Wednesday, 8 November 2023

Lloyd's of London 'deeply sorry' over slavery links

BBC AFRIKA

In 2020, demonstrators gathered outside Lloyds of London to protest against institutions that profited from the slave tradeIMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES
Image caption, 
In 2020, demonstrators gathered outside Lloyds of London to protest against institutions that profited from the slave trade

City firm Lloyd's of London has said it is "deeply sorry" for its links to the slave trade.

An independent report found the 335-year-old insurance market had played a "significant role" in enabling the transatlantic trade. 

Lloyd's said it was committed to tackling inequality and will invest £40m in helping impacted communities.

But campaign groups accused Lloyds of "reparations washing" and said it needed to do more. 

After protests swept across the world in 2020 following the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died in police custody in the US, pressure mounted on companies to address links to slavery and tackle racial inequality.

At the time, Lloyd's apologised for its historical links to the slave trade and commissioned the independent report.

It said it had no editorial control over the review, which was conducted by academics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and independently funded by the Mellon Foundation.

Alexandre White, one of professors behind the study, examined material from the Lloyd's archive, including ledgers for insurance for ships leaving Liverpool as part of the slave trade.

He said it made clear that Lloyd's formed part of "a sophisticated network of financial interests and activities" which made the transatlantic slave trade possible.

But he said the material offered very little about the people who were "captured and enslaved under the practices facilitated by the Lloyd's market".

"While the activities of insurers in the city of London may seem far removed from the plantations, ships and the violent spaces of imprisonment along the coast of Africa, the financial architectures developed at Lloyd's helped maintain the institution of slavery," he explained in a video posted online. 

The transatlantic slave trade was the largest forced migration in history. Between 1500 and 1800, around 12-15 million people were taken by force from Africa to be used as enslaved labour in the Caribbean, North, Central and South America.

It is estimated that over two million Africans died on the journey to the Americas. 

"The insurance of ships, cargo and captured enslaved persons facilitated the growth of the transatlantic slave trade," said Mr White, concluding that customers of to Lloyd's, as well as members of its governing body, had "significant connections to the transatlantic slave trade".

Lloyd's of London, which was founded in 1688, is often lauded as the world's leading insurance market, focusing on specialist areas such as marine, energy and political risk.

Responding to the review, chairman Bruce Carnegie-Brown said: "We're deeply sorry for this period of our history and the enormous suffering caused to individuals and communities both then and today".

"We're resolved to take action by addressing the inequalities still seen and experienced by black and ethnically diverse individuals."

The firm has promised a "comprehensive programme of initiatives" to help people from diverse ethnic backgrounds "participate and progress from the classroom to the boardroom".

It also said it would spend around £12m on boosting BAME recruitment and career progression in the commercial insurance market. 

But Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at the University of Birmingham, described the move as a "PR exercise" and "frankly offensive". 

"If they were serious they would be proposing a transfer of wealth to the descendants of the enslaved (i.e. reparations), not a diversity scheme for so called 'ethnically diverse' people, which any corporation should be doing," he told the BBC in an email.

The Runnymede Trust, a race equality think tank, welcomed Lloyd's work to acknowledge past mistakes. 

But it questioned the insurance market's commitment to diversity, highlighting Lloyd's ethnicity pay gap - which measures the difference between ethnic groups' average earnings.

"This gap needs to be addressed not just through more 'inclusion and diversity' but through active anti-racist policies that address inequalities in income and pay now," said Dr Shabna Begum, its interim co-chief executive. 

Sunday, 22 October 2023

Nigerians To Tinubu: Fresh $400m palliative loan works against pledge for economic recovery

 THE GUARDIAN

By Kingsley Jeremiah (Abuja) and Gloria Nwafor (Lagos)
22 October 2023   |   3:35 am

President Tinubu. Photo: Twitter

• FG borrows N4.1t in four months
• Public debt may hit N100tr soon
• Tinubu deepening mess created by past administrations — Labour

At a time Nigeria’s lawmakers are planning to buy vehicles worth N160 million, the move by the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration to borrow additional $400 million for palliative over subsidy removal has stirred anger in the country.

