October 17, 2011   137 notes

Has the African Union got Libya wrong?


The joke always used to be that the ‘U’ in the African Union’s predecessor, the OAU, stood for useless. After the hopeless failure of African diplomatic efforts to bring a peaceful end to Libya’s rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi, and even more since the bloc held back on recognising the new Libyan rulers, critics suggest the African Union could be making itself irrelevant. But is the African Union wrong to treat the anti-Gaddafi forces with more caution than their Western allies and the Arab world has done even if the former rebels seem to have widespread support for ending an autocrat’s rule? There are plenty of reasons why the African Union would be reluctant to recognise the rebels who overthrew a man who did as much as anyone to found the African Union in place of the ineffectual club called the Organisation of African Unity. Many individuals African rulers benefited from Gaddafi’s largesse – particularly when they were in trouble – allowing them to get over any queasiness at his comic theatre at African summits and his coronation as Africa’s “King of Kings” as well as to humour his quest for a “United States of Africa”. For South Africa’s ruling ANC, Gaddafi was a friend during the struggle against apartheid. For Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, who expelled the Libyan ambassador after he switched sides this week, help has been much more recent. Some autocrats may also fear that the example set by the overthrow of Gaddafi could inspire opponents in their own countries. For the African Union – and South Africa in particular – there was the embarrassment of seeing peace efforts (no matter how well intended) dismissed internationally while the rebels fought towards Tripoli under the NATO air cover which made their war possible. It’s not that there is a fully united front in Africa. Increasingly assertive giant Nigeria, striving to set itself out as a champion of democracy, was quick to recognise Libya’s new rulers. West Africans have not forgotten the hundreds of thousands who perished in Gaddafi-fuelled wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone and elsewhere either. But might there be sound reasons less tied to history and emotional links for African countries to be wary of leaping to recognise the rebels? First may be the treatment of black Libyans and Africans from south of the Sahara, reported by Amnesty International this week, but evident since the start of the rebellion. While there certainly seems to be truth that some African mercenaries fought for Gaddafi, there have been plenty of reports of black Africans being killed or tortured when it wasn’t really clear whether they were fighters or just part of the army of hundreds of thousands of Africans who made their way to Libya to do hard jobs that Libyans didn’t want. For some, as explained in this Reuters report on Algeria, there is the suspicion of Islamist links among the anti-Gaddafi forces. The African Union’s Democracy Charter is also clear that those who takes power by force should be sanctioned not welcomed (although it could be interpreted that this applies to democratically elected governments, which Gaddafi’s certainly wasn’t). Hypocritical it may be for those African leaders who first took power by force to now insist that others should not do so, but the African Union has condemned coups and rebellions elsewhere and suspended countries until they held elections. That has undoubtedly helped make clear that taking power by force should not be the workaday means of changing government that it once was in Africa. Should the African Union treat the Libyans differently to forces that took power elsewhere even if they appear to have popular support and promise democracy? The African Union will probably recognise Libya’s new leadership in the end, if only because it would be impractical to do otherwise, but is the caution justified? Is it just holding off because of wounded pride over failed peace efforts and ties to old friend Gaddafi?

October 17, 2011   118 notes

Has the African Union got Libya wrong?


