NATO: Türkiye-Finland-Sweden – Trilateral Memorandum (28.06.2022)
I write what I like.
“Considering the strong democratic traditions in Europe, and the fact that taxation is considered an issue of great importance to national sovereignty, it seems rather odd that the EU has taken such a negative approach to the inclusion of developing countries in the setting of global tax standards” (Eurodad, P: 33, 2016)
There are in this world, lots of greedy people and states that want to earn on their own benefit and get the little extra without the second party. That is why the European States do what they can to keep as much benefit of businesses inside their own dominion, even as the businesses are earning their profits in developing countries, this is happening with sophisticated business transactions, sweetheart-deals, letter-box companies and stashing profits into tax-havens.
The ones that doesn’t this tactic, this way of earning higher profits and getting better rates on the production; the reality is that European States has worked coherent to avoid their thieving of funds as the taxation deals and openings of the multi-national companies in Europe. So with these possibilities, there comes also the reasoning that the companies do what they can to stifle the European states in their own scheme to keep them. Certainly the countries getting a point on the dollar instead of multiple points on it; they could get a fair trade out of, but when they are tricking the businesses there, the businesses will do what they can to trick out of them too. The Businesses are not in the country out of love, they are there to earn profits and doesn’t’ care how as long as they get. So long the States are having the set-up to be used, they will use them and the citizens will wonder why the sophisticated businesses pay so little why earning fortunes, while the citizens are paying fairly high tax on the dollar.
Just take a look!
Letter box companies:
“The setting up of letterbox companies is one of the practices used by multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes in countries where their economic activity takes place” (…) “Looking at global investment flows, it is clear that several European countries are major centres providing attractive tax regimes for letterbox companies and thus functioning as conduits for multinationals’ investments. By comparing the statistics of foreign direct investments (FDI), Dutch organisation SOMO shows that the Netherlands is by far the largest exporter of FDI in the world, ahead of much bigger economies such as the United States and China” (Eurodad, P:17, 2016).
“In November 2014, the LuxLeaks revelations exposed the secret world of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) – also known as sweetheart deals – which benefited multinational corporations, in some cases with tax rates lower than 1 per cent.89” (…) “Public insight into these kinds of deals is very rare indeed, since they are kept highly confidential. In fact, the LuxLeaks revelations were followed by legal charges against the two whistleblowers, as well as one of the key journalists, who brought the story to the public. The case is still ongoing in Luxembourg (see ‘Lack of whistleblower protection’)” (…) “Other examples of problematic APAs have been highlighted by the European Commission’s state aid cases. For example, APAs played a central role in the tax arrangements between Luxembourg and Fiat, the Netherlands and Starbucks, and Apple and Ireland. In these cases, the European Commission found the tax advantages given to the multinational corporations, through APAs, to be a violation of the EU’s State Aid rules” (Eurodad, P: 19, 2016).
“Another key concern related to tax treaties is that they often include provisions to lower – or remove – withholding taxes on cross-boundary financial flows, and thus can lead to lower tax income in the countries signing on to such treaties, including developing countries. For example, research by ActionAid shows that a tax treaty between Uganda and the Netherlands, signed in 2004, completely takes away Uganda’s right to tax certain earnings paid to owners of Ugandan companies if the owners are resident in the Netherlands” (…) “The underlying problem in the international tax system today is that multinational companies are treated as a collection of ‘separate entities’ even though in reality they function as unified firms, with subsidiaries under the central control of the parent company. In today’s system, subsidiaries of the same company are expected to trade with each other ‘at arm’s length’, as if they did not have any connection to each other” (Eurodad, P: 21-24, 2016).
“In order to deal with the tax evasion and avoidance risks related to banking secrecy, some developed countries, such as the EU Member States, have agreed to start exchanging information on financial accounts automatically amongst each other” (…) “This means that, for example, the Belgian tax authorities will, automatically and on a periodic basis, receive information on any bank accounts or assets held by Belgians in other EU Member States. The aim of this automatic information exchange is to improve the efficiency of tax collection and prevent taxpayers from hiding capital or assets abroad” (Eurodad, P: 27, 2016).
Interesting findings from European Countries:
“The Austrian government is against full public country by country reporting, and even the European Commission’s proposal for partially public country by country reporting” (Eurodad, P: 41, 2016).
“Belgium generally has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, but the average reduction in developing country tax rates through these treaties is low. However, that the average does not show is that several of Belgium’s tax treaties with developing countries are ‘very restrictive’. There are also clear indications that Belgium’s tax treaties have significant negative impacts on the developing countries that sign them. A conservative estimate puts the fiscal cost to 28 developing countries at €35 million in 2012”(Eurodad, P: 41 , 2016). “The Belgian tax treaty system is also an issue of concern. A conservative estimate suggests that 28 developing countries lost €35 million in 2012 due to tax treaties with Belgium” (Eurodad, P: 57, 2016).
“The position of the Czech government on the issue of ownership transparency is ambiguous. On the one hand, the new Czech law is very restrictive in terms of access to information in the Czech beneficial ownership register (in fact, it seems that the definition of the “legitimate interest” is so narrow that in practice it will be inaccessible for the public, no matter if they have a legitimate interest or not)” (Eurodad, P: 42, 2016).