Labour unions, economists and civil society organisations (CSOs) were livid yesterday over the development, which is coming amidst expected windfall from the removal of subsidy on Premium Motor Spirit (PMS).

The $400 million would bring to $1.2 billion the amount the Federal Government is borrowing from the World Bank for the conditional cash transfer to vulnerable Nigerians as it had earlier secured a loan of $800 million for the same purpose.

Tinubu, who assumed office on May 29, 2023, immediately removed petrol subsidy, pushing the price to about N650 per litre from barely N200. He went further to float the naira, which caused spiraling inflation and deepened the exchange rate crisis, as the national currency now exchanges at N1,100/$ averagely in the parallel market.

The news of the government’s plan to borrow $400 million jolted many Nigerians, who were told that the removal of fuel subsidy would enable the government to save more money to spend on infrastructure and other necessities. But while the masses are still adjusting to life without fuel subsidy, the government, which has insisted that subsidy on petrol did not return, has already borrowed $1.95 billion between June and September 2023. The fresh $400 million loan alongside the $3 billion borrowed by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) will bring Tinubu’s external borrowing in about four months to over $5.350 billion. That is about N4.1 trillion.

Tinubu had taken a $700 million loan to expand the AGILE projects to 11 states. The international financial institution earlier in June approved the first loan of $750 million for Nigeria to boost the country’s power sector through the Power Sector Recovery Performance-Based Operation. Another $500 million loan has been taken under the Nigeria for Women Programme Scale Up (NFWP-SU).

With the increasing borrowing, each Nigerian is now owing above N400,000 as Nigeria’s indebtedness to the World Bank moved from $6.29 billion in 2015 to $13.46 billion in 2022. Nigeria’s total debt has jumped from N87.4 trillion in the second quarter of 2023 to about N91.5 trillion currently.

Tinubu had announced the conditional cash transfer to 15 million households in a nationwide address to commemorate the country’s independence on October 1 as part of measures to cushion the effects of the removal of subsidy on petrol, which has led to an astronomical rise in the cost of living and forced many to fall below the poverty line.

He also announced that the Federal Government would commence the payment of N25,000 monthly to 15 million households for three months from October to December 2023.

The current development, coupled with his bloated cabinet, high cost of governance and the over N160 million SUVs for Nigeria’s 469 lawmakers are projected to, in no distant time, push Nigeria’s debt beyond N100 trillion. Meanwhile, the country’s crude oil production remains low and the refineries are shut.

Most stakeholders do not believe that borrowing fresh $400 million from the World Bank is the right way to go at this time.

Ajibola,

Former President of the Chartered Institute of Bankers of Nigeria (CIBN), Prof. Segun Ajibola, said the money might go down the drain.

According to Ajibola, who is a Professor of Economics at Babcock University, Nigeria’s level of borrowing is already high as well as the attendant debt service burden.

Ajibola said unless new borrowing would achieve the intended purpose of empowering the households and raising their productive capacity along with that of the economy, it wouldn’t make sense.

“It is a palpable fear that the proceeds may be diverted to consumption at the household level. That may turn out to be money down the drain, thereby compounding the debt burden. The antidote to a likely diversion is, therefore, an organised and controlled disbursement scheme that takes into recognition the defined empowerment project, household by household.

“A herculean task though; but looking back (tradermonie of 2019), I hardly can think of a less cumbersome result-oriented disbursement template for the purpose of economically empowering Nigerian households,” he stated.

Director at Centre for Transparency Advocacy, Faith Nwadishi, said being an issue of government priorities and fiscal responsibility, the first choice of borrowing for conditional cash transfer wasn’t bad but the fact that the country is neck deep in debt is worrisome.

She insisted that the government also has no clear structures and strategies to ensure transparency in managing the borrowed fund.

“Buying cars at that humongous sum shows how unsympathetic the government is to the pain the people are subjected to on a daily basis and it’s is quite insensitive. On the whole, this further fuels citizens’ distrust of the government’s intentions,” Nwadishi stated.

