It seems increasingly likely that the winner of the upcoming Ukrainian Presidential elections will be a man called Viktor Yanukovych. The name is probably unlikely to ring many bells outside of Ukraine itself, but perhaps it ought to.
Mr. Yanukovych was the sitting Prime Minister during the last term of former Preisdent Leonid Kuchma. In 2004, he became a Presidential candidate. In 2002, a coalition of opposition factions within the Ukrainian Parliament, led principally by Viktor Yushchenko and Yulia Tymoshenko, made a pact to run against the incumbent Party of the Regions. By mid-2004 this alliance had a name - the 'Force of the People'.
Ukrainian Presidential elections require a 50% majority to allow victory to be declared. Typically, in the first round of voting, no one candidate manages to achieve this, and thus a second ballot is held between the top two of the first poll. The official results of the 2004 election were that Yanukovych had won in the second round. However, numerous indepedent electoral observers stated their belief that the election had been rigged, and Yanushchenko, and his supporters began a series of mass protests. They wore orange, the colour of Yanushchenko's campaign, and thus the Orange Revolution was born.
The protest worked, and ultimately the election results were annulled. The matter had been referred to the Ukrainian Supreme Court, who ordered a re-vote, which Yanushchenko won by a clear margin. Thus, the Orange Revolution ended - it seemed it was a great day for democracy. Yanushchenko was pro-western, and it seemed to give hope that the nation would move towards EU membership and integration, and away from Russian influence.
However, Yanushchenko only polled 5.5% of the votes in the first round of the recent elections, meaning he will not return. Yulia Tymoschenko, the Prime Minister since 2004, is the nearest rival but it seems that her support is not strong enough. The Ukraine is lurching back towards the Kremlin.
This begs the question - why? The simple truth is that the government that arose post the Orange Revolution failed. It failed to address the corruption at the core of Ukrainian administration, which is perhaps what was most gravely needed. The crux of the problem came down to a power struggle between Yanushchenko and Tymoschenko. With constant infighting and backbiting between the legislature and executive, there was no hope of reform, and indeed it came to pass that no real progress has been made.
The sheer pettiness of the disputes, most ludicrously when Yushchenko effectively commandeered a plane that was due to transport Tymoshenko from Kiev to the western city of Lviv, forcing her to wait for alternative transport, shows the sheer level of idiocy that ensued. There were numerous allegations of corruption made against each other, regarding deposits of state owned assets into private accounts. Most troubling is the likelihood that some of these allegations may well be fact. The coalition between the two borke down in September of 2008, and from there on any hopes that the Orange Revolution had any lingering prospect of leading to meaningful change for the people of the Ukraine.
Spokespeople for Mr. Yanukovych state that he is a moderniser, that he is not simply a Kremlin stooge and will seek European integration. It is hard to believe this, based on his past record as Prime Minister. The Ukraine is a nation of burgeoning importance, a physical conduit for Russian gas and energy supplies into Europe. A great opportunity was missed after the successes of 2004, both for Europe as a whole to welcome a strategically valuable new partner, but most crucially of all for the Ukrainian people to live in a proper, functioning and mature democracy.
Given the failures of this administration it is hard not to forgive the electorate for turning their backs. It seems, however, that Russia may well be the only winner here, and given the struggle of the Ukrainians to be a free nation, and the terrible famines suffered there under the Russian aegis, such a victory is ill deserved. With its launch of a new military covenant this week, re-asserting the need for a nuclear arsenal, there can be little cause for cheer when it comes to the wider picture of progress for post-Soviet states.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Extradition Law in the UK and Jersey
The Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004: Recent Developments
New extradition arrangements were introduced in the UK under the Extradition Act 2003 which also implemented the UK-US Extradition Treaty 2003. Similar arrangements were introduced in Jersey in the following year under the Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004 which is based on the UK Act.
The UK legislation was originally brought in to speed up extradition of terrorist suspects. However, a large amount of the offences have been for alleged indictable financial offences. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 2009 the Home Office received 95 extradition requests from the United States alone. The UK has made 42 requests of the US during the same period. Meanwhile, in Jersey, only four or five extradition requests have been received under the 2004 Law.
The 2003 Act has been subject to much criticism. This controversy has arisen because of the apparent double standards being applied to the relationship between the UK and the USA in particular. Under the legislation it remains much more difficult for the UK (and Jersey) to extradite from the US than for the US to extradite from the UK (or Jersey).
UK Controversy
The recent extradition request of the US government for Gary McKinnon who faces 97 counts of hacking NASA and military networks has highlighted the lack of safeguards in the legislation. The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded at the start of 2009 that there was not enough evidence to support a decision to prosecute Gary MacKinnon in the UK and the Home Affairs Select Committee have most recently requested that his extradition be blocked by the British government. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has maintained that the evidence that must be provided for a US extradition request to proceed in the UK is in practice the same as for a UK request to proceed in the US and that the suggestion that the operation of the Extradition Act needs to be reviewed comprehensively is unnecessary. His statement makes clear that the government's view is that unless the evidence shows that extradition would breach the European Convention on Human Rights it would be unlawful for it to refuse extradition. Mitting J granted leave for Judicial Review of Mr. Mckinnon's case on 17th January 2010, providing some hope that the government will not prevail in this instance.
The test for extradition in Jersey
Under the 2004 Law a person can be extradited to a country ('a designated territory') listed in respect of alleged criminal conduct which occurred whether in Jersey, the designated territory or elsewhere (although different rules apply in each case).
There are two categories of designated territory:
· Schedule 1, Part 1 includes most European countries, the USA, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada and Russia;
· Schedule 1, Part 2 includes places such as Monaco, Panama and Singapore.
To be extradited for alleged criminal conduct, if that conduct has occurred in the designated territory, it must constitute an offence in the designated territory punishable by at least 12 months' imprisonment and it would also have to have constituted an offence punishable by that term in Jersey had it occurred here.
Where part of the conduct has occurred within Jersey, there is an additional requirement that in corresponding circumstances equivalent conduct would have constituted an extra-territorial offence under Jersey law punishable by imprisonment or detention of at least 12 months.
Extradition hearings are heard by the Magistrate, who can only bar extradition if
· It would infringe the double jeopardy rule ( i.e. a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence);
· The request purpose is so that the person can be prosecuted or punished on account of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions;
· If the request was granted the person would be prejudiced at trial, punished, detained or restricted on account of those issues listed above.
· It would appear unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time;
· There are hostage-taking considerations.
Beyond those matters, the Magistrate has very little discretion.
