Somalia: Joint Press Statement issued by 6 strong presidential candidates against the constitutional coup by NLF (27.12.2016)

somalia-27-12-2016-p1somalia-27-12-2016-p2

UNSOM SG Michael Keating on the Somalia Election (16.12.2016)

un-somalia-16-12-2016-p1un-somalia-16-12-2016-p2

Opinion: The #NBSFrontline debate about Succession after President Museveni is premature; no matter whom it is!

nbs-byanyima

#NBSFrontline is wasting all people’s time with discussing the succession of President Museveni and change from the ruling party National Resistance Movement (NRM). Well, even if the wife of Dr. Kizza Besigye is surely a viable candidate; the famous Oxfam leader Winnie Byanyima and her new quest for becoming a Presidential Candidate. That is a noble idea of a genuine and caring individual with an amazing track-record and spokesperson for the oppressed. Still, the talk of succession right now is premature.

The reason for the premature is that the process for anyone taking the reins from President Museveni is a closed door, a barricaded castle and sealed of courthouse. The President who has been in charge since 1986 hasn’t showed any real proof of wanting to stepdown. He has promised it twice, but that hasn’t mattered. Mzee has changed his mind and thought of the idea of not having the reserves of Bank of Uganda and gone back into the race, gone with guns and made sure the campaigns of his competitors has been a living hell. That he do best, also secure that the Electoral Commission is run by loyalist who will deliver the needed numbers to run the Parliament and the mandate to be a strong President.

Mzee hasn’t given any way to anybody you could ask the few left of the bush-war generation, the ones that are left and still around knows this is true. A man who sends army against his own after taking power, you know he isn’t giving up easy.

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

Mzee himself said this: “You see when you give them (civil population in the North and East) a good beating then those who are using them will no longer use them. Since the month of January (1987), we have given them much beating especially in Lira and Kitgum Districts. And in fact the week I left (for Yugoslavia) we had given them a good blow in Gulu District. So it is going to settle down”. (New Vision, January 19, 1987).

The years of election rigging, paying citizens small fees in the villages while being on the road, the years of promising grand project and not delivering should be reasons for the change of leadership. But the people should have created turmoil as the President has the army and the monies that are forged through his illegitimate government. Instead they let him steal the nation and smile over pennies. Therefore the President fears for his life after the years on the throne as the marble and treasury chest might be looted by the ones that he was in charge of or even the grandchildren of the men who died to get him in power.

As long as President Museveni is in charge he will not bow-down with grace. There wouldn’t be any mercy he played the rights for the citizens and justice for the people that had been under Dr. Milton Obote and Gen. Idi Amin Dada. Who both had been Presidents for a long time before him; Museveni went to the bush to get rid of them both and just took away the Presidency of Yusuf Lule because he could.

When a man who made relationship with both Libyans and Americans to get weapons and make sure the power got into his hands. Doesn’t really care to what extent he will do to keep it, he will play all sorts of political games and use the tactics of the former leaders, but try to do it better to gain himself. He might give way to somebody, but only so he can destroy their career and silence them.

Uganda Election 2011 P2

So even if Winnie Byanyima decides to run what will be different between the former ones running against President Museveni? Museveni has eaten a spit out Dr. Olara Otunnu, Norbert Mao, Dr. Paul Ssemogerere, Amama Mbabazi and Dr. Kizza Besigye.

They have all run against him and caught his wrath, his tactics and his methods of oppression as he beats the drums at the opposition rallies with bullets, tear-gas and close the venues without any reason. The laws have been changed and amended to make it usually worse for the competition and make sure the President stays the President. Like the time to make a petition for the Presidential Election is really short, while the Presidential Candidate are by law even if struggled to get funds has to visit all district in the campaign. This is while the President takes helicopter and the others stresses through the rainy-season on washed mountain roads and districts. Something that is easily forgotten the laws and procedures are made to secure the President, not make sure the fellow or person that Ugandans want to be President is actually the President.