“The Danish government does not support full public country by country reporting. Instead, Denmark supports the proposal from the European Commission, which would only allow the public to get a partial picture of the activities and tax payments of multinational corporations” (Eurodad, P: 42 , 2016).
“Although the French tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, France has eight ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. In total, France also has the highest number of treaties with developing countries among all countries covered by this report” (Eurodad, P: 43, 2016).
“The German government has previously worked very actively against the adoption of full public country by country reporting at EU level. Germany remains very sceptical, even towards the proposal from the European Commission, which would only introduce partially public country by country reporting” (…) “Germany’s tax treaties with developing countries are a cause of concern due to the high number of very restrictive treaties. Also of concern is the fact that Germany’s total number of treaties with developing countries is significantly above average” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).
“Of all the countries covered by this report, the Irish tax treaties with developing countries introduce the highest average reductions on the tax rates of their developing country treaty partners. Among the Irish tax treaties with developing countries are three ’very restrictive’ treaties” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).
“Although the Italian tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, Italy and the UK are the countries that have the highest number of ’very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 45, 2016). “An Italian investigation is also ongoing into Credit Suisse Ag. The Switzerland-based group’s parent company is charged with systematically having helped 13,000 Italian clients to hide their assets of more than €14 billion abroad” (Eurodad, P: 73, 2016).
“According to the Financial Secrecy Index, Luxembourg has the highest level of financial secrecy of all the countries covered by this report (and ranks at number 6 at the global level). The government’s position on the issue of public registers of beneficial owners is unclear” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “In spite of the LuxLeaks scandal, Luxembourg has continued to issue a very high number of advance pricing agreements (or ‘sweetheart deals’) to multinational corporations – with a 50 per cent increase during the year following the scandal. This, as well as the fact that Luxembourg generally has a significant amount of indicators of aggressive tax planning, is highly concerning. Also, on the issue of financial secrecy, Luxembourg remains a high concern – currently placed as number 6 at the list of the world’s most secretive countries” (Eurodad, P: 79, 2016).
“Netherlands currently has some extremely restrictive tax treaties with developing countries, which make it difficult for those developing countries to collect taxes. Netherlands generally also has more tax treaties with developing countries, and is more aggressive in negotiating the lowering of tax rates in developing countries, than the average among the countries covered in this report. In addition, the government does not levy withholding taxes on outgoing payments to tax havens, which would be an effective anti-abuse measure that would not require lengthy treaty renegotiations” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “Leaked EU documents show that the Netherlands is attempting to undermine EU plans to tackle harmful tax practices by introducing a minimum tax rate of 10 per cent for royalties and interest payments. They reveal that the Netherlands has proposed exceptions in the plans for its patent box provision, which can reduce taxation on revenues resulting from research and development to 5 per cent. This provision, which is a key component of the Dutch tax system, would be threatened by a 10 per cent minimum rate” (Eurodad, P: 82, 2016).
“Norway has a high number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016). “Norway’s tax treaty with Benin completely prevents Benin from taxing royalty payments to Norway. This is problematic since multinational corporations can use royalty payments between subsidiaries to minimize their profits and thereby avoid taxes in the countries where they have business activities” (…) “Norway does not have a patent box. It does however have a very favourable tax regime for shipping companies, albeit in line with EU countries’ legislation. Shipping income is tax-exempt and qualifying companies instead pay a small tax based on the tonnage of its vessels” (Eurodad, P: 84, 2016).
“Poland has a significant number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016).
“Spain has on average been the second most aggressive negotiator when it comes to lowering developing country tax rates through tax treaties. Spain also has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, which gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 48, 2016). “Wealthy Spanish people have doubled their money stashed in Luxembourg (more than €13 billion) – afraid of uncertainty and looking for lower tax rates” (…) “Inside Spain, the Canary Islands (located close to the African Atlantic coast) have a special economic and tax regime that make them “one of the most profitable tax regimes in Europe”, according to PwC. A tax rate of 4 per cent for companies located there is one of the several tax benefits. Special incentives also are applied in Ceuta and Melill” (Eurodad, P: 90-91, 2016).
“Sweden has four ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).
“Together with Italy, the UK has the highest number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. On average, the UK’s tax treaties with developing countries contain relatively high reductions in developing country tax rates. The fact that the UK at the same time has the second highest number of treaties with developing countries gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).
If this isn’t eye-opening, than I don’t know, but it shows the systematic state of easy taxation to benefit big-business, the multi-national companies, so they can set-up show and get grander profits, while the states works the perks between them to settle score. The negotiations and the tax-havens gives more space for the companies to fuel money out of Europe and of the Developing Countries, which hurts all sort of government operations as the end-game is that the government doesn’t get the supposed tax-base as that flee to offshore or overseas where the taxations is lax or non-compliance with the place the business actually operates. We all should get our MPs, Senators, MEPs, Governors and all other Elected Representatives, to take action against this sophisticated thieving from the Multi-National Companies and the Representatives who opens the gates for this activity. Peace.
EURODAD – ‘Survival of the Richest – Europe’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2016’ (15.11.2016).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As there been a leak of documents that are addressing the Bilderberg conferences that have been silenced and been a not well-known public affair between the European Government and also the World Affairs, as they have been set invited to discuss the affairs and deal with the present takes of issues.