However, one of the few safeguards provided is that under the Act the Magistrate must be satisfied that the request contains admissible evidence of the offence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the person. Unfortunately, this only applies to Part 2 designated territories. In relation to both Part 1 and 2, however, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the extradition is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Latest Developments in Jersey
Until recently, the provisions of the local 2004 Law have not been an active source of concern. However, recent developments in the wide ranging Australian Operation Wickenby tax investigation have brought the Law to the attention of the international media.
Philip de Figueiredo, principal of the Swiss accounting firm Strachans, is at the heart of the Wickenby probe, and faces criminal charges in Australia. He was arrested on 31 December 2008 in Jersey and faces a request from the Australian Federal Government for his extradition. Whilst he has never been to Australia the allegations he faces involve conduct with was intended to be felt and was actually felt in Australia.
Most recently, on 4 November 2009, Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw handed down a written judgment finding in the Australian's government's favour stating that she had not heard any evidence to show that there was any legal bar to his extradition or that it was unjust or oppressive. She insisted that Jersey, an international tax haven, had an obligation to play its role in the international community on white-collar crime. The matter is currently with the Attorney General who will make the extradition ruling. The Attorney General can only discharge the person if the offence in the designated territory could result in the death penalty or if there are no specific arrangements with the designated territory to ensure that the person is prosecuted only in respect of the offence for which he is extradited. If these do not apply, the Attorney General must order the person's extradition.
Future
Mr. de Figueiredo has yet to exhaust all potential avenues of appeal and may yet avoid extradition. There are rights to appeal to the Royal Court and ultimately to the Privy Council in relation to both the Magistrate's and the Attorney General's decisions. Extradition decisions are notoriously difficult to challenge as was seen in the English High Court's decision in the NatWest Three's appeal. In that case the court made it clear that the statute was clear and its procedure had to be followed. No discretion was vested in the court, the Secretary of State, or anyone else to deviate from it.
In any event the recent ruling of the Assistant Magistrate sets a significant precedent and the concerns over the 2003 UK Act may be about to become a concrete reality here in Jersey. It remains that the hurdles for the country seeking extradition are low and there is a very limited protection for the individual.
Many companies and trusts administered in Jersey have dealings or connections with countries listed within the Law, such as the USA and Australia. Most international transactions take place in US dollars and many e-mails pass through international servers.
There are 112 territories that can seek extradition under the 2004 Law. Vigilance in all financial matters has always been important. Now, to an even greater extent, it must be considered imperative; and indeed, I feel strongly that the reach of foreign jurisdictions into Jersey and the UK is something with which we should all be concerned.
New extradition arrangements were introduced in the UK under the Extradition Act 2003 which also implemented the UK-US Extradition Treaty 2003. Similar arrangements were introduced in Jersey in the following year under the Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004 which is based on the UK Act.
The UK legislation was originally brought in to speed up extradition of terrorist suspects. However, a large amount of the offences have been for alleged indictable financial offences. Between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 2009 the Home Office received 95 extradition requests from the United States alone. The UK has made 42 requests of the US during the same period. Meanwhile, in Jersey, only four or five extradition requests have been received under the 2004 Law.
The 2003 Act has been subject to much criticism. This controversy has arisen because of the apparent double standards being applied to the relationship between the UK and the USA in particular. Under the legislation it remains much more difficult for the UK (and Jersey) to extradite from the US than for the US to extradite from the UK (or Jersey).
UK Controversy
The recent extradition request of the US government for Gary McKinnon who faces 97 counts of hacking NASA and military networks has highlighted the lack of safeguards in the legislation. The Director of Public Prosecutions concluded at the start of 2009 that there was not enough evidence to support a decision to prosecute Gary MacKinnon in the UK and the Home Affairs Select Committee have most recently requested that his extradition be blocked by the British government. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has maintained that the evidence that must be provided for a US extradition request to proceed in the UK is in practice the same as for a UK request to proceed in the US and that the suggestion that the operation of the Extradition Act needs to be reviewed comprehensively is unnecessary. His statement makes clear that the government's view is that unless the evidence shows that extradition would breach the European Convention on Human Rights it would be unlawful for it to refuse extradition. Mitting J granted leave for Judicial Review of Mr. Mckinnon's case on 17th January 2010, providing some hope that the government will not prevail in this instance.
The test for extradition in Jersey
Under the 2004 Law a person can be extradited to a country ('a designated territory') listed in respect of alleged criminal conduct which occurred whether in Jersey, the designated territory or elsewhere (although different rules apply in each case).
There are two categories of designated territory:
· Schedule 1, Part 1 includes most European countries, the USA, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada and Russia;
· Schedule 1, Part 2 includes places such as Monaco, Panama and Singapore.
To be extradited for alleged criminal conduct, if that conduct has occurred in the designated territory, it must constitute an offence in the designated territory punishable by at least 12 months' imprisonment and it would also have to have constituted an offence punishable by that term in Jersey had it occurred here.
Where part of the conduct has occurred within Jersey, there is an additional requirement that in corresponding circumstances equivalent conduct would have constituted an extra-territorial offence under Jersey law punishable by imprisonment or detention of at least 12 months.
Extradition hearings are heard by the Magistrate, who can only bar extradition if
· It would infringe the double jeopardy rule ( i.e. a person cannot be prosecuted twice for the same offence);
· The request purpose is so that the person can be prosecuted or punished on account of their race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions;
· If the request was granted the person would be prejudiced at trial, punished, detained or restricted on account of those issues listed above.
· It would appear unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time;
· There are hostage-taking considerations.
Beyond those matters, the Magistrate has very little discretion.
However, one of the few safeguards provided is that under the Act the Magistrate must be satisfied that the request contains admissible evidence of the offence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the person. Unfortunately, this only applies to Part 2 designated territories. In relation to both Part 1 and 2, however, the Magistrate must be satisfied that the extradition is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Latest Developments in Jersey
Until recently, the provisions of the local 2004 Law have not been an active source of concern. However, recent developments in the wide ranging Australian Operation Wickenby tax investigation have brought the Law to the attention of the international media.
Philip de Figueiredo, principal of the Swiss accounting firm Strachans, is at the heart of the Wickenby probe, and faces criminal charges in Australia. He was arrested on 31 December 2008 in Jersey and faces a request from the Australian Federal Government for his extradition. Whilst he has never been to Australia the allegations he faces involve conduct with was intended to be felt and was actually felt in Australia.
Most recently, on 4 November 2009, Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw handed down a written judgment finding in the Australian's government's favour stating that she had not heard any evidence to show that there was any legal bar to his extradition or that it was unjust or oppressive. She insisted that Jersey, an international tax haven, had an obligation to play its role in the international community on white-collar crime. The matter is currently with the Attorney General who will make the extradition ruling. The Attorney General can only discharge the person if the offence in the designated territory could result in the death penalty or if there are no specific arrangements with the designated territory to ensure that the person is prosecuted only in respect of the offence for which he is extradited. If these do not apply, the Attorney General must order the person's extradition.