The Organised Labour has also faulted the move, accusing the government of borrowing to fund the ostentatious lifestyle of its officials.

Kicking against the development, Deputy President of the Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC), Dr. Tommy Okon, stated that borrowing money from the World Bank to share to vulnerable people as palliative is an enemy of any economy.

He noted that it was not a bad idea for the government to give palliatives to Nigerians through conditional cash transfers, but insisted that borrowing from the global bank to achieve the objective was an economic waste.

He said it would be okay if the government borrows for productive ventures, which would lead to greater expectations because it is an investment.

“Borrowing money to give to the people as palliative is an enemy of any economy. How will you pay back? If the government is borrowing money for productive ventures, it means there is an expectation, which is an investment but when you borrow to give out it is expenditure, where there is nothing to expect.

“What the government is doing could amount to doing exactly what the previous administration did that yielded no positive impact on the economy and the citizens. As far as I am concerned, it is economic waste.

“The socio-economic challenges are enough reason for the government to sit and look inward towards solving the problem in-house, rather than borrowing. The analysis by the World Bank is annoying because they don’t look at the insecurity in Nigeria or ethnic clashes in Nigeria; rather they use them to paint the country in bad light. Nigeria’s problems can only be solved by Nigerians where you have a purposeful leader who is transformational in action,” he said.

The President and General Secretary of NLC, Joe Ajaero, and Emma Ugboaja, could not be reached, but a senior official of the Congress who spoke on condition of anonymity, stated that there is no justification for any fresh borrowing.

He alleged that the past administration put the country in its current mess and the present wants to deepen it.

“They are busy spending the money on themselves. It is a dilemma that we have intentionally pushed ourselves into. There is no justification for borrowing but for greed and selfishness.

“When you also look at what he has planned, to give N25,000 to households for three months which approximates N75,000, you ask yourself, can N75,000 address the millions of suffering the government has already inflicted on the poor? Will it make any significant impact in addressing the consequences already being faced by Nigerians? Will the suffering suddenly end after six months?” he queried.

Charting the way forward, the source said: “Government has to address the issues on the cost of governance, reduce wastes and create an enabling environment rather than expanding ministries to give room for more ministers and aides.”

Similarly, General Secretary of the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), Peters Adeyemi, said: “Any effort geared towards the alleviation of the present hardship Nigerians are going through as a result of the removal of subsidy and the harmonisation of the exchange rate markets should be supported.

“However, we need to know the criteria to be used in determining those that will benefit from the programme. We hope that this will not be another avenue for a few individuals to divert such money to their private pockets.”

Also, the Chief Executive Officer, Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE), Dr. Muda Yusuf, said although vulnerable segments of society deserve palliatives, the framework must be inclusive and transparent.

“The vulnerable segments of the society deserve palliatives to mitigate the pains of recent reforms, especially the surging inflation. However, the palliative framework must be inclusive and transparent.

“We would additionally want to see concessions in taxation and import duties focusing on moderating food prices, energy costs and transportation costs. Palliatives must go beyond cash transfers. There are serious limitations concerning data integrity.”

Saturday, 14 October 2023

Israel Gaza war: History of the conflict explained

 BBC

Middle East

14/10/2023

A pro-Palestinian woman and a pro-Israeli man shouting at each otherIMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES

The Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an unprecedented assault on Israel on Saturday, with hundreds of gunmen infiltrating communities near the Gaza Strip.

At least 1,300 Israelis have been killed, while dozens of soldiers and civilians, including women and children, are being held in Gaza as hostages.

More than 1,300 Palestinians have also been killed in numerous air strikes on Gaza that Israel's military is carrying out in response, and Israel has imposed a total blockade on the territory, denying it food, fuel and other essentials.

It is also massing its forces along the Gaza border and Palestinians are bracing themselves for a ground operation which could cost many more deaths.

line

More on Israel Gaza war

line

What was Israel before 1948, and what was the Balfour Declaration?

Britain took control of the area known as Palestine after the ruler of that part of the Middle East, the Ottoman Empire, was defeated in World War One. 