Like on the Bliderberg Conference of 1954 that we’re on the 29th – 31st May. When the Chairman for the Conference we’re Prince of the Netherlands Prince Bernhard and his Vice-Chairmen we’re John S. Coleman and Paul Van Zeeland. While the same Conference had rapporteurs on the subjects that we’re discussed, these men we’re from USA, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Italy, but half we’re from the United States. Of attenders there we’re from all across Europe, like from Norway came Leif Høegh; UK had a dozen attendees, but the one standout we’re Sir Harry Pilkington; From Germany Rudolf Mueller, Penagiottis Pipenelis from Greece for instance. This proves the importance of the conference as the nations didn’t send some random citizens.
They held the conference in hope for the American that the European Countries could through the NATO partnership have the military arm inside the European Defense Community, while German and French didn’t have faith in or could be part of the EDC. While the unity within unions like Steel and Coal we’re possible, as the sacrifices we’re not feasible, even if the American wished for something more than a European answer, but a Atlantic Pact, that we’re combining the European and American, not only trade, but also Defense. There we’re a general agreement between Europeans at the conference to work against the Soviet propaganda and advantages from the Communists.
One key pieces from the 1954: “The difference between America and Europe with respect to the problem of overseas territories emerged from the discussion as minor by comparison with the areas of agreement. The obvious objective to be sought is an agreed policy of the West to work towards colonial self~government as rapidly and safely as is possible. Such a solution serves the interests of the West and of the dependent peoples. It thwarts the imperialistic interests of Communism”. Second piece: “It was recognised that this conflict sprang largely from the differences in the emotional reactions to the Korean war in America and Europe – differences which it was thought had recently diminished. It was hoped that the negotiations at present taking place on the list of controlled exports would do much to eliminate them”. Third piece: “European unity in some form has long been a Utopian dream, but the conference was agreed that it is now a necessity of our times. Only thus can the free nations of Europe achieve a moral and material strength capable of meeting any threat to their freedom”.
The next conference we’re on the 18th– 20th February 1955 at Barbizon Conference. The Chairman of the Conference we’re H.R.H the Prince of Netherlands. Honorary Secretary we’re J.H. Reitinger and American Secretary Joseph E. Johnson. Interesting people’s attending we’re Sir. Colin Gubbins of United Kingdom, H.J. Heinz of United States and Alberto Pirelli of Italy.
This was the second conference and here is the key issues and quotes from the report: “We had created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to oppose Stalinism all Its aspects, but today that Organisation had a very difficult task. Set on foot to meet the possibility of an attaque brusquee it now found itself facing the long struggle of the cold war, perhaps to be prolonged through many decades to come” (…) “Anti-Colonialism: “A European speaker discussed the important psychological aspect of the uncommitted peoples of Asia and Africa, and a number of Latin Americans. He had been very much struck during the last General Assembly of the United Nations by the fact that so much jealousy and resentment was pent up beneath the mostly polished exteriors of representatives of these countries. This was particularly so with the Asians and to a lesser degree there was something of the kind at work in the minds of quite a few South Americans” (…) “There were Asians who, being ardent nationalists and in many cases instrumental in forging the independence of their countries, nevertheless understood the West and all it had to offer to Asia and Africa well enough to interpret it. Names of men like General Romulo sprang to mind, or Sir John Kotelawala” (…) “There was a dangerous tendency on the part of United Nations commissions, after short visits to territories under European tutelage, to recommend periods after which independence should be given. There had been continuous attacks on the Belgian position in Ruanda-Urundi, in East Africa. In this case the Commission had recommended a course which might transform the territory directly from feudalism to “peoples’ democracy”. It must be remembered that the more the Western powers were weakened in Africa the more would their political, economic and even moral powers of resistance to communism be weakened” (…) “The United Nations had entered into the discussion by way of the problem of colonialism. But in terms of the broad relationships between the West and the East the United Nations was an instrument of the greatest importance. It had been said that international law was a generalisation of British foreign policy of the nineteenth century. Whether that was true or not, there was written into the preamble and articles 1 and 2 of the Charter a set of propositions about international order which were entirely congenial to the foreign policies of all who sat there in the room and these had been agreed by sixty governments, including the uncommitted peoples whom we were discussing” (…) “One of Europe’s greatest responsibilities today was to find new formulae for getting over nationalism and in that the speaker agreed with the views of a participant who had suggested that some sort of federation might be the solution. We must find some form, whether it was of federation or of any other juridical term which one might give it, which would be a European-invented by-pass for European-created nationalism”.
The next conference we’re in Garmish-Partenkichen conference at the date 23rd – 25th September 1955. When the same leaders as earlier in the year at the Barbizon Conference as this was a continues effort on the common work. The key things to take from this one we’re this: “The discussion on this subject revealed general support for the idea of European Integration and unification among the participation from the six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community, and a recognition of the urgency of the problem” (…) “The six countries of the Coal and Steel Community had definitely decided to establish a common market and that the experts were now working this out was felt to be a most encouraging step forward and it was hoped that other countries would subsequently join in”.