Future
Mr. de Figueiredo has yet to exhaust all potential avenues of appeal and may yet avoid extradition. There are rights to appeal to the Royal Court and ultimately to the Privy Council in relation to both the Magistrate's and the Attorney General's decisions. Extradition decisions are notoriously difficult to challenge as was seen in the English High Court's decision in the NatWest Three's appeal. In that case the court made it clear that the statute was clear and its procedure had to be followed. No discretion was vested in the court, the Secretary of State, or anyone else to deviate from it.
In any event the recent ruling of the Assistant Magistrate sets a significant precedent and the concerns over the 2003 UK Act may be about to become a concrete reality here in Jersey. It remains that the hurdles for the country seeking extradition are low and there is a very limited protection for the individual.
Many companies and trusts administered in Jersey have dealings or connections with countries listed within the Law, such as the USA and Australia. Most international transactions take place in US dollars and many e-mails pass through international servers.
There are 112 territories that can seek extradition under the 2004 Law. Vigilance in all financial matters has always been important. Now, to an even greater extent, it must be considered imperative; and indeed, I feel strongly that the reach of foreign jurisdictions into Jersey and the UK is something with which we should all be concerned.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
What makes a country?
If you cast your mind back to the later half of the 1990s, you might remember Britain being embroiled in a foreign war that was rather better received than any militaristic ventures this side of the year 2000. Then, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) sought to create an autonomous province, free from Serbian control. Slobadan Milosevic and the Serbian military were of a different mind, and ultimately refused to leave the 'occupied' territory (Kosovo being within Serbia). Then NATO got involved (without a UNSC resolution, interestingly, but that's not what I'm here to discuss), and the Serbian military was driven from the province, finally leading to the arrest of Slobodan Milosevic on war crimes charges
Pursuant to this, The UN passed Resolution 1244, allowing Kosovo to be UN administered. Importantly, Kosovo was granted autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (that is to say, Serbia, as Serbia is the successor state to the FRY). The matter, of course, was far from settled - many ethnic Serbs live in Kosovo, and you will not be too surprised to hear that the Kosovans, ethnic Albanians ruthlessly persecuted by the Serbs during the 1990s, have turned on them. Tensions have remained high.
In 2006 negotiations were begun within the UNSC to try and solve the problem. It was widely anticipated that Kosovan independence would be the ultimate aim, but Russia, holding a veto and permanent seat on the Security Council, held that they would not support any resolution that was not agreeable in both Belgrade and Pristina. Unsurprisingly, the Serbs do not want Kosovo to become independent. Russia's argument was that to allow such would undermine the principle of state sovereignty.
Transitional moves, giving the Kosovans an independent legislative assembly, led to the first elections in 2007. This culminated, ultimately, in Kosovo declaring independence in February 2008, and this was recognised by 65 states, including France, the UK and the US. Kosovo is a member of the World Bank and IMF, as the 'Republic of Kosovo'.
So, is Kosovo independent? Is it a state? It certainly satisfies two of the Montevideo criteria, namely that it has a defined geography and borders, and a defined population. It has a government, and can seemingly enter into relations with other states - but is this 'legal'? There is a Serbian government department with responsibility for Kosovo, and only sovereign states can enter into public relations - surely, legally, Serbia has this power?
This very question, of whether the unilateral secession of a province from a sovereign state, becoming a new sovereign, self-ruling state, can be legal, was referred to the International Court of Justice by the UN, following Serbia's proposal that it should be (it was a narrow vote, 77 states voting to refer the question against 74 opposing). All UN states were invited to submit their positions to the court, and public hearings were held on the 1st of December 2009. Serbia argued that independence violated international law, citing resolution 1244 as its key basis (that Kosovo was part of Serbia, as successor state to the FYR). It was keen to play on international fears of secession in other states, and declared that the move would be a dangerous precedent.
Kosovo argued that Serbia had forfeit its right to the province due to its long-standing abuse of Kosovar human rights, and pointed out that Serbia had never been serious about granting Kosovans independence - indeed, it had re-drafted its constitution specifically to include Kosovo as part of its sovereign territory after resolution 1244 had been passed.
A decision on the matter is due at some point in 2010. It is unclear which way the court will go. There are arguments that such secession is not prohibited by international law, but the lack of an explicit rule makes this a rather soft argument. By contrast, Russia, who opposes the move, recognised Abkhazia and South Oseetia as independent of Georgia during the recent fighting there, citing Kosovo as a precedent (amazing, since they reject Kosovo's independence as illegal, but never mind). The UK, pleasingly in my view, made the apt statement that 'Courts do not order estranged spouses to continue in a broken marriage.', implying that it would be manifestly wrong to make Kosovo surrender its tentative freedom and re-engage with Serbia once more.
I feel that the testimony by significant states such as the US and China is most instructive - the US states that Kosovo should be viewed as a special case, but that it should not provide a precedent for other states to utilise. China, like Russia, argues that the move violates resolution 1244 and thus cannot be legal. I feel that the ICJ will ultimately decide along one of those two lines. It would be a sad and retrograde step for Kosovo to be denied its freedom, but then, if it is free, what can other nations do to stop their own breakups, should states wish to secede? Might we begin to see fresh, bolder moves for Scottish and Welsh independence? An independent Kurdistan (and more bloodshed in Iraq?). It would certainly be of great interest to the Quebecois. The title posits the question of what a country is, and the simple answer is that we cannot say with certainty, and the outcome of this case will probably not really clarify the question. The ICJ's decision, however, will be of great interest and may have a huge impact, especially if the court's Opinion is in Kosovo's favour.
Pursuant to this, The UN passed Resolution 1244, allowing Kosovo to be UN administered. Importantly, Kosovo was granted autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (that is to say, Serbia, as Serbia is the successor state to the FRY). The matter, of course, was far from settled - many ethnic Serbs live in Kosovo, and you will not be too surprised to hear that the Kosovans, ethnic Albanians ruthlessly persecuted by the Serbs during the 1990s, have turned on them. Tensions have remained high.
In 2006 negotiations were begun within the UNSC to try and solve the problem. It was widely anticipated that Kosovan independence would be the ultimate aim, but Russia, holding a veto and permanent seat on the Security Council, held that they would not support any resolution that was not agreeable in both Belgrade and Pristina. Unsurprisingly, the Serbs do not want Kosovo to become independent. Russia's argument was that to allow such would undermine the principle of state sovereignty.
