian community in Uganda” (Muhumaza, 1997).

The election results from the 9th of May 1996:

The results was: “Yoweri Kaguta Museveni: 74.33 %, Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere: 23.61 % and Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja: 2.06 %” (African Election Database).

This here was the official first term as he was this one. Even if he had already been ten years in power, that is why I am saying this is his third term, as he had the first one from 1986 to 1989, when the overthrow Okello, second after the parliamentary elections to the first presidential election in 1996. That lasted to the 2001.

Before the next election this was reports on the great democratic environment President Museveni was building:

“Political parties are prohibited from holding party conferences, a ban which severely hampers their own internal reform. Since this ban has been in place since 1986, reform in the structure and leadership of political parties has been virtually impossible. Attempts to hold party conferences have been met with strong and unambiguous warnings from the Ugandan government that they would prevent such meetings” (…)”Since coming to power, the NRM has used a state-funded program of political and military education called chaka-mchaka to spread its message that political parties are destructive sectarian organizations responsible for Uganda’s past woes, an argument that resonates given Uganda’s recent political history. Chaka-mchaka thus serves to rationalize the NRM’s denial of political rights of freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Government leaders, including President Museveni, often refer to advocates of democratic reform as their “enemies.” Other structures of local government such as the local councils (LC) and the Resident District Commissioners (RDC) serve to ensure support for the NRM, and often create a hostile climate for advocates of pluralism” (Human Rights Watch, 1999).

Old Campaign Posters Uganda

Fourth Term – General Election in 2001:

KAMPALA, Uganda, March 14— President Yoweri Museveni swept the hard-fought elections here today, in a victory that he called an acclamation of 15 years of peaceful rule but that his main opponent said was won only by extensive cheating” (…)”My votes are like Lake Victoria,” Mr. Museveni told tens of thousands of supporters this afternoon who marched to an airstrip downtown after the results were announced. ”They never dry up.” (…)”The main election monitors in Uganda said, however, that most allegations of cheating appeared to be against forces loyal to Mr. Museveni, estimating preliminarily that between 5 and 15 percent of the vote may have been won fraudulently. The fraud included people being forced or influenced to vote by election officials, intimidation and people being denied the right to vote” (Fisher, 2001).

The Election results from the 12th March 2001:

The results are: “Yoweri Kaguta Museveni: 69.33 %, Kizza Besigye: 27.82 %, Aggrey Awori: 1.41 %, Muhammad Kibirige Mayanja: 1.00%, Francis Bwengye: 31 % and Karuhanga Chapaa: 0.14 % (African Election Database).

Reactions to the election:

“Amnesty International (AI) agrees with the Besigye opposition that “the Presidential elections in Uganda have been marred by allegations of human rights abuses, both before and after the elections on 12 March 2001. An increasing number of human rights violations against opposition supporters, including illegal arrests and detention without charge, ill-treatment in detention, and alleged unlawful killings were reported by the Ugandan press in the weeks leading up to the elections. In some instances, supporters of President Museveni were also targetted.” (Afrol.com, 2001).

This here was the official second term, while I am saying it is the fourth one, that lead to him opening the Multi-Party elections in 2005. Also the referendum on term limits came into force in 2005. As the constitution made in 1995 gave the limit of the Executive Power and President had the ability to be elect twice. As he wasn’t elected in between 1986 to 1996; 10 years without accountability and still becoming a donor pleasant government as Structural Adjustment Program got eaten up by the Government of Uganda in that period. As President Museveni even met with U.S. President Clinton; as he was the new future leader of the “third world” development.

Uganda Term Limits Museveni

Here are the issues in 2005 with the abolishment of term limits:

“Museveni and his supporters, who pushed a controversial constitutional amendment rescinding presidential term limits through Parliament this month, are urging an overwhelming “yes” vote while the weak and fractured opposition want the country’s 8,9-million eligible voters to boycott the polls” (…)”Under current rules, political parties are allowed to exist but may not have branch offices and may not field candidates in elections. The only fully-functioning political entity is Museveni’s own “Movement” organisation to which all Ugandans theoretically belong” (Mayanja, 2005).