In 2 Years the next conference happened on St. Simon Island on the 15th – 17th February 1957. Where most of the usual suspects showed up again, when even a Turkish representative Muharrem Nuri Birgi; Jean De La Garde, French and David Rockefeller, United States. The discussion of this conference led to this: “Several speakers urged that patience was essential in the present Suez crisis. Situations like that which developed in Iran in 1951 and was now being repeated in Egypt could not be dealt with in a hurry. A dictator who is impervious to external influences must be allowed to run through his cycle. For a period his personal pride and the demands of his position will render him insusceptible to advice or pressure. The point at which this cycle begins to turn is very delicate and needs careful watching, since a dictator like Nasser might well take desperate measures” (…) “According to the best available estimates, the expansion of oil sales in the years ahead would bring greatly increasing revenues, in fact within the next ten years the oil-producing countries of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrein should receive 5 billion dollars in oil royalties; yet it was calculated that. over this period they would not be able to spend more than a third of this amount inside their own frontiers. This would leave a surplus of about billion dollars to dispose of” (…) “It might be possible and desirable to change NATO’s present strategic!’ posture and to develop a military organization and doctrine which would free Europe from total . dependence on the threat of massive atomic retaliation. But until or unless this was done the contradictions of our present policy were damaging and dangerous. Because the peoples of NATO did not believe in the possibility of an effective shield against attack, they were reluctant to make the sacrifices required to provide for the forward advance strategy was official doctrine at present”.
The Second conference that year was in Fiuggi, we’re still the usual suspects we’re in control of it and the men behind it. Special names registered at this one we’re Henry A. Kissinger we’re a U.S. Representative and Major-General James Jr. McCormack a U.S. Representative. Key issues and quotes from the Fiuggi we’re this: “Participants from the countries directly involved, however, felt that these fears would prove to be unfounded. The Common Market would be implemented by easy stages and, if the experience of Benelux was any guide, trade With the outside world would increase together with internal trade. They were confident that the Common Market would be a step towards greater freedom in world trade as a whole. This was the purpose of the plan, although in some cases adjustments had had to be made so that particular interests would not be too drastically affected. Now that the internal pattern had been settled in the Common Market Treaty attention would concentrate increasingly on relations with third countries; the Free Trade Area would be the next step in the process of European economic integration” (…) “the main obstacle to British and Scandinavian participation in the Common Market was its function a step towards political union among the countries concerned” (…) “there was also the problem of including agriculture, which for countries like Denmark was of fundamental importance”.
At the 1958 Buxton Conference on the 13th September to 15th September 1958; which was run by the usual suspects yet again. Other representatives worth noticing from this ones we’re E.N. Van Kleefens from the European Coal and Steel Community, Jaques Rueff, European Economic Community (EEC), C.V.R. Schuyler, S.H.A.P.E., Sakari Tuomioja, UN Economic Commission for Europe and Sir. Gordon Archibald of the United Kingdom; other key quotes from this conference are these: “Nationalism could well yield positive results, as was the case in Turkey under Ataturk. It was objectionable, however, when it reached beyond its own borders hurting the interests of others. In such cases we had the right to protect ourselves, and should be firm about it” (…) “The Common Market was due to come into operation on a January 1959, and it was feared that, if no solution were in sight by then, the first appearance of discrimination would produce a schism between the Six and the rest of Europe” (…) “Further the speaker suggested that the Free Trade Area proposals were not the only alternative to the European Economic Community. The notion of association had a technical meaning, and various degrees of rights and obligations were conceivable and could be worked out between the European Economic Community and individual countries on a bilateral basis” (…) “Another major problem facing the European Economic Community was the co-ordination of monetary policies. As one of the participants pointed out, the economic integration of the Six required the co-ordination of all fields of economic policy”.
So there you have it and this is just outtakes, the Soviet problem is a key picture on every single conference, but that isn’t that important now. As the proof of the cold-war and the escalated influence U.S. policy had in Europe. That with their will of a more unified Europe; this being more valid for me, as the proof of the works behind the scenes from the Bliderberg group and their supporters from both United States and Canada; as they even wanted a federal solution to issues between the nation and their integration of monetary and trade-agreements on the continent.
Also the worrying views of Europeans wish to hold-on to their colonies and the liberation of the nations under British and French rule. While the Americans actually wanted a quicker liberation, while they had the worry of Soviet and Communist influence in the new “territories”; the leaked documents really reflect the dominance and arrogance of the Europeans at the time as their paternalistic threshold came under question. Another key we’re the usefulness of NATO and the place of military operations as a countering for peace in Europe, as the fear of Soviet was a reason for the alliance after the Second World War.
Next time I drop on the subject, I will go through the 1960s documents of Bilderberg conferences. To see what else that came up in the next decade. Peace.
The Company in Scandinavia famous for getting George Clooney to be parts of their commercials and being synonymous with the Norwegian National Team of biathlon, making Ole Einar Bjørndalen wearing a Vital hat to the races and competition as a display of one of the main sponsors of the National Team. That is ordinary in sports, and is ordinary in the time we live in. So that a big bank is supporting a National Team is everyday event, but that is not what I will write about and discuss. As I got to read one of the papers in the Panama Papers leak. Here it is and hope you can see how DNB Nor ASA used the opportunities for meager taxation and higher earning for their subsidiary.