Transitional moves, giving the Kosovans an independent legislative assembly, led to the first elections in 2007. This culminated, ultimately, in Kosovo declaring independence in February 2008, and this was recognised by 65 states, including France, the UK and the US. Kosovo is a member of the World Bank and IMF, as the 'Republic of Kosovo'.
So, is Kosovo independent? Is it a state? It certainly satisfies two of the Montevideo criteria, namely that it has a defined geography and borders, and a defined population. It has a government, and can seemingly enter into relations with other states - but is this 'legal'? There is a Serbian government department with responsibility for Kosovo, and only sovereign states can enter into public relations - surely, legally, Serbia has this power?
This very question, of whether the unilateral secession of a province from a sovereign state, becoming a new sovereign, self-ruling state, can be legal, was referred to the International Court of Justice by the UN, following Serbia's proposal that it should be (it was a narrow vote, 77 states voting to refer the question against 74 opposing). All UN states were invited to submit their positions to the court, and public hearings were held on the 1st of December 2009. Serbia argued that independence violated international law, citing resolution 1244 as its key basis (that Kosovo was part of Serbia, as successor state to the FYR). It was keen to play on international fears of secession in other states, and declared that the move would be a dangerous precedent.
Kosovo argued that Serbia had forfeit its right to the province due to its long-standing abuse of Kosovar human rights, and pointed out that Serbia had never been serious about granting Kosovans independence - indeed, it had re-drafted its constitution specifically to include Kosovo as part of its sovereign territory after resolution 1244 had been passed.
A decision on the matter is due at some point in 2010. It is unclear which way the court will go. There are arguments that such secession is not prohibited by international law, but the lack of an explicit rule makes this a rather soft argument. By contrast, Russia, who opposes the move, recognised Abkhazia and South Oseetia as independent of Georgia during the recent fighting there, citing Kosovo as a precedent (amazing, since they reject Kosovo's independence as illegal, but never mind). The UK, pleasingly in my view, made the apt statement that 'Courts do not order estranged spouses to continue in a broken marriage.', implying that it would be manifestly wrong to make Kosovo surrender its tentative freedom and re-engage with Serbia once more.
I feel that the testimony by significant states such as the US and China is most instructive - the US states that Kosovo should be viewed as a special case, but that it should not provide a precedent for other states to utilise. China, like Russia, argues that the move violates resolution 1244 and thus cannot be legal. I feel that the ICJ will ultimately decide along one of those two lines. It would be a sad and retrograde step for Kosovo to be denied its freedom, but then, if it is free, what can other nations do to stop their own breakups, should states wish to secede? Might we begin to see fresh, bolder moves for Scottish and Welsh independence? An independent Kurdistan (and more bloodshed in Iraq?). It would certainly be of great interest to the Quebecois. The title posits the question of what a country is, and the simple answer is that we cannot say with certainty, and the outcome of this case will probably not really clarify the question. The ICJ's decision, however, will be of great interest and may have a huge impact, especially if the court's Opinion is in Kosovo's favour.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Now for Something Completely Different
Today's installment will be a little at odds with the rest so far. The following is probably not for the eyes of children, either, so if you have any, tell them to go to bed, or something, and we'll begin.
There's no point in skirting the issue now I suppose. Today I'm going to talk to you about foot fetishes. Now, before you start, I'd like to state quite clearly that such fetish is not one of my personal sexual peccadilloes (I'm not too likely to go into detail about those, so don't reach for the sick bag just yet). Further, this is largely apropos of nothing. It's just always struck me as a decidely odd thing to be turned on by. Maybe that owes to the simple reason that my own feet look like they have been attacked with a claw hammer, but I digress.
It's interesting to note that such a sexual taste is more common than you might think. In this study carried out at the University of Bologna (http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v19/n4/abs/3901547a.html) it was found (by searching through roughly 400 internet fetish groups. Can you imagine) that feet were, by a reasonably clear distance, the most commonly fetishised body part. When this was extended to items such as footwear, the margin increased.
Having established that it is perhaps more than a small majority with such an interest, it still doesn't get to the heart of why people would sexualise feet, so let's examine some ideas as to why this might be so.
In researching this, I've read a few times that 'the foot's shape mimics the curve of a woman's body'. Firstly, I'm not sure it does really. I mean, looking at the sole of someone's foot, maybe, but generally I don't buy it. In any event, It seems that straight women can be foot fetishists, which rather throws a spanner in the works.
Some people also seem to suggest it has something to do with reflexology. Reflexology is a load of ascientific nonesense, so we'll scrap that too.
Neurology in the wider sense may well have a part to play, and I think it is in this that we find what I deem to be the most plausible explanation for what is at first so counter-intuitive (to me) a desire. The somatosensory cortex is the part of your brain which receives nervous inputs from all around your body, and lets you know, in very basic terms, when a part of you has been touched, or is hot etc. It is mapped out in a way that may at first seem a little strange (I'd click here http://www.alinenewton.com/images/homunculus.jpg and look at how it is mapped out before reading further).
You will note, if you followed the link, that the areas of the brain receiving input from the genitalia and the toes are sat right next to each other on the cortex. The theory would run that due to the proximity, some of us may simply be wired (quite literally) differently, and that the neural inputs from the feet and genitalia become intermingled or cross into the 'wrong' areas, and as such the sight of feet becomes arousing, as it gains a mental equivocation with genitalia, the sight of which is arousing (by and large!)
Of course, with something as complex as sexuality, this is not going to be the whole story. I'm not going to go into Freudian psychosexuality, as it's too nebulous and complex for me to really get into, but it's probably fair to say that theories that childhood experiences are likely to define future sexual tastes, and this developmental aspect should not be ignored, but as ever it's hard to pin down exactly what experiences during which period could trigger such desires later in life.
From googling around, it seems that such fetishes were first mentioned in literature roughly 800 years ago, and examining trends in the prevalence of mentions of such fetishes throughout history can be instructive. It has been noted that an increased interest in feet as sexual objects has been noted during peak epidemics of sexual disease throughout the centuries, specifically syphilis epidemics of the 16th and 19th centuries. I am extremely suspicious of this finding - whilst one could imagine that the rise in popularity of feet as sexual objects that has arisen during the AIDS pandemic of modern times makes sense (feet being 'safe' from a disease standpoint), the same cannot be said of syphilis. A known syphilitic symptom is the present of sores and rashes on the feet, so the argument that feet became 'saf'e' during these periods doesn't stack up - it's an interesting idea, however.
Even feminism has been implicated, the principle being that data seem to suggest that during periods of increased female emancipation interest in such fetishes rises. Perhaps it is possible that fetishising of less traditional parts of the female anatomy has increased when women have subverted and advanced beyond their traditional roles, but I can't really see any logical reason why this would be so.