The joke always used to be that the ‘U’ in the African Union’s predecessor, the OAU, stood for useless. After the hopeless failure of African diplomatic efforts to bring a peaceful end to Libya’s rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi, and even more since the bloc held back on recognising the new Libyan rulers, critics suggest the African Union could be making itself irrelevant. But is the African Union wrong to treat the anti-Gaddafi forces with more caution than their Western allies and the Arab world has done even if the former rebels seem to have widespread support for ending an autocrat’s rule? There are plenty of reasons why the African Union would be reluctant to recognise the rebels who overthrew a man who did as much as anyone to found the African Union in place of the ineffectual club called the Organisation of African Unity. Many individuals African rulers benefited from Gaddafi’s largesse – particularly when they were in trouble – allowing them to get over any queasiness at his comic theatre at African summits and his coronation as Africa’s “King of Kings” as well as to humour his quest for a “United States of Africa”. For South Africa’s ruling ANC, Gaddafi was a friend during the struggle against apartheid. For Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, who expelled the Libyan ambassador after he switched sides this week, help has been much more recent. Some autocrats may also fear that the example set by the overthrow of Gaddafi could inspire opponents in their own countries. For the African Union – and South Africa in particular – there was the embarrassment of seeing peace efforts (no matter how well intended) dismissed internationally while the rebels fought towards Tripoli under the NATO air cover which made their war possible. It’s not that there is a fully united front in Africa. Increasingly assertive giant Nigeria, striving to set itself out as a champion of democracy, was quick to recognise Libya’s new rulers. West Africans have not forgotten the hundreds of thousands who perished in Gaddafi-fuelled wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone and elsewhere either. But might there be sound reasons less tied to history and emotional links for African countries to be wary of leaping to recognise the rebels? First may be the treatment of black Libyans and Africans from south of the Sahara, reported by Amnesty International this week, but evident since the start of the rebellion. While there certainly seems to be truth that some African mercenaries fought for Gaddafi, there have been plenty of reports of black Africans being killed or tortured when it wasn’t really clear whether they were fighters or just part of the army of hundreds of thousands of Africans who made their way to Libya to do hard jobs that Libyans didn’t want. For some, as explained in this Reuters report on Algeria, there is the suspicion of Islamist links among the anti-Gaddafi forces. The African Union’s Democracy Charter is also clear that those who takes power by force should be sanctioned not welcomed (although it could be interpreted that this applies to democratically elected governments, which Gaddafi’s certainly wasn’t). Hypocritical it may be for those African leaders who first took power by force to now insist that others should not do so, but the African Union has condemned coups and rebellions elsewhere and suspended countries until they held elections. That has undoubtedly helped make clear that taking power by force should not be the workaday means of changing government that it once was in Africa. Should the African Union treat the Libyans differently to forces that took power elsewhere even if they appear to have popular support and promise democracy? The African Union will probably recognise Libya’s new leadership in the end, if only because it would be impractical to do otherwise, but is the caution justified? Is it just holding off because of wounded pride over failed peace efforts and ties to old friend Gaddafi?

October 14, 2011   152 notes

SEC to limit charges against Allianz in bribery case


* difficulties in getting documents from Germany at issueBy Aruna ViswanathaWASHINGTON, Oct 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not plan to charge Allianz SE (ALVG.DE) for activity at its private equity investments, according to two people familiar with the matter, in a case that could have tested the agency’s reach.Europe’s largest insurer has been under investigation in the United States for alleged corruption at a joint venture in Indonesia and at a German printing equipment maker it owns through a private equity arm.While the SEC is expected to settle the Indonesia piece of the investigation in the coming weeks, it will not bring charges related to the private equity holdings, in part due to German ownership laws that make it difficult to obtain information, one of the people said.”We confirm discussions with SEC on a settlement. It is our policy to fully cooperate with authorities. In the meantime we took the proper consequences in order to avoid such misbeaviours to happen again,” a spokesman for the company, Michael Matern, said.An SEC spokesman declined comment.The case involves allegations that an Allianz joint venture paid bribes to win contracts to insure big infrastructure projects in Indonesia, and whether the printing equipment maker paid bribes in Europe and elsewhere.The SEC’s decision marks a tough start to the agency’s efforts to hold private equity funds and other investors responsible for corruption at companies they have stakes in.The SEC and Justice Department have turned to financial services as a new area of interest as they have ramped up their enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The law bars U.S.-linked firms from paying bribes to foreign government officials.But complicated foreign investment structures and data privacy laws may make those cases difficult to bring.Allianz Capital Partners owns just over 60 percent of the voting rights of the company at issue, manroland AG, but the stake is a passive one.Allianz does not exercise day-to-day control over the company, and under German law, it cannot force manroland to turn information over to it or the SEC.The entity that allegedly paid the bribes is a Swiss subsidiary of manroland, making the link to the corporate parent at least three levels removed.The case gets even more complicated for the SEC because the parent firm, Allianz SE, used to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange, but removed its shares in 2009 citing a desire to focus on the German capital markets.The case began when a whistleblower at the company’s operations in Asia contacted the company’s outside auditors at KPMG with allegations of corruption. The auditors informed the board, which hired Claudius Sokenu, a partner at Arnold & Porter, to conduct an internal investigation.The allegations centered around Allianz’ business in Indonesia.The firm originally entered the market through a joint venture with a state-owned entity, and the projects let the firm get a foothold into the Indonesian insurance market.The investigation turned up evidence of bribe payments there, and in India and China.The manroland conduct turned up later, when German tax authorities began to investigate.Allianz is expected to pay between $7 and $10 million in penalties to settle the SEC’s case. German prosecutors continue to examine the manroland conduct.A lawyer for Allianz, Joel Cohen at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, declined to comment. Sokenu and a spokesman for KPMG did not respond to a request for comment.Whether the problems with getting documents will hinder future foreign bribery cases against investment funds remains to be seen. It may be easier for the agency to bring cases related to problems that should have surfaced during an acquisition.”They are always fact-based inquiries, but where a company has an ownership interest or a stake in a subsidiary, the SEC is going to be looking very carefully at what steps the firm has taken to ensure policies are compliant and what due diligence it did prior to that acquisition,” said Luke Cadigan, a former SEC lawyer who is now a partner at K&L Gates.