The land was inhabited by a Jewish minority and Arab majority, as well as other, smaller ethnic groups. 

Tensions between the two peoples grew when the international community gave the UK the task of establishing a "national home" in Palestine for Jewish people. 

This stemmed from the Balfour Declaration of 1917, a pledge made by then Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Britain's Jewish community.

The declaration was enshrined in the British mandate over Palestine and endorsed by the newly-created League of Nations - forerunner of the United Nations - in 1922.

To Jews Palestine was their ancestral home, but Palestinian Arabs also claimed the land and opposed the move.

Haganah (Jewish Underground) fighter just before the start of the Israeli War of Independence 1948, wearing a hat and glasses, pointing a gunIMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES
Image caption, 
A Haganah (Jewish Underground) fighter just before the start of the Israeli War of Independence 1948

Between the 1920s and 1940s, the number of Jews arriving there grew, with many fleeing from persecution in Europe, especially the Nazi Holocaust in World War Two.

Violence between Jews and Arabs, and against British rule, also increased.

In 1947, the UN voted for Palestine to be split into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem becoming an international city. 

That plan was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by the Arab side and never implemented.

The soldiers of allied Arab Legion forces fire, 06 March 1948 from East sector of Jerusalem on Jewish fighters of the Haganah, the Jewish Agency self-defence force, based in Jemin Moshe quarter of the West sector of the city during during the first Arab-Jewish conflict.IMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES
Image caption, 
The soldiers of allied Arab Legion forces fire on fighters of the Haganah, the Jewish Agency self-defence force, in March 1948

How and why was Israel created?

In 1948, unable to solve the problem, Britain withdrew and Jewish leaders declared the creation of the State of Israel.

It was intended to serve as a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, as well as a national homeland for Jews.

Fighting between Jewish and Arab militias had been intensifying for months, and the day after Israel declared statehood, five Arab countries attacked.

Map showing the 1949 Armistice Lines
Presentational white space

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were forced out of their homes in what they call Al Nakba, or the "Catastrophe"

By the time the fighting ended in a ceasefire the following year, Israel controlled most of the territory. 

Jordan occupied land which became known as the West Bank, and Egypt occupied Gaza. 

Jerusalem was divided between Israeli forces in the West, and Jordanian forces in the East.

Because there was never a peace agreement there were more wars and fighting in the following decades.

Israel map (today)

Map showing Israel's boundaries today and Palestinian territories
Presentational white space

In a war in 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as most of the Syrian Golan Heights, Gaza and the Egyptian Sinai peninsula.

Most Palestinian refugees and their descendants live in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as in neighbouring Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Neither they nor their descendants have been allowed by Israel to return to their homes - Israel says this would overwhelm the country and threaten its existence as a Jewish state.

Israeli military commanders arrive in East Jerusalem, after Israeli forces seized East Jerusalem, during the Six Day War 1967IMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES
Image caption, 
Israeli military commanders arrive in East Jerusalem during the Six Day War in 1967

Israel still occupies the West Bank and claims the whole of Jerusalem as its capital, while the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a hoped-for future Palestinian state. The US is one of only a handful of countries to recognise the city as Israel's capital.

In the past 50 years Israel has built settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where more than 700,000 Jews now live.

Settlements are held to be illegal under international law - that is the position of the UN Security Council and the UK government, among others - although Israel rejects this.

What is the Gaza Strip?

Gaza is a narrow strip of land sandwiched between Israel and the Mediterranean Sea, but with a short southern border with Egypt.

Just 41km (25 miles) long and 10km wide, it has more than two million inhabitants and is one of the most densely populated places on Earth.

In the wake of the 1948-49 war, Gaza was occupied by Egypt for 19 years.

Pro-Palestinian demonstration in Jordan's capital Amman
Getty Images
Palestinians

  • 14.3 millionTotal population

  • West Bank3 million

  • Gaza Strip2 million

  • Jordan2 million

  • Israel2 million

  • Syria0.5 million

Source: Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics

Israel occupied Gaza in the 1967 war and stayed until 2005, during that time building Jewish settlements.