As it was voted in by the public he was allowed to be the Presidential candidate in yet another election. The one that happen in 2006!

Election 2011 Uganda

Fifth term – 23rd February 2006 Presidential Election:

As some context and pretext over the other issues written in between 2001 and 2006; this here is following the close and tense contest that was held in 2006; as the NRM was weaken over time, as the fatigue of running the country since 1986. As the fourth term was already showing how much they tried to continue to work under the Movement System, instead of giving way to Multi-Party Democracy, as people voted in the second referendum poll. Here is some things happening right before:

“A spokesman for the ruling National Resistance Movement told New Vision that the government had complained to the U.S.-based Web server which hosts Radio Katwe, Brinkster Communications Corporation, claiming that the site was publishing “malicious and false information against the party and its presidential candidate. (…)”Local journalists have expressed fears that the government could similarly block The Monitor’s Web site on election day, when the newspaper plans to keep a running tally of votes from across the country. “Our Web site has been going offline every day for the last three days” for several hours at a time, Monitor Group Managing Director Conrad Nkutu told CPJ. He added that while the problem appeared be a technical glitch, “we are also suspicious it might not be.” (CPJ, 2006).

Election results from 2006:

The results are:


Number of Votes
% of Votes
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (NRM) 4,109,449 59.26%
Kizza Besigye (FDC) 2,592,954 37.39%
John Ssebaana Kizito (DP) 109,583 1.58%
Abed Bwanika 65,874 0.95%
Miria Obote (UPC) 57,071 0.82%

(African Election Database)

Aftermath after the first Multi-Party after NRM got into Power:

“The multi-party elections of 2006 saw only slight improvements from 2001, notably in the area of media freedom. Dr Besigye ran against President Museveni for the second time, but now as the leader of a new political party, the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), and garnered 37.39% of the votes, as against Museveni’s 59.26% majority. Dr Besigye’s Supreme Court case regarding the 2006 elections has become famous due to the ruling that Museveni was the rightful winner despite the Court’s acknowledgement of widespread electoral malpractices and vote rigging which were considered not to have substantially affected the results of the elections” (…)”For any engagement with these political parties a number of issues need to be taken into consideration, these include the multi-party system and the fact that the political playing field remains un-levelled in favour of the NRM. As such, donors operating in Uganda need to be cognisant of the implications of this, for the ruling party and for opposition parties. International donors have and continue to play a significant role in financing and monitoring Uganda’s elections. In the 1990s, the UNDP was the lead institution for donors who wanted to co-finance Uganda’s elections. The UNDP’s mandate involved managing a donors’ basket fund, and recruiting and supervising specialised technical assistance to support the EC and civil-society organisations to carry out tasks allocated to them” (Sekaggya, 2010).

Uganda Election 2011 P2

Sixth Term – General Election in 2011:

Some Pretext: “The 2011 Uganda elections have attracted a record 8 Presidential candidates from seven political parties and one Independent candidate. All the Presidential Candidates have been on the campaign trail marketing their manifestos to Ugandans and have dispelled earlier assertions that some of them, seen as weak, will pull out of the campaigns that like in 2006 were expected to majorly be between incumbent Yoweri Museveni of the National Resistance Movement and Dr. Kizza Besigye of the Forum for Democratic Change” (Rulekere, 2011). “FGD respondents said that this happens mainly on the election eve whereby candidates and/or their agents carry gifts and money in vehicles which have had number plates removed and they pack somewhere in the village and then walk from door to door giving money and/or gifts” (…)”Daily Monitor of Friday 7, January 2011 carried a lead story that President Museveni gave out $2.15 million (USh5 billion) in cash and pledges between July and October 2010 but the opposition is charging that such patronage is giving the incumbent an unfair advantage in the February 18, 2011 vote. Mr Museveni always conducts a countrywide tour before each election, during which he makes pledges and donations Critics say this is a disguised campaign that allows him to offer inducements to potential voters out of the public purse, a privilege unavailable to other candidates” (…)”Incumbent candidates have readily used their access to state resources to provide an unfair edge when running for re-election. This includes cash payments from the state treasury, use of state owned property and vehicles, as well as the fulfilment of campaign pledges during the campaign period. Voter have given up on their elected officials to fulfil campaign promises and seek to extract as much benefit as they can around the campaign period” (DMG, 2011)