Bukenya A

Because if the succession had been a thing then there wouldn’t be the idea of if somebody becomes too ambitious in the ruling regime and ruling party than they have been demoted by the President. Museveni has had a few Vice-Presidents, at the first period of his reign he didn’t have any until his first inner-party elections. After that the ones under him has been Hon. Samson Kisekka, Hon. Specioza Kazibwe and Hon. Prof. Gilbert Bukenya. As well as there been changes of Prime Ministers, because at this state the current President has had six of them.

The #NBSFrontline none of this came up in the discussion as the ones discussing it we’re into gender politics and the left-over, left-behind former party officials of the National Resistance Movement. Even the main contenders in the recent presidential race where former loyalist of the President, Besigye and Mbabazi has been vital and key persons in the Movement System as we know it.

We should just know that President Museveni has no plans to let anybody else than him have the throne, no other can rule than him. All of his game is for him to rule the nation and eat of the government plate. Peace.

Somalia: ASWJ says it will not recognise election results alleging a wide spread election conspiracy by President HSM’s Party (14.12.2016)

aswj-14-12-2016-p1aswj-14-12-2016-p2aswj-14-12-2016-p3

European Countries accept to offer tax-exemptions that benefits Europe while stifling the rest, report claims!

cyprus-tax

“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!

pspib-luxembourg-tax-plan-p1-normal

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).

Sweetheart deals:

“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).

Tax Treaties:

“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).

ubs-secrecy

Bank Secrecy:

“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).

apple-double-irish-ec-opto

“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).

bermuda-norway

“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.

Reference:

EURODAD – ‘Survival of the Richest – Europe’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2016’ (15.11.2016).

UNSC Special Envoy statement on the Electoral Process of the Somalia election (05.12.2016)

unsc-somalia-05-12-2016-p1unsc-somalia-05-12-2016-p2

Brexit: Davis Davis proposition today not such an exit after all; pre-Brexit has proven implications for Central Bank of Ireland and Ofcom!

yes-prime-minister-clip

I am sure today that Yes Minister is fitting as the quotes in Parliament and the previous uttering words of Boris Johnson about free-movement that counter all the work of the Brexiteers during campaigning for the cause. The work that we’re to pretend that the separation from the continent would be peaceful and jolly; but the Brexiteers didn’t know and the Tories still doesn’t know.

Therefore I begin with this a re-cap of TV in 1981:

“Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, Minister, I’m afraid that is the penalty we have to pay for trying to pretend that we’re Europeans. Believe me, I fully understand your hostility to Europe.

James Hacker: I’m not like you, Humphrey. I’m pro-Europe, I’m just anti-Brussels. I sometimes think you’re anti-Europe and pro-Brussels” (Yes Minister – ‘The Devil You Know (#2.5)” (1981).

davis-davis

Today the Brexit-Minister Hon. Davis Davis uttered these wonderful words in Parliament:

“The simple answer we have given to this before is, and it’s very important because there is a distinction between picking off an individual policy and setting out a major criteria, and the major criteria here is that we get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market. If that is included in what you are talking about then of course we would consider it.” (Watts, 2016).

So the ones leaving is now changing terms, they want to set standards that opens the market. While still being outside the Union, so the Brexiteers wants now to get the full benefit while being outside. This doesn’t fit with the hazardous statements from Martin Schulz and Jean-Claude Juncker who has said their peace about an easy transition!

Certainly the European Union wants to make an example of the United Kingdom and their markets; they have to pay dearly to be part of it, while wanting to secure their borders and movement. Now, the Davis Davis wants its simplified.

bank-of-ireland

Irish Central Bank sees this already:

“He said the Central Bank’s workforce planning for next year reflects the additional resource needed to deal with applications and contingency has been built in as it is expected that the financial sector will grow materially” (…) “Mr Roux told reporters after the Dublin event today that the Central Bank was seeing applications for new business and the licensing of firms who are not present here” (…) “He also said it was seeing very significant indications from “regulated firms that are small today but want to be big tomorrow” (…) “We see the whole gamut of firms enquiring for establishing or growing in Ireland, it is MIFID (markets in financial instruments directive) firms, insurance companies, CSDs (central securities depositories) and payments institutions,” he added” (Rte, 2016).