Before you continue her is a classy ad from the company:
Now we will see how the Norwegian Company can also be a little greedy and trying to avoid taxes in Norway, but still earning the profits and having accounts, but using the PriceWaterCoopers (PWC) offer for a Shell Company in Luxemburg to save taxes and still keep the funds in safety in Luxemburg. That is the grand DNB Nor who is the largest bank group in Norway.
Here is how they do it, and it is epic ways of using the shell-companies to avoid Norwegian tax regime and use a Corporate Fund that is a S.A. “Societe Anonyme” as financial company in Luxemburg to simply benefit from the specific tax status for a company in Luxemburg instead of the Norwegian one. Let me take you for a ride!
What is the Carlson Fund Management Company S.A.:
“Carlson is a Luxembourg resident company incorporated on August 14, 1990 as a limited company (“Societe Anonyme”) in order to develop the German and other European markets” (…) “Carlson is a company of DnB Nor group (hereafter the “Group”). The Group is Norway’s largest financial services group with total combined assets of NOK 1,834 billion. It includes strong brands such as DnB NOR, Vital, Nordlandsbanken, Cresco, Postbank.en, DnB NORD and Carlson” (…)”Carlson is part of the life and asset management branch of activities of the Group, DnB NOR Asset Management. It is Norway’s largest fund manager and has a leading position within discretionary asset management for institutional clients in Norway and Sweden” (…)”Until July 28, 2006, the purpose of Carlson was the creation, management and administration of a unique fund, Carlson Fund, created in Luxembourg on August 31, 1990. In this respect, based on the Luxembourg law on UCis, Carlson benefited from a specific tax status exempting the company from Luxembourg corporate income tax, municipal business tax and net wealth tax”.
You think that is saga in the making just see what more they did to secure lesser tax in Norway and close to none in Luxemburg, because corporate greed is what makes the world run like Ussain Bolt!
“By resolution of the Extraordinary General Meeting (“EGM”) held on July 28, 2006, Carlson has amended its by-laws in order to comply with the law of December 20, 2002 transposing the UCITS III Directive 85/611/EEC into Luxembourg law. Since the EGM, Carlson has been responsible for the management and administration of several investment funds. Carlson currently manages a portfolio of funds under 3 fund umbrellas: Carlson Fund, DnB NOR Fund and more recently DnB NOR Part II Fund since February l, 2008 (hereafter the “Funds”)” (…) “As from the date of the EGM (i.e. July 28, 2006), Carlson became subject to an unlimited tax liability and is considered as a newly incorporated entity for tax purposes”.
You think that is bad and telling how the Carlson entity of Luxemburg, which funds and fueling money from the DNB Nor and their subsidies and banks in Norway. As he Tax is high here for any profitable business, this kind of transaction and order clears lots of funds from the Company and banks, which gives higher profits, because of less tax as they follows through consultation to follow the exemptions laws in the tax-haven. Here we go!
How do they secure the tax-exemption with the laws in Luxemburg?
“Based on article 35 (4) of the Luxembourg Income Tax Law (“LITL”), when a company becomes taxable, all its assets and liabilities have to be valuated, at the time of the conversion, at their fair market value The assets and liabilities concerned are those “contributed” to the fully taxable entity, including intangible assets (article 59 (2) LITL)” (…)”the tax balance sheet has to take into account all the assets and liabilities of Carlson (i.e. the whole assets and liabilities whose, by nature, intend to serve the activity of the company2) including the valuation of the management contract. The administrative doctrine precises that is assimilated as an asset all the potential assets that can be exploited in the context of the activity of the company and with an individual economic value” (…)”Carlson has to revalue its capital in its opening tax balance sheet. The revalued capital includes the share capital of the formerly tax exempt company, the reserves accumulated by Carlson until the moment of the conversion, as well as the revaluation reserves resulting from the step-up at the moment of the conversion. The revalued capital is treated as “fiscal capital” in the hands of Carlson from a tax point of view. Any repayment (of part) of this “capital” to Carlson’s shareholders will therefore not be subject to withholding tax in line with the provisions of article 97 (3) b LITL”.
Now we have seen how the DNB Nord have put a S.A. Society Anonyme with the Carlson Funds to drop money into the Tax-Haven of Luxemburg as the DNB thinks the suits of Luxemburg to perfection and wondered if Barney Stinson bought suits made for Luxemburg.
DNB set up the Society Anonyme is set up with a new “EMG” to get unlimited tax-liability in Luxemburg. So the advice made the funds from the company under the Carlson from the time of the board-meeting by law of the 28. July 2006. The continued thing they did was to take their assets and monies fueled into the Carlson Funds, so the liabilities together with all of contracted value and management in the tax-balance sheet. So there fueling of moneys into the Fund is also fiscal capital and because of the status of the S.A. hide more in the secret company there.
Then the control of Carlson Funds is by all means controlled by DNB Nord as written here:
“As an example, a major part of the support activities (e.g. accounting) is done in close collaboration with the members of the Group located in Sweden/Norway. Moreover, the members of the team managing Carlson in Luxembourg are all senior officers originated from the Group. Consequently, the distribution of the Funds in Luxembourg is mainly performed thanks to the support of the Group”.
Here is what the group is supposed to pay in tax:
“Taking into account the total 2006 and 2007 value of the business compared to the total 2006 and 2007 annual profit before tax, Carlson will pay an annual and arm’s length remuneration in accordance with articles 56 and 164 (3) LITL to the Group for its support representing 65,92% of its annual profit before tax” (…) “Carlson will benefit from such retrocession of fees over a period of 10 years. As the taxable activity of the Company started in 2006, we propose to recognize such retrocession as from August I, 2006 until the financial year 2016” (…)”The computation of the percentage of notional retrocession of fees will be subject to a supervision period of 4 years (2006-2010). In case of significant/major changes in the business in Luxembourg, Carlson commits itself to inform the Luxembourg tax authorities of any significant changes that would modify its business and/or its tax position in order to agree on the more appropriate tax treatment”.
If you wonder what retrocession means that is planned underwritings of the earnings of the company. Underwritings or retrocession is usually a volunteer act of a company to return property or ceding property, though usually by request and not by forced transaction. Also the underwriting is also done to diversifying assets by consolidating them amongst the stakeholders. That means the last one the percentage of the company which is 65 % of the profits of DNB NORD’s Carlson Funds will dived 65% of the funds to the stakeholders of the company. Initially meaning that the Stakeholders or the Owners of the DNB NORD and that before any tax in Luxemburg, which is beautiful business model for the Stakeholders and for the ones owning DNB, and by literal controlling Carlos Funds.
The Company found another way to dodge a little more tax:
“Net Wealth Tax: As no intangible asset is recognized in the tax balance sheet of the Company, there is no increase of the unitary value of Carlson for net wealth tax purposes”.
This is initially saying that since they have not written any assets of value when they started to operate, therefore they does not have assets or monies worth to be classified for the Wealth Tax Purposes in Luxemburg. Here was yet another way of using the loopholes in Luxemburg to get even less taxation and a favorable way of using the tax-system there.
This article in the middle of the charter of Carlson Funds says the truth of the company:
“The purpose of the corporation is the creation, administration and management of one or several Luxembourg and/or foreign collective investment funds in transferable securities authorized according to the Directive 85/611/EEC, as amended (”UCITS”) and of other Luxembourg and foreign collective investment funds not covered by trus Directive (“UCI”) (all together the “Funds”) on behalf of their unitholders or shareholders in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of the Luxembow-g law of December 20, 2002 on undertakings for collective investment, as it may be amended from time to time (the “2002 Law”) , and the issue of certificates or statements of confirmation evidencing undivided co-ownership interests in such Funds. The corporation shall manage any activities connected with the management, administration and promotion of the Funds. It may on behalf of the Funds, enter into any contracts, proceed to any registrations and transfers in its nam~ or jn third parties’ names in the register of shares or debentures of any Luxembourg or foreign companies, and exercise on behalf of the Funds and the holders of certificates of the Funds, all rights and privileges, especially all voting rights attached to the securities constituting assets of the Funds. The foregoing powers shall not be considered as exhaustive, but only as declaratory”.
This here says enough of the practices of the Norwegian Banking group of DNB Nor or DNB Nord ASA had a subsidiary for recess their tax-operation and use the lucrative opportunities for keeping the profit without having issues with the Tax-regime in Norway. As the Norwegian rules and tax-regulation without studying them is stricter and has to be stricter than this. Because the end of the Tax contract with Luxemburg disclose the information where they are planning not to pay for their “Net Wealth Tax Due”. So even if the funds grow massively and the monies invested in the Carlson Funds, the opportunity to underwrite 65 % before the tax on its profit and that is possible with the “underwriting” method. In that sense the taxation of the will always is 10% on very little part of the funds, as the stakeholders can theatrically take 65 Euros on the 100 euros. Leave behind 35 Euros of it profit and pay 3, 5 Euro on the 100 Euros of Profit, that is a beautiful operations. If it wasn’t for the underwriting of the revenue then the company would have by the standard tax of Luxemburg paid 10 Euros of tax. 10 Euros is not much of a profit of 100 Euros, but still vastly more than 3, 5 Euros, the difference by quick calculation is 6, 5 euros. That is nearly a price of a Big-Mac Combo-menu that cost around 8 Euros in Luxemburg.
That is because of the technic of underwriting and sharing that with the shareholders and stakeholders of the Carlos Funds S.A. in Luxemburg which is their subsidiary. As written so nicely to the Luxemburg Department of Tax Collection in 2nd July 2008:
“on behalf of our client Carlson Fund Management Company S.A. (hereafter also referred to as “Carlson”), we respectfully request you to confirm, in writing, the content of this letter as to the Luxembourg tax treatment applicable to the situation described herein”.
That the Carlson was supposed to get the reasonable Tax Treatment for the company so there was a hashed plan from the get-go together with the Company of PriceWaterCooper. The plan was made an acted upon. This would not been possible if the DNB Nor did not use the guidance and setting up the charter after the laws there and follow the guidelines of the company setting it up for making sure of having less tax.
As explained with the 100 Euros scenario. The certainty is not any excuse from the DNB Nor can tell away. As they explained in 2016 to the Norwegian Press:
“No, DNB Luxemburg does not help the costumers to avoid tax. The Advisors function as discussion and talking-partners when it comes to financial questions, which offers legal and legitimate tax-plan for the costumers who live abroad. It could for example be about advice about financial-solution, cross-border transactions, complicated inheritance-regulation and other taxing environment that would be different from the ones who are living in Norway” (…)”DNB does not operate in Luxemburg because of taxation (Foss, 2016).
Well, I have already explained there operation and how they get to pay as little tax as possible through their operation. So DNB Nor had or still have the Carlson Fund Management Company S.A. in Luxemburg to save taxes and earn more monies in their operation and company there. Something they would be able to do in Norway or under Norwegian taxing regulation. Peace.
MF I/ECCi/ AEGN/C21108001 M-PEWR – “Carlson Fund Management Company S.A. – Identification tax number: 2006 2240 378- Recognition of a license fee for tax purposes” (02.07.2008) – PriceWaterCooper (PWC)
Foss, Andres Bakke – ‘DNB i redegjørelse i 2014: DNB Luxembourg hjelper ikke kundene med å unndra skatt’ (08.04.2016) link: http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/DNB-i-redegjorelse-i-2014-DNB-Luxembourg-hjelper-ikke-kundene-med-a-unndra-skatt-8422413.html#xtor=RSS-3
For those who have been surprised by the recent allegation and findings in the #Panama Papers that incites lots of politicians, the general elites and businessmen connected close to the governments. The money always talks, the money always moves and by any means possible.
For the wealthy and close connected they have the ability to forge networks and find businesses that earns coins on helping to move that money. But that is not for the ordinary people, as we pay a fortune to use RIA or Western Union to move between usually loved ones. But the Panama Papers are for whole other ordeal.
This here is for Tax Aviation’s and getting rid of extra burdens on the solid amount money they have gained. The persons and companies are set-up Shell-Companies to stack up money in British Virgin Island (BVI), Panama or Luxemburg. As this places doesn’t have that many inhabitance or sheep to earn money on, they earn tiny percentage on being “big-banks” for all kind of operations, while securing that the companies and persons involved can keep it discreet and silence. Until cover-ups like the recent ones shows the true color of the amount of money, that are dished away. The money that are stashed-away is millions upon millions of American Dollars; dipped away in a treasury chests that most economies would dream of having in circulation!
That should not be surprising as all of well-known government leaders are setting up and making it possible to have sophisticated economic systems that cross-borders for the benefit of trade; while these are used to ship the money from the places that have initially no taxes and programs that made up to build societies. This is also the places where they can have it without any concern, except some extra sunshine and a family resort at the beach, though I would not consider that in Luxemburg, unless suits and gas-stations are your thing.
The business-men and government officials, even relatives usually walks around with that without problems for decades as the banks, and the legal advocates set-up this fixed businesses to secure the fueling of their money. The worst thing is the loopholes and the ways that this decisive methods to undermine the local public to create and secure more funds for already wealthy clients. Where the bank as HSBC and lawyers of Mossack Fonseca divided fees to pocket the money that the client needed to send away from the shores and country-sides; where the money was raised and earned. While getting away from local agony of having fortunes and paying taxes on the high-incomes earned to the local communities.
If you we’re shocked of the values and the persons that was involved in the scandal of late, I wasn’t as the government officials, presidents sons and daughters; kin and other close connections have always gained extra through the cronyism or nepotism have been a thing since the Roman Empire, and does not stop any time soon. That the President Museveni of Uganda owns businesses and would have dashed a fortune for his grandchildren in an tax-haven through multiplied shell-companies. The same would not also be surprising on the Kenyan President Kenyatta who recently brought Sameer Diary and Livestock Limited who sells ‘Fresh Diary’ in Uganda through his company Brookeside. Surely his kins and family have some money abroad to secure in dire times might come. The same is certainly with President Kagame, who even been seen during the scandal that RPF-Elite men have been insiders in the scandal, as President Kagame have control and ease over it; surely he would skim over the top and gain some extra funds as the Executive. Similar is it in Democratic Republic of Congo where President Kabila sister is central profile in the scandal and shows how the monies and funds appear in tax-havens as she owns businesses and also the centralized economy around nepotistic and cronyism. Something that should not be shocking for anyone.
What this scandal shows is the amounts and estimates, this is through to major companies who serves this clients that are close by this totalitarian and big-men leaders who have close connected with central industries as they have to be granted and get contracts with government to drill oil, mining or even gain markets in the countries. With that power comes also embezzlement, kick-backs and percentage of the top that get skimmed through the advanced economic products that the blue-collar lawyers and bankers offers; they do that legally, but in a moral grey area as this thieving of government controlled funds in the name of the beneficiary or the shell-company in discreet secrecy. It’s not only dictators and their wives who are into it, I am sure if it wasn’t for the failed ‘Wonga Coup’ Mark Thatcher would still be up to game as the son-fallen from grace and proud family tradition; as even David Cameroon have been put into the mix. There is no shortfall when it comes to greed, and corporate greed never stops.
As the world leaders tries the best to hide their businesses and ownership through shell-companies and strawmen, or getting a cousin to run the business kind of like what Trump does to his son, just a little more subtle.