The results are:

Candidate (Party) [Coalition] Number of Votes % of Votes
Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (NRM) 5,428,369 68.38%
Kizza Besigye (FDC) [IPC] 2,064,963 26.01%
Norbert Mao (DP) 147,917 1.86%
Olara Otunnu (UPC) 125,059 1.58%
Beti Kamya (UFA) 52,782 0.66%
Abed Bwanika (PDP) 51,708 0.65%
Jaberi Bidandi Ssali (PPP) 34,688 0.44%
Samuel Lubega 32,726 0.41%

(African Election Database)

Tororo town FDC Poster Former Campaign IPC

The Commonwealth Observation Group noted this:

“The main concern regarding the campaign, and indeed regarding the overall character of the election, was the lack of a level playing field, the use of money and abuse of incumbency in the process. The magnitude of resources that was deployed by the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), its huge level of funding and overwhelming advantage of incumbency, once again, challenged the notion of a level playing field in the entire process. Media monitoring reports also indicated that the ruling party enjoyed a large advantage in coverage by state-owned radio and TV. The ruling party in Uganda is by far the largest and best-resourced party and following many years in power, elements of the state structure are synonymous with the party. Further, reports regarding the “commercialisation of politics” by the distribution of vast amounts of money and gifts were most disturbing. Indeed, the „money factor‟ and widespread allegations of bribery and other more subtle forms of buying allegiance were key features of the political campaign by some, if not all, the parties. By all accounts, the 2011 elections were Uganda‟s most expensive ever. It is therefore important that for the future serious thought be given to election campaign financing and political party fundraising. This is more so given that there are virtually no checks on the levels of campaign financing and expenditure due to the cash-based nature of the campaign and the lack of stringent campaign financing regulations, both of which facilitate the use of illicit payments to voters as inducements and has the potential to undermine their free will” (Commonwealth Observers Group, 2011).

Museveni-with-a-dummy-map-of-uganda

Important how President Museveni could run in the 2016 Election:

The Kyankwanzi Resolution of 2014 – President Museveni’s right for Sole Candidacy in the NRM:

“RESOLUTION ON PARTY COHESION AND GOVERNANCE

We, the undersigned members of the NRM Caucus attending a retreat at the National Leadership Institute(NALI) Kyankwanzi (6,February 2014); Fully aware of our Country’s historical  past and the need to consolidate and sustain the Milestones registered over the years since 1986; Cognizant of the fact that there is still a lot more to be done in order to realize our ideological vision of uniting Uganda(Nationalism), Pan-africanism, transforming our country from a poor peasantry society to a modern economy and upholding democracy; Conscious of the fact that what has been so far achieved over the last 28 years needs to be guarded jealously and improved upon to realize our vision; Aware  that when individuals engage in personal scheming, party cohesion is undermined, development efforts aredistracted and the population is diverted from work to early politicking;

DO here by resolve;

  1. To support H.E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni tocontinue leading and facilitating our country on its take off journey to transformation”

Afterthought –Run in to General Election 2016.

1986-1996: First and Second Term!