So when businesses are looking towards Dublin, which is in EU and already part of the European Single Market; the London based firms might move to Dublin to secure their profit-lines and such. Even the Central Bank of Ireland is seeing this. This must really hurt the Brexiteers who fought well, but didn’t think of the implications. Davis Davis sees this now and wants to be able to go out of being EU Member State, but still being part of EU Single Market.

That is really the Norwegian EFTA model, but they will have hard time and pay lots of funds to get what they have now and would also betray the democratic values of majority vote that wanted a true separation, which this isn’t. Then the Tories will do the same trick as the Norwegian Government did to their public, when they signed the EFTA and made agreements to join the EU Single Market, but not having the EU Member State privileges. Something the United Kingdom is losing with triggering the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

This is so special and so weird. That Hon. Davis Davis are acting and flip-flopping like this. Surely the warning from Ofcom must say something as well:

mou-scotland-ofcom

“Chief executive Sharon White said that the industries her organisation oversees are “inextricably European” and could be badly hit if they are not taken into consideration when arranging the UK’s exit for the EU” (…) “Making Brexit a success matters for communications – because these services are fundamental to our lives,” she told the Institute for Government in London” (…) “She said: “The country of origin rule is a good example of an EU law that benefits member states and supports broadcasters – providing a mass audience, and promoting cultural exchange by transcending borders” (…) “But keeping this principle after Brexit will demand constructive discussions with European neighbours. Country of origin cannot endure merely by virtue of existing in UK law.” (Sky News, 2016).

So with this the broadcasters like Ofcom and Central Bank of Ireland sees the implications of the Brexit with their bare eyes. The indications are not put in light of joy and positive future, as the Irish might get more business, this means that corporations moving to Dublin instead London, because of the safety of EU Single Market that the Hon. Davis Davis wish to keep and pay Brussels, but if the EU will accept it is mere speculation.

The Tories government has decides as the Prime Minister Theresa May has to make decisions that makes the Brexit successful. But early November 2016 a leaked memo showed that the government hadn’t done due diligence or check and balance for the industries. Which is evident with the corporations planning to move and Ofcom are sceptic to the Brexit itself.

Therefore the reactions to the Brexit will continue to come for businesses and for the Parliament; the House of Commons would surely be a bit shocked by the proposition from the Brexit Minister. We all are, not like Irish paying for Welsh roads, but still spectacular thinking about how the Brexit Campaign celebrated the idea of total freedom from EU. Now they want the perks, as long as the EU accepts the fixed payments for the entry to the Single Market. Peace.

Reference:

Rte – ‘Central Bank not seeking to dissuade UK financial firms from moving to Ireland – Roux’ (01.12.2016) link: http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2016/1201/835805-central-bank-says-not-dissuading-brexit-moves/

Sky News – ‘Ofcom boss warns of Brexit impact on UK communications sector’ (01.12.2016) link: http://news.sky.com/story/ofcom-boss-warns-of-brexit-impact-on-uk-communications-sector-10679371

Watts, Joe – ‘Brexit: David Davis says UK Government could pay money to EU for single market access’ (01.12.2016) link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-single-market-access-david-davis-eu-money-uk-a7449416.html

Bank of England Statement on Polymer Banknotes (30.11.2016)

bank-of-enland-polymer-banknotes

Welsh politician: ‘Could Ireland use EU funds to pay for our motorway improvements?’ (Youtube-Clip)