October 14, 2011   93 notes

Anti-Wall St. protesters ready for clean-up standoff


By Michelle Nichols and Ellen WulfhorstNEW YORK, Oct 14 (Reuters) - Anti-Wall Street protesters are preparing on Friday to block efforts to clean up the Lower Manhattan park where they set up camp nearly a month ago, raising concerns of a possible showdown with authorities.The private owner of the publicly accessible Zuccotti Park, Brookfield Office Properties, plans to start cleaning at 7 a.m. (1100 GMT) the area where several hundred protesters from the Occupy Wall Street movement have been camping since Sept. 17.Protesters fear it is an attempt to shut down the movement that has sparked solidarity protests in more than 1,400 cities and plans for global rallies on Saturday in 71 countries, according to Occupy Together and United for Global Change.Occupy Wall Street has called on protesters to “defend the occupation from eviction” on Friday. Progressive group MoveOn.Org also called on its supporters to “stand with the protesters at the moment when they need us most.”“Be warned, this is a tactic that (New York City Mayor Michael) Bloomberg has used to shut down protests in the past, and a tactic used recently in similar protests throughout Europe,” protest organizers said on a Facebook page.Brookfield said conditions at the park were “unsanitary and unsafe,” with no toilets and a shortage of garbage cans. Neighbors complain of lewdness, drug use, harassment and offensive odors from the protesters, Brookfield said.Brookfield representatives, escorted by police, handed out notices to the protesters on Thursday to tell them that the park would be cleaned in three stages and would reopen for public use consistent with park regulations.But the rules ban camping, tents or other structures, lying down on the ground, placing tarps or sleeping bags on the ground and the storage personal property — everything the protesters have been doing since they set up on Sept. 17.”Brookfield respects the rights of free speech, assembly, and peaceful protest,” the company has said in a statement.Police said they will be on hand to ensure public order, but it is up to Brookfield Office Properties to enforce the rules of its park. Police will only become involved if laws are broken or if an official complaint is made by the park owners.Protesters are upset that the billions of dollars in bank bailouts doled out during the recession allowed banks to resume earning huge profits while average Americans have had no relief from high unemployment and job insecurity.They also believe the richest 1 percent of Americans don’t pay their fair share in taxes.Hundreds of people have been arrested at rallies in New York and police have used pepper spray. Dozens have also been arrested during the past couple of weeks from Boston and Washington D.C. to Chicago, Austin and San Francisco.Solidarity rallies have also sprung up at more than 140 U.S. college campuses in 25 states, according to Occupy Colleges.