The governments are taking the sides of happy uncles as they all tries to open trades with tax-havens to keep businesses in their countries. The Companies who in many countries are seen as “Legal Person” can own land, own other businesses and be sued. Certainly with that power as stakeholders and shareholders does not care about other things than the bottom-line, they want to sell or sell enough services so that their earning a profit, by any means. That is why big businesses have been taken for tax-evasion in the UK this was Amazon and other online-retailers as they we’re officially legal unit in a tax-haven and not in the United Kingdom, though the products bought on Amazon was sent from a warehouse in UK, and sent to UK houses. The transaction between costumer who got the book from Amazon payed to a British account, but before the cash kissed the taxation to the Government of UK, it was sent to multiply Amazon shell-companies before ending at a Tax-haven. So that the United Kingdom get only pennies in tax compared to the Pound Sterling the UK state was supposed to earn from the Amazon LLC. That is just an example, but still important as a precise maneuvers the companies and international companies do, so they does not pay full-taxes or truthfully through sophisticated economic programs and revisions get the monies through foreign banks and tax-havens with help of legal teams in companies similar to Mossack Fonseca.
How to set up shop:
The LLC and Shell Companies will be used in market strategies as ghost straw-men for the owners sending monies through networks of intricate syndicates and money-laundering operations; That make Uncle Scrooge or Scrooge McDuck wishing he was a real person and not a cartoon character made up by Carl Barks in 1952; instead he is owning a Oil Company drilling oil in either Kazakhstan, Nigeria or North Dakota. Where he got the proceedings through UBS AG or HBSC; where the profit gets through manufactured holding companies and sent to BVI or Guernsey; where the McDuck Oil Company has headquarter, by official paperwork. That paperwork is written and made by lawful actions through Mossack Fonseca; while most of the Blue-Collar men are working in the unofficial Headquarters in the heart in the City of London or New York. But their taxing is little or near none there, because of McDonald Oil is fixed in Guernsey; Where they only have a Post-Box at the island; which by my reckoning would forward the mail to London or New York as the employees would actually be there.
This is a way of getting the bottom-line and the more of the ends directly to the stakeholders and owners of these companies tries to advance with this opportunities, that we the ordinary citizen, commoner, person or fellow human being would not be offered, since we don’t have the money to fix this or hire these men to forward our money, as we need the cash we have to get a home rent or buy, get food on the plate, pay electricity, airtime, taxes and then trying to get a chocolate bar once in a while. There is where we are. The once who was surprised about these papers have had too much faith in their rich, the elites and the once who has fortunes. They do not want to share that fortune that they have earned on our governments and our consumption; while trying to avoid giving something back to society, and giving the government more funds to develop the society the rich are doing business in. Peace.
7352nd Meeting (AM) – Security Council
The meeting began at 10:07 a.m. and ended at 12:18 p.m.
The Security Council had rallied to consensus on several important issues in December, the Permanent Representative of Chad and President of that body said in a monthly wrap-up meeting, as members stressed the need to press ahead on issues and areas where they had failed to produce results.
The open debates on strengthening the partnership between the United Nations and the African Union and on the linkages between terrorism and transnational organized crime provided the basis for the international community to bolster action, Mahamat Zene Cherif said.
With the adoption of eight resolutions and four presidential statements on diverse and crucial issues of the day, the month’s session was not only busy but also condensed. Further, by inviting the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs to closed consultations, the Council demonstrated that human rights were not ignored behind closed doors, he added.
Several representatives lauded the Council’s achievements during the month, including the first resolution on transborder organized crime and terrorism and humanitarian relief in Syria. They also specified areas where progress had been lacking, including in Ukraine and South Sudan. Some described the Council’s failure to achieve a political solution to the Syrian crisis as a “dark chapter”.
The representative of the United States said the Council had been productive in a growing number of areas, which underscored the importance of maintaining focus and identifying priorities. The body should focus on Syria in both its security and humanitarian dimensions and address the crises in Ukraine, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Yemen through greater collective efforts.
As a committed “pen holder”, France had sometimes become “hyperactive”, that country’s representative said, adding that members had always responded with faith in their values and taken decisions with great skill. He expressed hope that the Russian Federation would engage in de-escalating tensions in both words and deed.
The Russian Federation representative said the Council should express concern and take action in “genuine” areas such the threat of Syrian chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and the humanitarian obstacles posed by their increased territorial control.
The representative of Argentina said the Council often seemed to be stuck in the logic of the twentieth century and driven by geopolitical considerations rather than those of ethics, even in situations of massive violations of human rights and international law.
It was important for the Council to engage more in regional approaches to resolving crises, the representative of the Republic of Korea said, adding that the open debate on strengthening the partnership between the United Nations and the African Union had been an important opportunity for strategic collaboration.
The representative of Rwanda said his delegation had worked hard to fulfil the pledges it had made while campaigning for a Council seat and expressed hope that lessons learned from initiatives on peacekeeping, improving working methods, and preventing violence against women would be heeded.
The representative of Chile, the incoming Council president, said his country would focus on the deep-seated causes of conflicts and achieving broad solutions in the Middle East, the Democratic People’S Republic of Korea and other areas.
Also speaking today were the representatives of Australia, China, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria and the United Kingdom.