Israel withdrew its troops and settlers in 2005, though it retained control over its airspace, shared border and shoreline. The UN still considers the territory occupied by Israel.

What are the main problems between Israelis and Palestinians?

There are a number of issues which the two sides cannot agree on. 

These include: 

  • What should happen to Palestinian refugees
  • Whether Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank should stay or be removed
  • Whether the two sides should share Jerusalem
  • And - perhaps most tricky of all - whether a Palestinian state should be created alongside Israel

What efforts have been made to resolve these problems?

Israel-Palestinian peace talks were held on and off between the 1990s and 2010s, interspersed with outbreaks of violence.

A negotiated peace did seem possible in the early days. A series of secret talks in Norway became the Oslo peace process, forever symbolised by a ceremony on the White House lawn in 1993 presided over by President Bill Clinton.

In a historic moment, the Palestinians recognised the State of Israel and Israel recognised its historical enemy, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. A self-governing Palestinian Authority was set up.

Cracks soon appeared, though, with then opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu calling Oslo a mortal threat to Israel. The Israelis accelerated their project to settle Jews in the occupied Palestinian territories. The recently emerged Palestinian militant group Hamas sent suicide bombers to kill people in Israel and wreck the chances of a deal.

Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shake hands as US President Bill Clinton looks on - 1993 pictureIMAGE SOURCE, REUTERS
Image caption, 
Peace seemed possible in the early 1990s when the Oslo accords were signed

The atmosphere in Israel turned ugly, culminating in Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's assassination by a Jewish extremist on 4 November 1995.

In the 2000s attempts were made to revive the peace process - including in 2003 when a roadmap was devised by world powers with the ultimate goal of a two-state solution, but this was never implemented. 

Peace efforts finally stalled in 2014, when talks failed between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington.

The most recent peace plan - prepared by the United States when Donald Trump was president - was called "the deal of the century" by Prime Minister Netanyahu, but was dismissed by the Palestinians as one-sided and never got off the ground.

Why are Israel and Gaza at war now?

Israel flags flying and a Palestinian scarf with "Palestine" written on itIMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES

Gaza is ruled by Hamas, an Islamist militant group that is committed to the destruction of Israel and is designated as a terrorist group by the UK and many other powers.

Hamas won the Palestinians' last elections in 2006, and seized control of Gaza the following year by ousting the rival Fatah movement of West Bank-based President Mahmoud Abbas.

Since then, militants in Gaza have fought several wars with Israel, which along with Egypt has maintained a partial blockade on the strip to isolate Hamas and try to stop attacks, particularly the indiscriminate firing of rockets towards Israeli cities. 

Palestinians in Gaza say Israel's restrictions and its air strikes on heavily populated areas amount to collective punishment.

This year has been the deadliest year on record for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. They also complain of the restrictions and military actions being carried out there in response to deadly attacks on Israelis.

Crowd of people on Israeli flag
Getty Images
Israel

  • 9.8 millionPopulation

  • 73.6%Jews

  • 21.1%Arabs

  • 5.3%Other

Source: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics

These tensions could have been one of the reasons for Hamas's latest attack.

But the militants may also have been seeking to boost their popularity among ordinary Palestinians, including by using hostages to pressure Israel to free some of the estimated 4,500 Palestinians held in its prisons.

Who supports Israel in the current conflict, and who does not?

The US, the European Union and other Western countries have all condemned the Hamas attacks on Israel.

The US, Israel's closest ally, has over the years given the Jewish state more than $260bn in military and economic aid, and is promising additional equipment and ammunition.

It also said it was sending an aircraft carrier, other ships and jets to the eastern Mediterranean.

Russia and China have both refused to condemn Hamas, and say they are maintaining contact with both sides in the conflict.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has blamed US policy for the absence of peace in the Middle East.

Regional power Iran, meanwhile, is a key supporter of Hamas, as well as that of another regional enemy of Israel, the Lebanese Hezbollah movement.

Questions have been asked about its role in the recent attacks after reports that it gave the go-ahead for them days before.

Tehran has, however, denied any involvement.