October 13, 2011

UPDATE 1-Anti-Wall St. protesters ready to block clean-up


By Michelle Nichols and Paul ThomaschNEW YORK, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Protesters with the Occupy Wall Street movement threatened on Thursday to block any efforts by clean-up crews to enter their camp to clear away three-weeks worth of debris, raising concern about a potential showdown between demonstrators and police.While New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said their protests can continue as long as laws are obeyed, the city has become concerned over the build-up of trash and general wear and tear on Zuccotti Park, headquarters for the demonstrators.Bloomberg visited protesters at the park on Wednesday night and informed them it would be cleaned by work crews on Friday, a move demonstrators said was a ploy to permanently drive them from their camp about five blocks from City Hall in lower Manhattan.”What’s been said is that we can come back later, but of course we’re skeptical,” said Jeff Schurte, 29, who recently earned his master’s degree in international development. “This could just be an excuse to get us out permanently.”Owners of the park notified protesters that once each section was reopened after about four hours for clean up, rules would be enforced against camping and/or the erection of tents and other structures, lying down on the ground or benches, placing tarps or sleeping bags on the ground, storage of personal property.Occupy Wall Street pledged to resist any effort by cleaning crews or police to enter the park, asking protesters to create a human chain around the area to “peacefully/non-violently stand our ground,” according to a post on its Facebook page.The movement, which began on Sept. 17, plans to undertake its own massive clean-up effort and sent out requests for mops, brooms, garbage bags and power washers. But protesters also objected to Bloomberg’s description of the camp.”I don’t feel that the story presented by the city, by the mayor, is accurate, that the place is so unsanitary and filthy that there’s vermin and things like that,” said Schurte. “I haven’t seen any vermin or cockroaches the whole time I have been here.”Since an unremarkable beginning, the protests have spread across the United States, as people in other cities take up the cry against the billions of dollars in bank bailouts doled out during the recession that is allowing banks to resume earning huge profits while many average Americans struggle with lost jobs and savings.In Austin, Texas four protesters were arrested on Thursday for criminal trespassing after they refused to leave the protest site outside City Hall when city workers came to clean the area.Lauren DiGioia, 26, who has spent the past week at Zuccotti Park and is a member of Occupy Wall Street’s sanitation committee, said she was concerned that violence could break out in New York if workers attempted to enter the camp.”I’m worried there is going to be a riot,” she said.

October 12, 2011   34 notes

UPDATE 2-Celadon seeks takeover talks with USA Truck


* USA Truck says will evaluate Celadon’s interestBy A. AnanthalakshmiOct 11 (Reuters) - Trucker Celadon Group reported a 6.29 percent stake in USA Truck Inc , and said it was interested in buying its smaller rival.In a regulatory filing, Celadon said it recently asked to meet USA Truck’s management to discuss a possible association between the companies, potentially including a combination of the two.”We believe the truckload industry offers consolidation and other strategic opportunities as successful companies seek additional capacity and services for customers, more diverse routes for drivers, and greater value and liquidity for investors,” Celadon said in the filing.USA Truck said it will evaluate Celadon’s filing in due course.Celadon said it bought USA Truck’s shares at an average of $7.08 a share — about 55 percent of USA Truck’s book value per share.USA Truck’s shares had dropped sharply in late-August after the company warned of a third-quarter loss.The shares rose as much as 24 percent to $10.20 in regular trading on Tuesday on Nasdaq. Celadon shares rose 6 percent to $9.85.USA Truck, valued at $86 million, recorded revenue of $387 million last year. Celadon had annual revenue of around $557 million.Jonathan Adams, transportation banker at Sterne Agee & Leach, said trucking companies are driven towards acquisitions due to pressures of more expensive equipment, difficulty in retaining drivers and government regulation.”We expect to see increasing bifurcation between the valuations afforded to companies that are able to finance replacement equipment, retain high quality drivers and meet the expectations of their shareholders and those that are not able to do so,” Adams said.He said the valuation disparity provides a good opportunity for larger truckload companies to make acquisitions and for smaller regional ones “to face a stark choice — find a niche, or find a buyer.”Shares of USA Truck’s peer Covenant Transportation rose 8 percent following Celadon’s interest. Covenant’s stock has fallen almost 60 percent in the last three months.