So I have now gone through the Elections since 1986 until today in 2016. That is thirty years in Power for the Executive Power and being President Museveni. 1986 to 1996, he didn’t really become elected as President as he did a coup d’état in 1986 to bring down regime at the current time. So the period from 1986 to 1996, there was an election in 1989 a Resistance Council elections which barred the Parliament with elected men and woman from the NRM/A, but was not an ordinary election to bring the people’s will in full effect and not even electing President Museveni, but securing polls to validate the rule of NRM at the time, also in my consideration to shut-up the donor-community; so they see the “democratic” vision of President Museveni. He even made a stunning Constitution in 1995. President Museveni had set the standard with two term limits and other regulatory tools to secure accountability that was new in Uganda, together with swallowing the Structural Adjustment Program to secure massive amount of funding to rebuild the country and secure Universal Preliminary Education. Something the citizens of Uganda got excited about and also gave him praise abroad.

museveni 2016 Poster

Third Term 1996-2001:

After the 1996 Presidential Election was his third term elections, and the official first term (which I can’t take serious) as he had already ruled for a decade, and you can’t shuffle that off that easy. Even with the bodies and violence to get the power in 1986, it cost so much suffering to gain that power; so to eradicate that and call this his first term, is to neglect the first ten years of power. Something we should be to damn wise to not. There we’re still not a Multi-Party Democracy or Elections as President Museveni doesn’t really believe in that; as the nation had to after this go through two referendum polls before initiating the hassle of letting people be controlled by other party functions then the NRM.

Fourth Term 2001-2006:

So when the fourth term came in 2001, he had already been long enough in power to already using up the constitutional rights as the Executive Power and President of the land. He was still popular and gained a lot of support. Even if the election was rigged and had a massive malpractices; the initial issues is how he pleaded and mixed up with referendum terminating presidential term limits to fit himself and rewriting the constitution of 1995 in 2005, so he could run off a third time. The second score of joy for the people was the second vote of the polls for Multi-Party Democracy, meant that the public could vote for other parties then the NRM during the 2006, as much as they could still as ever; vote for the old man with the hat! After 20 years in power he still used sufficient tools to be able to get voted in. And also stifle the completion in his favor, as the man who took power himself in 1986.

Fifth Term 2006-2011:

Set for the fifth term in 2006. The NRM and President Museveni at the time was re-introducing of multi-party election and continuing to go as the candidate, to secure the total tally of 25 years; when the term would be done.  He fixed the 1995 constitution one year advanced so he could run again! This time the third official campaign and polls, though still, with the 10 year as ruler before an election means, initially fifth. This here was the start of the down-turn as he now showed more and more the authoritarian leader and totalitarian state, compared to donor-friendly character he was when he first was sworn in 1986 and steady ship he hold while elected in 1996.

Sixth Term 2011- 2016:

As his sixth term in 2011, there was already starting to crack with the NRM leadership and the people, as they we’re ready for new leaders and a new executive. As the Kampala Riots and ‘Walk to Work’ demonstrations; proves that the leadership is in a fatigue state where the public is tired of the NRM and their ring leader President Museveni. Even still with well rigged machinery the NRM “won” again the election. To finish of this one, he had to swallow a few scalps to secure his sole candidacy, he had to break of Gilbert Bukenya his loyal fellow, he had to push of cliff Amama Mbabazi who wished to take his seat in the NRM, which is not a possibility unless you are the clone of Yoweri Kaguta Museveni; something Amama Mbabazi is not! In early 2014 he had to set up his machinery ready and get his party in line so that he could get the spot again with the Kyankwanzi Resolution in February 2014 and set his goals on the 7th Term as the Executive and President of Uganda, in the 10th Parliament. That is another timeline I am not sure of, I am sure there are more then 10 elected or appointed Parliaments and sessions in the great republic of Uganda. It is just a a way of rewriting history as the NRM is famous for.

Mbabazi M7 Besigye

That rewriting history comes in the sense of saying NRM and President Museveni is contesting for the 5th Term, I am saying his fifth term was between 2006-2011 his most turbulent ruling period after his first term in 1986-1989 when he still struggled to keep the whole country into peace, as there was still guerrillas and militias wanting to unsettle the new regime in Kampala. As we have seen, and we can see, there is a pattern and there is a reason why I am saying “we could really see his democratic wish” as the elections and malpractices seems like the same as when he took power. The rigging he claimed he wanted in the 1980s and why he lost as the UPM front-man, it seems to be same as it was under Dr. Milton Obote, the only difference is that he has been able to be stable and keep a strong army to spread the fear so that nobody has tried to really use a coup d’état against him. There been allegations in the past, and even persons been alleged in court for treason against the state, but they have been more political motivated then actual forces or militias in the sense they went to the bush to get rid of President Museveni. Though LRA and ADF has gone after his head, but failed.