“Ukip has asked the Welsh government to seek EU funding from the Irish government to help upgrade a motorway between London and south Wales. The M4 motorway is the main artery between the main cities of Wales and the rest of the UK – but it also carries a large amount of Irish goods exported and sold there. Ukip assembly member David Rowlands made the appeal to the Welsh National Assembly this afternoon. He says that Irish exporters also rely on the M4 to transport goods to other EU countries on the continent – and told TheJournal.ie that it is “quite a reasonable idea to explore”: http://jrnl.ie/3109404” (TheJournal.ie, 2016)

Britain won’t turn its back on Africa following Brexit (29.11.2016)

rsa-afraid

There is clearly a need in the aftermath of Brexit for there to be a degree of reassurance given to Africa that Brexit doesn’t mean that the United Kingdom is going to turn its back on Africa.

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia, November 29, 2016 -Brexit does not mean that the British government will turn its back on Africa, Lord Paul Boateng, a Member of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords said Monday.

Speaking at the first ever Africa Trade Forum which is being hosted by the Economic Commission for Africa and the African Union, Mr. Boateng said Brexit presents Africa and the UK with an opportunity to “put development at the heart of our trading relationship with Africa in a way frankly that it has not always been in relation to the EPAs, let’s be frank about it”.

“The UK recognizes that and we will seek every opportunity to minimize the disruption in our trading relationship and take every opportunity to seize this chance to re-fashion the relationship between the UK and Africa in terms of trade so intra-African trade becomes an opportunity which we can seize together,” he said.

Contributing to debate on Africa-E.U. Economic and Trade Cooperation and Brexit implications for Africa, Mr. Boateng assured participants, including African Ministers of Trade, Finance and Transportation as well as senior government officials, heads of Regional Economic Communities (RECs), African CEOs and executives, representatives of international development agencies, civil society and others, that trade relations between the UK and Africa will not be affected following Brexit.

“There is clearly a need in the aftermath of Brexit for there to be a degree of reassurance given to Africa that Brexit doesn’t mean that the United Kingdom is going to turn its back on Africa and I’m able to assure you that right across the political divide in the UK, in both Houses, Africa and the UK’s historic link with Africa remains central to our thinking,” he said.

“Yes there’s uncertainty at this time, that is inevitable, when such a momentous decision is made,” SAID Mr. Boateng.

“Yes there is a hazard always when you think about the scale of the task that lies ahead in terms of mapping out the future of the trading relationship between the UK and Africa but I think I can give the absolute assurance that we see this in the UK as an opportunity to be seized.”

He said he was concerned by the issue of infrastructure in most African countries. Mr. Boateng was born and brought up in the Gold Coast in Ghana.

“I am the grandson of cocoa and cassava farmers. My grandmother grew cassava, my grandfather grew cocoa and when I look at our village in Tafo in the eastern region of Ghana, two things strike me, first of all, that in the 1950s there was a direct rail link between Tafo, a heart of cocoa growing region and Takoradi, which at that time was our main port,” he told participants.

“That rail link no longer exists and that has had a damaging effect on agriculture in Ghana but Ghana is not alone in seeing the deterioration of its infrastructure so the United Kingdom recognizes the importance of infrastructure in terms of promoting intra-African trade.”

“The second matter which I can’t but help notice, he said, is that right next door to my grandmother’s farm was a West African Cocoa Research Institute and that was a major resource for West Africa in terms of agricultural support and extension and research at the highest level so it produced every year a handful of PhDs now sadly due to decades of neglect and the impact of the structural adjustment of the 70s and the 80s, that emphasis on higher education and the link between higher education, science, technology and innovation and agriculture simply went now we are seeking to revisit that but I would argue that that too is a very important part of our struggle in order to increase agricultural productivity of Africa.” 

“Without that we are going to be in difficulties but the good news is it seems to me that is changing and the UK and our department of international development is making its contribution to that,” Mr. Boateng said.

Participants will be in Addis Ababa for the week attending the first ever Africa Trade Week, a multi-stakeholder platform for the advancement of the Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA). And intra-African Trade.