Overall, it's hard to pin anything down definitvely. I like the neurological argument because it appeals to the logical side of mine. Of course, as stated previously, sexuality rarely makes that much sense. But we shouldn't demonise those who have tastes that we may see as a little beyond the pale - my overriding conclusion is that due to a myriad of factors, to a greater or lesser extent, such urges and desires arise in a manner that is not under one's conscious control.
There's no point in skirting the issue now I suppose. Today I'm going to talk to you about foot fetishes. Now, before you start, I'd like to state quite clearly that such fetish is not one of my personal sexual peccadilloes (I'm not too likely to go into detail about those, so don't reach for the sick bag just yet). Further, this is largely apropos of nothing. It's just always struck me as a decidely odd thing to be turned on by. Maybe that owes to the simple reason that my own feet look like they have been attacked with a claw hammer, but I digress.
It's interesting to note that such a sexual taste is more common than you might think. In this study carried out at the University of Bologna (http://www.nature.com/ijir/journal/v19/n4/abs/3901547a.html) it was found (by searching through roughly 400 internet fetish groups. Can you imagine) that feet were, by a reasonably clear distance, the most commonly fetishised body part. When this was extended to items such as footwear, the margin increased.
Having established that it is perhaps more than a small majority with such an interest, it still doesn't get to the heart of why people would sexualise feet, so let's examine some ideas as to why this might be so.
In researching this, I've read a few times that 'the foot's shape mimics the curve of a woman's body'. Firstly, I'm not sure it does really. I mean, looking at the sole of someone's foot, maybe, but generally I don't buy it. In any event, It seems that straight women can be foot fetishists, which rather throws a spanner in the works.
Some people also seem to suggest it has something to do with reflexology. Reflexology is a load of ascientific nonesense, so we'll scrap that too.
Neurology in the wider sense may well have a part to play, and I think it is in this that we find what I deem to be the most plausible explanation for what is at first so counter-intuitive (to me) a desire. The somatosensory cortex is the part of your brain which receives nervous inputs from all around your body, and lets you know, in very basic terms, when a part of you has been touched, or is hot etc. It is mapped out in a way that may at first seem a little strange (I'd click here http://www.alinenewton.com/images/homunculus.jpg and look at how it is mapped out before reading further).
You will note, if you followed the link, that the areas of the brain receiving input from the genitalia and the toes are sat right next to each other on the cortex. The theory would run that due to the proximity, some of us may simply be wired (quite literally) differently, and that the neural inputs from the feet and genitalia become intermingled or cross into the 'wrong' areas, and as such the sight of feet becomes arousing, as it gains a mental equivocation with genitalia, the sight of which is arousing (by and large!)
Of course, with something as complex as sexuality, this is not going to be the whole story. I'm not going to go into Freudian psychosexuality, as it's too nebulous and complex for me to really get into, but it's probably fair to say that theories that childhood experiences are likely to define future sexual tastes, and this developmental aspect should not be ignored, but as ever it's hard to pin down exactly what experiences during which period could trigger such desires later in life.
From googling around, it seems that such fetishes were first mentioned in literature roughly 800 years ago, and examining trends in the prevalence of mentions of such fetishes throughout history can be instructive. It has been noted that an increased interest in feet as sexual objects has been noted during peak epidemics of sexual disease throughout the centuries, specifically syphilis epidemics of the 16th and 19th centuries. I am extremely suspicious of this finding - whilst one could imagine that the rise in popularity of feet as sexual objects that has arisen during the AIDS pandemic of modern times makes sense (feet being 'safe' from a disease standpoint), the same cannot be said of syphilis. A known syphilitic symptom is the present of sores and rashes on the feet, so the argument that feet became 'saf'e' during these periods doesn't stack up - it's an interesting idea, however.
Even feminism has been implicated, the principle being that data seem to suggest that during periods of increased female emancipation interest in such fetishes rises. Perhaps it is possible that fetishising of less traditional parts of the female anatomy has increased when women have subverted and advanced beyond their traditional roles, but I can't really see any logical reason why this would be so.
Overall, it's hard to pin anything down definitvely. I like the neurological argument because it appeals to the logical side of mine. Of course, as stated previously, sexuality rarely makes that much sense. But we shouldn't demonise those who have tastes that we may see as a little beyond the pale - my overriding conclusion is that due to a myriad of factors, to a greater or lesser extent, such urges and desires arise in a manner that is not under one's conscious control.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
A government of laws, not of men..
I'm sure you've heard of Barack Obama. I'm equally sure that you've probably read a lot about him, and thus may be about to click your back button to escape. I am going to talk about him a little, but just as a starting point, so don't be too discouraged just yet.
Things haven't been going so well for the President as his first year in office ticks away. His poll ratings are low, there's a great opposition to his healthcare plans, and just this week the democrats lost a Massachusetts senatorial seat (Massachusetts having returned democrats to the senate for the past 50 years plus).
I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of Obama's presidency (though I'm still a bit miffed about the Nobel prize he picked up. I guess Henry Kissinger got a peace prize for advocating the carpet bombing of Cambodia, so it's not the worst nomination). It seems he's taking a lot of flak for not pushing through the great agenda of change he promised, and that was instrumental in his sweeping electoral victory. Part of the blame does lay at his door, and we cannot forget the Republicans' amazing ability to delay and frustrate any legislative efforts by the democrat majority in both houses of Congress (consider their tabling of no fewer than 600 amendments to the healthcare bill, of which 160 were accepted as concessions by the democrats, and still it remains unpassed).
However, the real obstacle to Obama's reform agenda is a simple and brilliant (the second amendment right to bear arms aside) bundle of paper - the US Constitution.
It's a very simple set up. A President is elected by virtue of gaining a majority of electoral college votes, which is done by winning the most States in a popular election (note that some States carry dramatically more electoral college votes - California, for example, is a key state to win, whereas Alaska, far larger, carries few votes). The President is the head of the executive, and so appoints deputies as a 'cabinet'. This executive is responsible for day-to-day governance.
The key to Government and it's impact on people really lies within the legislature and judiciary, and this is where the Constitution really comes alive. Local voting in individual States every two years leads to the appointment of representatives in the lower legislature. Six yearly elections appoint Senators to the upper house. This ensures a very democratic representation of the people within the legislature. In addition, States may elect Senators of one party, but often Representatives of another. This ensures that there is a great mix and parity within the legislature. The two house system, with legislation needing majorities in both houses before Presidential approval, is the crux of it all. No law can pass through this process without being tempered and altered, without a broad consensus and agreement. Further to this, all States have their own federal legislatures to which decision making powers have been devolved, with elected Mayors and Governors responsible for local executive function.
This process was intended by the original signatories to the Constitution to ensure that radical legislation was hard to pass. It is a system designed with compromise in mind. Indeed, having struggled to escape the taxation and rule of the British monarchy, it can be seen as a direct opposition to that rule. It is a system built to ensure that no one man can ever wield too much power, and that those who do possess that power because the people will it.
This quote sums it up pretty well, I think -
'As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them.
Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No.2, September 28, 1787'
The judiciary is slightly more problematic. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the highest court of the land, which is the ultimate arbiter of whether any acts are constitutional. As such, in a way it has a power above the other branches of the legislature and executive.
However, again, this is neatly tempered by the provisions allowing Congress to establish other courts beneath it, and it is the President who appoints judges to the bench. Ultimately, once appointed, Supreme Court Justices have a great safety of tenure, and although their appointments are often political in nature, they may choose whatever path they wish (an excellent example was David Souter, appointed by the Republicans, who would go on to be about as liberal a Judge as any, much to the GOP's consternation).
Of course, several Justices sit on the Supreme Court Bench, and majorities make decisions. Again, we see that the amount of power available is spread between individuals. But vitally, for a functioning judiciary, there is a great deal of independence from the executive and legislature.
It is a wonderful, brilliantly thought out arrangement. When one looks at the 'elective dictatorship' that exists in the UK, where the first past the post system, an impotent House of Lords, and the whips give parties crushing majorities. With the executive dominating the legislature, it is hard not to be envious of the American system. Thankfully, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 has moved the highest court of appeal to a new Supreme Court outside of the Lords, and judges are now appointed by an independent commission - thus the British can at least claim a properly independent judiciary!
Indeed, whilst there may be disaffection with Obama, I feel that Americans can still have great reason to be proud. Their Constitution, nigh unchanged for 230 years is still doing its job. To negotiate it, one must cajole, persuade, and bargain. No one man can ever dominate, in the 'government of laws, not of men'. In concluding, I say simply, do not be frustrated with the man. Be honoured to live under the system. It may not be perfect, but it comes closer than anything else before or since. It's doing its job, exactly as it was meant to.
Things haven't been going so well for the President as his first year in office ticks away. His poll ratings are low, there's a great opposition to his healthcare plans, and just this week the democrats lost a Massachusetts senatorial seat (Massachusetts having returned democrats to the senate for the past 50 years plus).
I'm not going to go into the rights and wrongs of Obama's presidency (though I'm still a bit miffed about the Nobel prize he picked up. I guess Henry Kissinger got a peace prize for advocating the carpet bombing of Cambodia, so it's not the worst nomination). It seems he's taking a lot of flak for not pushing through the great agenda of change he promised, and that was instrumental in his sweeping electoral victory. Part of the blame does lay at his door, and we cannot forget the Republicans' amazing ability to delay and frustrate any legislative efforts by the democrat majority in both houses of Congress (consider their tabling of no fewer than 600 amendments to the healthcare bill, of which 160 were accepted as concessions by the democrats, and still it remains unpassed).
However, the real obstacle to Obama's reform agenda is a simple and brilliant (the second amendment right to bear arms aside) bundle of paper - the US Constitution.
It's a very simple set up. A President is elected by virtue of gaining a majority of electoral college votes, which is done by winning the most States in a popular election (note that some States carry dramatically more electoral college votes - California, for example, is a key state to win, whereas Alaska, far larger, carries few votes). The President is the head of the executive, and so appoints deputies as a 'cabinet'. This executive is responsible for day-to-day governance.
The key to Government and it's impact on people really lies within the legislature and judiciary, and this is where the Constitution really comes alive. Local voting in individual States every two years leads to the appointment of representatives in the lower legislature. Six yearly elections appoint Senators to the upper house. This ensures a very democratic representation of the people within the legislature. In addition, States may elect Senators of one party, but often Representatives of another. This ensures that there is a great mix and parity within the legislature. The two house system, with legislation needing majorities in both houses before Presidential approval, is the crux of it all. No law can pass through this process without being tempered and altered, without a broad consensus and agreement. Further to this, all States have their own federal legislatures to which decision making powers have been devolved, with elected Mayors and Governors responsible for local executive function.
This process was intended by the original signatories to the Constitution to ensure that radical legislation was hard to pass. It is a system designed with compromise in mind. Indeed, having struggled to escape the taxation and rule of the British monarchy, it can be seen as a direct opposition to that rule. It is a system built to ensure that no one man can ever wield too much power, and that those who do possess that power because the people will it.
This quote sums it up pretty well, I think -
'As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them.
Tench Coxe, An American Citizen, No.2, September 28, 1787'
The judiciary is slightly more problematic. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the highest court of the land, which is the ultimate arbiter of whether any acts are constitutional. As such, in a way it has a power above the other branches of the legislature and executive.
However, again, this is neatly tempered by the provisions allowing Congress to establish other courts beneath it, and it is the President who appoints judges to the bench. Ultimately, once appointed, Supreme Court Justices have a great safety of tenure, and although their appointments are often political in nature, they may choose whatever path they wish (an excellent example was David Souter, appointed by the Republicans, who would go on to be about as liberal a Judge as any, much to the GOP's consternation).
Of course, several Justices sit on the Supreme Court Bench, and majorities make decisions. Again, we see that the amount of power available is spread between individuals. But vitally, for a functioning judiciary, there is a great deal of independence from the executive and legislature.
It is a wonderful, brilliantly thought out arrangement. When one looks at the 'elective dictatorship' that exists in the UK, where the first past the post system, an impotent House of Lords, and the whips give parties crushing majorities. With the executive dominating the legislature, it is hard not to be envious of the American system. Thankfully, the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 has moved the highest court of appeal to a new Supreme Court outside of the Lords, and judges are now appointed by an independent commission - thus the British can at least claim a properly independent judiciary!
Indeed, whilst there may be disaffection with Obama, I feel that Americans can still have great reason to be proud. Their Constitution, nigh unchanged for 230 years is still doing its job. To negotiate it, one must cajole, persuade, and bargain. No one man can ever dominate, in the 'government of laws, not of men'. In concluding, I say simply, do not be frustrated with the man. Be honoured to live under the system. It may not be perfect, but it comes closer than anything else before or since. It's doing its job, exactly as it was meant to.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Futurology
Those of you born in or before the 80s may just remember a cartoon called the Jetsons. I say remember - I couldn't really tell you anything about it, other than a slight twinge of pre-pubescent tumescence when Mrs. Jetson was on screen. It was, in essence, a lazy rehash of the Flintstones, a programme with no discernible plot progression or well-defined characters. The interest came from the situation in which the characters were based. The 'charm' of the Jetsons, such as it was, was how it portrayed an imaginary future, replete with jetcars, pills for meals (if memory serves) and robots. It's amusing that Mrs. Jetson is in essence the archetypal 50s housewife, staying at home and doing the cooking and watching over the household, given the thousands of years that would have had to elapsed for jetcars etc. to have arisen. But then who could've predicted women would start having careers? I think we can all agree it was ludicrous enough giving them the vote, but the notion that they might go to work! Bewidering....
Anyway, I bring this up as it's always hilarious to look back at the directions we all imagined the future would take in the past. Lord Kelvin's prediction in 1897 that 'radio has no future' is a real favourite of mine. I suppose we should all be thankful he was wrong, due to the technology's later development as radar, the key to victory in the Battle of Britain. Amusingly he also predicted two years earlier that heavier-than-air flying machines were an impossibility, so had he been an accurate predictor we'd not have even have needed radar. Sir Clive Sinclair's infatuation with the idea that his C5 personal automobiles were the mode of transport of the future cost him much of his business and ultimately paved the way for the domination of IBM and Microsoft as the world leaders in the computer industry. The greatest quote in this regard has to go to Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. Mr. Duell, perhaps hoping for an easy life, remarked that 'Everything that can be invented has been invented.'
It's not to say we don't get things wrong in the modern world too, even short term predictions prove elusive. During my lifetime, the millenium bug must of course rate as the clearest example of how utterly wrong a species can be. Recent fears over bird flu (which was surely a nonesense from the start) and swine flu (which I caught, and was nasty, in fairness) show that even when the best and brightest are at work, any prediction is fraught with difficulty.
We may, however, be getting better. Statistically, meteorologists, for example, are gaining steady accuracy as time goes by. But what's really interesting is the growing encroachment of ideas taken from mathematics and physics and extrapolated into the field of social sciences. In essence, these theories postulate that there are often times when we, as societal groups, act en masse, as if a group of atoms within a substance. Of course, this is not too hard to believe when one considers that we are not as free-willed as we'd like to believe we are. There so many written and unwritten rules that direct and dictate our conduct, and the acts of those around us impact massively on the choices we made. This is just as well, as without such limitations, faced with endless choices, life would be very difficult, nigh on impossible even.
Physicists often see similar things. In iron, for example, each atom is like a compass that can orientate itself in a magnetic field. Individually, each atom is 'free' to choose its own orientation; but because of the magnetic forces between them, all the atoms will align themselves in the same plane/orientation. Brazilian physicists have used a model like this to explain why the voting statistics of the 1998 Brazilian elections do not sit easily with a notion of rampant free will. It seems that the influence of individuals within the group, all tyring to convert others to their political points of view, cause subgroups and communities to 'line up' and vote in blocs, like lumps of iron - further weight to the Chruchillian view that democracy is the worst from of government (except all the others we've tried).
It may also help explain how market traders and economists act, with waves of mass buying and selling, bull markets full of confidence suddenly flipping to bear markets of disaster as a herd mentality takes over due to interactions between agents.
Of course, it is a long strecth to say this will ever be an exact science - indeed, if one could accurately predict the future, it would suggest that our traditional understandings of time are wildly erroneous (since time must, by nature, move from the known to the unknown). If these models do prove more accurate, they may give us an insight into how we can shape societies, and hopefully for the better. As ever, though, I'm not sure we will ever arrive at a decision en masse as to how that society should work and what it should be.
In any event, I hope we won't end up looking as silly as Mr. Duell does now. I'd wager that the era of the bizarre prediction won't have ended just yet though. I, for one, am not too upset by that.
Anyway, I bring this up as it's always hilarious to look back at the directions we all imagined the future would take in the past. Lord Kelvin's prediction in 1897 that 'radio has no future' is a real favourite of mine. I suppose we should all be thankful he was wrong, due to the technology's later development as radar, the key to victory in the Battle of Britain. Amusingly he also predicted two years earlier that heavier-than-air flying machines were an impossibility, so had he been an accurate predictor we'd not have even have needed radar. Sir Clive Sinclair's infatuation with the idea that his C5 personal automobiles were the mode of transport of the future cost him much of his business and ultimately paved the way for the domination of IBM and Microsoft as the world leaders in the computer industry. The greatest quote in this regard has to go to Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. Mr. Duell, perhaps hoping for an easy life, remarked that 'Everything that can be invented has been invented.'
It's not to say we don't get things wrong in the modern world too, even short term predictions prove elusive. During my lifetime, the millenium bug must of course rate as the clearest example of how utterly wrong a species can be. Recent fears over bird flu (which was surely a nonesense from the start) and swine flu (which I caught, and was nasty, in fairness) show that even when the best and brightest are at work, any prediction is fraught with difficulty.
We may, however, be getting better. Statistically, meteorologists, for example, are gaining steady accuracy as time goes by. But what's really interesting is the growing encroachment of ideas taken from mathematics and physics and extrapolated into the field of social sciences. In essence, these theories postulate that there are often times when we, as societal groups, act en masse, as if a group of atoms within a substance. Of course, this is not too hard to believe when one considers that we are not as free-willed as we'd like to believe we are. There so many written and unwritten rules that direct and dictate our conduct, and the acts of those around us impact massively on the choices we made. This is just as well, as without such limitations, faced with endless choices, life would be very difficult, nigh on impossible even.
Physicists often see similar things. In iron, for example, each atom is like a compass that can orientate itself in a magnetic field. Individually, each atom is 'free' to choose its own orientation; but because of the magnetic forces between them, all the atoms will align themselves in the same plane/orientation. Brazilian physicists have used a model like this to explain why the voting statistics of the 1998 Brazilian elections do not sit easily with a notion of rampant free will. It seems that the influence of individuals within the group, all tyring to convert others to their political points of view, cause subgroups and communities to 'line up' and vote in blocs, like lumps of iron - further weight to the Chruchillian view that democracy is the worst from of government (except all the others we've tried).
It may also help explain how market traders and economists act, with waves of mass buying and selling, bull markets full of confidence suddenly flipping to bear markets of disaster as a herd mentality takes over due to interactions between agents.
Of course, it is a long strecth to say this will ever be an exact science - indeed, if one could accurately predict the future, it would suggest that our traditional understandings of time are wildly erroneous (since time must, by nature, move from the known to the unknown). If these models do prove more accurate, they may give us an insight into how we can shape societies, and hopefully for the better. As ever, though, I'm not sure we will ever arrive at a decision en masse as to how that society should work and what it should be.
In any event, I hope we won't end up looking as silly as Mr. Duell does now. I'd wager that the era of the bizarre prediction won't have ended just yet though. I, for one, am not too upset by that.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Vulture Culture
We all live in age of financial instability, and during recent times it has been all too easy for societies to look inwards and try to cope with and resolve concerns on a national level. Being happily insulated from such fears and insecurities as unemployment, it might be easy to turn a blind eye to such. However, I am not untouched by the plight of those who have suffered from the vicissitudes and excesses of capitalism in recent times in Britain. I do feel, though, that to a greater extent than is perhaps normal, certain international issues are being brushed under the carpet somewhat.
In my current post, I'm involved in a case relating to a 'vulture fund' – naturally I cannot discuss any further specific detail, but I feel that it is certainly worth bringing the wider scope of such funds to greater attention, and especially to consider their impacts upon the developing world.
So, what exactly is a vulture fund? In simple terms, vulture funds are created by corporations (typically hedge funds or private equity houses), in order to purchase debts - generally from other companies who are unable/willing to pursue their creditor. These debts are purchased at a low price. The next step is for the new holders of the debt (the vultures) to sue for repayment in court. Having obtained a court order, the fund can pursue the creditor for the debt and interest on top, often amounting to several times the original debt.
Now, some of you might have reverted into Gordon Gekko mode for a moment ('Greed is good. Greed clarifies.'), and indeed, on the face of it, why shouldn't people have to repay their debts?
The problem comes when these vulture funds gain judgement in courts over sovereign debt, that is to say, judgement against nations themselves. In Africa, numerous countries (principally the Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo Brazzaville and Liberia) have fallen prey to vulture funds and owe dizzying sums of money, far above the sums originally owed.
The real issue is the origin of these debts. Take, for example, the case of Zambia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6365433.stm), where the government there was loaned money by the Romanian state under Ceaucescu in 1979. The money was lent in order to allow the Zambians to purchase tractors and other agricultural equipment from the Romanians, but the Zambians struggled to keep up with the repayments. Despite protracted negotiations, and due to burgeoning hardships in Romania, the Romanian government felt there was no option but to sell the debt to Donegal International, a firm that is heavily involved in the titular vulture culture.
We can see that the Romanian state took a massive loss from this, and following a court ruling the Zambians were held to owe roughly double the original debt to Donegal. Ultimately, both Zambia and Romania suffered financially from the arrangement, with Donegal International, a US based firm, left to reap the rewards. A similar, more recent case involves the DRC (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/09/congo) where a debt accrued by the vicious dictator Mobutu Sese Seko is being pursued by FG Hemisphere, another vulture fund capital. As ever, it is the ordinary citizenry of this war-torn land who are left to pay the price of a debt they never requested
This debt hits the third world hard. Often the original debts that have accrued arose from dealings of corrupt dictators, due to disappearing or embezzled funds. African nations generally don't have the best credit ratings, and thus have to pay high levels of interest in any event. I'm all for dropping the debt, but the key matter is to remove the underlying issues that will simply lead to further debt accumulation. These funds reap huge profit but leave those who have to pay up facing sums of money out of all proportion from what they originally owed.
I don't propose to have a solution to African corruption, nor do I have access to Standard & Poors computer system to give countries like Zambia a AAA credit rating. But I feel that the issue of vulture funds is something we can act upon. There are moves either side of the Atlantic to introduce legislation banning these funds, both within Westminster and Washington. We must encourage such moves. These funds are immoral, and hold back developing nations, miring them in proscriptive debt they cannot escape all in pursuit of profit for shareholders. Something has to give. I hope that before too long courts the world over will be prevented from giving judgement against the citizens of sovereign states, and that we can start to give a bit more hope to the many, rather than cynically enriching the few.
If you'd like to read more, have a look here http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/
In my current post, I'm involved in a case relating to a 'vulture fund' – naturally I cannot discuss any further specific detail, but I feel that it is certainly worth bringing the wider scope of such funds to greater attention, and especially to consider their impacts upon the developing world.
So, what exactly is a vulture fund? In simple terms, vulture funds are created by corporations (typically hedge funds or private equity houses), in order to purchase debts - generally from other companies who are unable/willing to pursue their creditor. These debts are purchased at a low price. The next step is for the new holders of the debt (the vultures) to sue for repayment in court. Having obtained a court order, the fund can pursue the creditor for the debt and interest on top, often amounting to several times the original debt.
Now, some of you might have reverted into Gordon Gekko mode for a moment ('Greed is good. Greed clarifies.'), and indeed, on the face of it, why shouldn't people have to repay their debts?
The problem comes when these vulture funds gain judgement in courts over sovereign debt, that is to say, judgement against nations themselves. In Africa, numerous countries (principally the Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo Brazzaville and Liberia) have fallen prey to vulture funds and owe dizzying sums of money, far above the sums originally owed.
The real issue is the origin of these debts. Take, for example, the case of Zambia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6365433.stm), where the government there was loaned money by the Romanian state under Ceaucescu in 1979. The money was lent in order to allow the Zambians to purchase tractors and other agricultural equipment from the Romanians, but the Zambians struggled to keep up with the repayments. Despite protracted negotiations, and due to burgeoning hardships in Romania, the Romanian government felt there was no option but to sell the debt to Donegal International, a firm that is heavily involved in the titular vulture culture.
We can see that the Romanian state took a massive loss from this, and following a court ruling the Zambians were held to owe roughly double the original debt to Donegal. Ultimately, both Zambia and Romania suffered financially from the arrangement, with Donegal International, a US based firm, left to reap the rewards. A similar, more recent case involves the DRC (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/09/congo) where a debt accrued by the vicious dictator Mobutu Sese Seko is being pursued by FG Hemisphere, another vulture fund capital. As ever, it is the ordinary citizenry of this war-torn land who are left to pay the price of a debt they never requested
This debt hits the third world hard. Often the original debts that have accrued arose from dealings of corrupt dictators, due to disappearing or embezzled funds. African nations generally don't have the best credit ratings, and thus have to pay high levels of interest in any event. I'm all for dropping the debt, but the key matter is to remove the underlying issues that will simply lead to further debt accumulation. These funds reap huge profit but leave those who have to pay up facing sums of money out of all proportion from what they originally owed.
I don't propose to have a solution to African corruption, nor do I have access to Standard & Poors computer system to give countries like Zambia a AAA credit rating. But I feel that the issue of vulture funds is something we can act upon. There are moves either side of the Atlantic to introduce legislation banning these funds, both within Westminster and Washington. We must encourage such moves. These funds are immoral, and hold back developing nations, miring them in proscriptive debt they cannot escape all in pursuit of profit for shareholders. Something has to give. I hope that before too long courts the world over will be prevented from giving judgement against the citizens of sovereign states, and that we can start to give a bit more hope to the many, rather than cynically enriching the few.
If you'd like to read more, have a look here http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)