President Museveni is now trying his best to get into his 7th Term, and we should not be surprised by election rigging, malpractices to destroy level playing-grounds for political parties, paying for votes and using both government institutions and government funds to be re-elected; Even supress the court to secure the validation or dismiss the allegation of election fraud in the 2016 election. I fear for the public response this time and how the security agents of the state will address them. As the Gen. Katumba Wamala of the UPDF will surely do what he can to impress President Museveni and Police Boss IGP Gen. Kale Kayihura follows orders blindly made by the Executive, as if he wants to shut down demonstrations and revolts against the totalitarian regime that the NRM has evolved into. As they are used to stealing the elections and taking the people for ransom to gain riches while the average people toil in poverty. There is time for change with a government with transparency, accountability and good governance; as the government now is famous for not caring about this issues and becoming dependent on feeding the cronies and loyal men of Museveni instead of serving the people. Peace.

Reference:

African Elections Database – ‘Elections in Uganda’ link: http://africanelections.tripod.com/ug.html

Afrol.com – ‘”Uganda needs to re-affirm human rights commitment” (17.03.2001) link: http://www.afrol.com/News2001/uga006_hrights_reaffirm.htm

Bwana, Charles – ‘Voting Patterns in Uganda’s Elections: Could it be the end of the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) domination in Uganda’s politics?’ (2009) – LES CAHIERS D’AFRIQUE DE L’ N° 41

Commonwealth Observer Group – ‘UGANDA PRESIDENTIAL AND

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS’ (24.02.2011)

Committee to Protect Jorunalist (CPJ) – ‘Critical website Radio Katwe blocked on eve of presidential election’ (23.02.2006) link: http://www.ifex.org/uganda/2006/02/23/critical_website_radio_katwe_blocked/

Democracy Monitoring Group (DMG) – ‘Report on Money in Politics – Pervasive vote buying in Ugandan Election’ (January 2011)

Fisher, Ian – ‘Final Count Has Uganda President Winning 69% of Vote’ (15.03.2001) link: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/15/world/final-count-has-uganda-president-winning-69-of-vote.html

Hauser, Ellen – ‘Ugandan Relations with Western Donors in the 1990s: What Impact on Democratisation?’ (Dec. 1999) link: http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Hauser%20Uganda%20donors.pdf

Human Right Watch – ‘Hostile to Democracy The Movement System and Political Repression in Uganda’ (01.10.1999) link: http://www.refworld.org/docid/45dad0c02.html

Manyanja, Vincent – ‘Ugandans face paradox in referendum’ (25.07.2005) link: http://mg.co.za/article/2005-07-25-ugandans-face-paradox-in-referendum

Muhumaza, William – ‘Money and Power in Uganda’s 1996 Elections’ (1997) – African. Journal. Political Science (1997), Vol. 2 No. 1, 168-179

Rule, Sheila – ‘REBEL SWORN IN AS UGANDA PRESIDENT’ (30.01.1986) link:  http://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/30/world/rebel-sworn-in-as-uganda-president.html

Rulekere, Gerald – ‘Uganda Elections 2011: The Presidential Candidates – Early Predictions’ (17.02.2011) link: http://www.ugpulse.com/government/uganda-elections-2011-the-presidential-candidates-early-predictions/1207/ug.aspx

Sekaggya, Margaret – ‘Uganda: Management of Elections’ (01.01.2010) link: https://www.eisf.eu/library/uganda-management-of-elections/

Tidemand, Per – ‘The Resistance Councils in Uganda A Study of Rural Politics and Popular Democracy in Africa’ (1994) –PHD Dissertation at Roskilde University, Denmark.

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: