ugnet_: (no subject)
Ear to The Ground: By Charles Onyango-Obbo M7 will scratch Bush and Blairs backs too Aug 18 , 2004 The Art of Catching Thieves: From Uganda to Kenya was the title of column I wrote in this page on July 28. We spoke about how, among other things, British High Commissioner to Kenya, Mr Edward Clay (who was also the UKs man in Uganda in the mid-1990s) set off a political earthquake he accused unnamed corrupt officials of behaving like gluttons and vomiting on the shoes of donors; and observers are asking why donors are hard on corruption in President Mwai Kibakis government, but arent putting equal pressure on Kampala, where some think corruption is higher. You only have half the story, an economist friend from Kampala wrote to tell me. He said it was mostly because Uganda had privatised most of the economic assets to foreign companies, and Kenya had a more controlled China-style approach to liberalisation. Usually when people make these arguments, they accuse Museveni of selling out to the west, and thats why he was their blue-eyed boy. However my friend is no radical. Hes very much a pro-free market man, and is doing very well the liberal environment of Ugandas economy. I knew he was not beating old anti-western ideological drums; only expressing a good businessmans common sense about how money is made and lost. His line is that Kenya has a relatively strong economy. Even if it doesnt not borrow money from the international donors - as happened during the rule of Moi - it will get by; it will not experience balance of payment problems that would affect the hard currency externalisation requirements by foreign investors. (Externalisation is converting money earned or stolen by politicians - in a country into foreign exchange and sending it abroad). Ugandas economy, however, isnt supported by enough revenue from both foreign and its own domestic sources. Thus our imports are more than three times our internal earnings. Our tax revenues have remained low despite privatisation, so nearly 60 per cent of our recurrent budget is supported by foreign aid, as is nearly 100 percent of our development budget. The most lucrative sectors and companies in Uganda have been privatised to foreign investors; banking and insurance, telecommunications (the mobile phone companies), beer and soft drinks, electricity, name it. This affects donor pressure on the Kampala government in very specific ways. Assume there was a big mobile phone company called Uganda T-Mobile. It makes a profit of Shs 50bn in 2004. Uganda T-Mobile, rightly, sends the money to its shareholders when the exchange rate is Shs 2,000 to the US dollar. It buys and sends US$25m. Assume next year the donors get into a quarrel with the Uganda government over corruption and suspend aid. As our wont have increased, the government will be forced to print to meet its obligations. This could cause the exchange rate to skyrocket to UShs 5,000 per dollar. This would be bad for the economy in general, because the value of local Ugandans salaries and savings would collapse. My friend John Kattos printing business will suffer, as he wouldnt afford to buy inputs. My economist buddy argues that if it was only John suffering, the donors wouldnt be bothered too much. But then there is Uganda T-Mobile. While the Shs 50bn profits it made in 2004 allowed it to send US$ 25m to its shareholders, if it makes Shs 50bn in profit in 2005 and the exchange rate is Shs 5,000, it will be able to buy and externalise only $10bn. Assume Uganda T-Mobile is a big company in, say, the USA. And the biggest banks and breweries in Uganda are British-owned. T-Mobile is a leading contributor to both the Republicans and Democrats, and has a lot of lobbying powers in Washington. So do the banks in London. They lobby George Bush and Tony Blair not to suspend aid to Uganda; and indeed to increase it. And, also, to tell their ambassadors in Kampala to shut up. Even though they know that Uganda has over-borrowed, they ensure that it gets more loans for balancing the budget. This donor money for budget support is released into the commercial banking system. Very soon the dollar falls against the shilling, and newspapers are full of stories of how our currency is knocking the daylight out of the dollar. The exchange rate goes back to Shs 2,000 to the dollar. Thus in 2006, Uganda T-Mobile is able to again buy $25m with its Shs 50bn and send it to its shareholders abroad, not just the $10m it got in 2005 when the exchange rate was bad. You can say then that while critics claim the donors give aid to Uganda in order to support Musevenis government, this scenario suggests that they do so to protect the earnings of the foreign companies from their countries, and to put money in the pockets of shareholders (who vote for them) back home. In other words aid is first and foremost a subsidy to western and Japanese companies in countries like Uganda. The fact that Museveni exploits it for politics
ugnet_: M7 will scratch Bush and Blairs backs too
Ear to The Ground: By Charles Onyango-Obbo M7 will scratch Bush and Blairs backs too Aug 18 , 2004 The Art of Catching Thieves: From Uganda to Kenya was the title of column I wrote in this page on July 28. We spoke about how, among other things, British High Commissioner to Kenya, Mr Edward Clay (who was also the UKs man in Uganda in the mid-1990s) set off a political earthquake he accused unnamed corrupt officials of behaving like gluttons and vomiting on the shoes of donors; and observers are asking why donors are hard on corruption in President Mwai Kibakis government, but arent putting equal pressure on Kampala, where some think corruption is higher. You only have half the story, an economist friend from Kampala wrote to tell me. He said it was mostly because Uganda had privatised most of the economic assets to foreign companies, and Kenya had a more controlled China-style approach to liberalisation. Usually when people make these arguments, they accuse Museveni of selling out to the west, and thats why he was their blue-eyed boy. However my friend is no radical. Hes very much a pro-free market man, and is doing very well the liberal environment of Ugandas economy. I knew he was not beating old anti-western ideological drums; only expressing a good businessmans common sense about how money is made and lost. His line is that Kenya has a relatively strong economy. Even if it doesnt not borrow money from the international donors - as happened during the rule of Moi - it will get by; it will not experience balance of payment problems that would affect the hard currency externalisation requirements by foreign investors. (Externalisation is converting money earned or stolen by politicians - in a country into foreign exchange and sending it abroad). Ugandas economy, however, isnt supported by enough revenue from both foreign and its own domestic sources. Thus our imports are more than three times our internal earnings. Our tax revenues have remained low despite privatisation, so nearly 60 per cent of our recurrent budget is supported by foreign aid, as is nearly 100 percent of our development budget. The most lucrative sectors and companies in Uganda have been privatised to foreign investors; banking and insurance, telecommunications (the mobile phone companies), beer and soft drinks, electricity, name it. This affects donor pressure on the Kampala government in very specific ways. Assume there was a big mobile phone company called Uganda T-Mobile. It makes a profit of Shs 50bn in 2004. Uganda T-Mobile, rightly, sends the money to its shareholders when the exchange rate is Shs 2,000 to the US dollar. It buys and sends US$25m. Assume next year the donors get into a quarrel with the Uganda government over corruption and suspend aid. As our wont have increased, the government will be forced to print to meet its obligations. This could cause the exchange rate to skyrocket to UShs 5,000 per dollar. This would be bad for the economy in general, because the value of local Ugandans salaries and savings would collapse. My friend John Kattos printing business will suffer, as he wouldnt afford to buy inputs. My economist buddy argues that if it was only John suffering, the donors wouldnt be bothered too much. But then there is Uganda T-Mobile. While the Shs 50bn profits it made in 2004 allowed it to send US$ 25m to its shareholders, if it makes Shs 50bn in profit in 2005 and the exchange rate is Shs 5,000, it will be able to buy and externalise only $10bn. Assume Uganda T-Mobile is a big company in, say, the USA. And the biggest banks and breweries in Uganda are British-owned. T-Mobile is a leading contributor to both the Republicans and Democrats, and has a lot of lobbying powers in Washington. So do the banks in London. They lobby George Bush and Tony Blair not to suspend aid to Uganda; and indeed to increase it. And, also, to tell their ambassadors in Kampala to shut up. Even though they know that Uganda has over-borrowed, they ensure that it gets more loans for balancing the budget. This donor money for budget support is released into the commercial banking system. Very soon the dollar falls against the shilling, and newspapers are full of stories of how our currency is knocking the daylight out of the dollar. The exchange rate goes back to Shs 2,000 to the dollar. Thus in 2006, Uganda T-Mobile is able to again buy $25m with its Shs 50bn and send it to its shareholders abroad, not just the $10m it got in 2005 when the exchange rate was bad. You can say then that while critics claim the donors give aid to Uganda in order to support Musevenis government, this scenario suggests that they do so to protect the earnings of the foreign companies from their countries, and to put money in the pockets of shareholders (who vote for them) back home. In other words aid is first and foremost a subsidy to western and Japanese companies in countries like Uganda. The fact that
ugnet_: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Interrogating the Protesters
Note: forwarded message attached. Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.---BeginMessage--- The article below from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] /- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight \ GARDEN STATE: NOW PLAYING IN SELECT THEATERS GARDEN STATE stars Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard and Ian Holm. NEWSWEEK's David Ansen says Writer-Director Zach Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye and is loaded with talent. Watch the teaser trailer that has all of America buzzing and talk back with Zach Braff on the Garden State Blog at: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/index_nyt.html \--/ Interrogating the Protesters August 17, 2004 For several weeks, starting before the Democratic convention, F.B.I. officers have been questioning potential political demonstrators, and their friends and families, about their plans to protest at the two national conventions. These heavy-handed inquiries are intimidating, and they threaten to chill freedom of expression. They also appear to be a spectacularly poor use of limited law-enforcement resources. The F.B.I. should redirect its efforts to focus more directly on real threats. Six investigators recently descended on Sarah Bardwell, a 21-year-old intern with a Denver antiwar group, who quite reasonably took away the message that the government was watching her closely. In Missouri, three men in their early 20's said they had been followed by federal investigators for days, then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. They ended up canceling their plans to show up for the Democratic and Republican conventions. The F.B.I. is going forward with the blessing of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel - the same outfit that recently approved the use of torture against terrorism suspects. In the Justice Department's opinion, the chilling effect of the investigations is quite minimal, and substantially outweighed by the public interest in maintaining safety and order. But this analysis gets the balance wrong. When protesters are made to feel like criminal suspects, the chilling effect is potentially quite serious. And the chances of gaining any information that would be useful in stopping violence are quite small. The knock on the door from government investigators asking about political activities is the stuff of totalitarian regimes. It is intimidating to be visited by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, particularly by investigators who warn that withholding information about anyone with plans to create a disruption is a crime. And few people would want the F.B.I. to cross-examine their friends and family about them. If engaging in constitutionally protected speech means subjecting yourself to this kind of government monitoring, many Americans may decide - as the men from Missouri did - that the cost is too high. Meanwhile, history suggests that the way to find out what potentially violent protesters are planning is not to send F.B.I. officers bearing questionnaires to the doorsteps of potential demonstrators. As became clear in the 1960's, F.B.I. monitoring of youthful dissenters is notoriously unreliable. The files that were created in the past often proved to be laughably inaccurate. The F.B.I.'s questioning of protesters is part of a larger campaign against political dissent that has increased sharply since the start of the war on terror. At the Democratic convention, protesters were sent to a depressing barbed-wire camp under the subway tracks. And at a recent Bush-Cheney campaign event, audience members were required to sign a pledge to support President Bush before they were admitted. F.B.I. officials insist that the people they interview are free to close the door in our faces, but by then the damage may already have been done. The government must not be allowed to turn a war against foreign enemies into a campaign against critics at home. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/opinion/17tue1.html?ex=1093786426ei=1en=a90c74aabb12e298 - Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine reading The New York Times any time anywhere you like! Leisurely catch up on events expand your horizons. Enjoy now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1ExternalMediaCode=W24AF HOW TO ADVERTISE - For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company ---End Message---
ugnet_: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Suppress the Vote?
Note: forwarded message attached. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!---BeginMessage--- The article below from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] /- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight \ GARDEN STATE: NOW PLAYING IN SELECT THEATERS GARDEN STATE stars Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard and Ian Holm. NEWSWEEK's David Ansen says Writer-Director Zach Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye and is loaded with talent. Watch the teaser trailer that has all of America buzzing and talk back with Zach Braff on the Garden State Blog at: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/index_nyt.html \--/ Suppress the Vote? August 16, 2004 By BOB HERBERT The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there's another story from Florida that deserves our attention. State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd investigation that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November. The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March. Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election. We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation, said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement. The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns. I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place. I can't talk about that, he said. I asked if all the people interrogated were black. Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at - yes,'' he said. He also said, Most of them were elderly. When I asked why, he said, That's just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview. Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today. Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city's black vote. The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat. The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months' work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote. Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people's homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, One woman asked me, 'Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?' According to Mr. Egan, People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don't want to risk a criminal investigation. Florida is a state that's very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush. The
ugnet_: Fwd: Quarries of death
Note: forwarded message attached. Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!---BeginMessage--- Quarries of death THE death of David Mutebi and his three children in last Sundays stone avalanche in Bwebajja, though tragic, will not deter others from working in stone quarries, writes Andrew Ndawula Kalema THE news came as shock to most Ugandans; four people from the same family perish in a stone quarry accident. However, to the thousands of balombe (stone miners), who eke out a living in the numerous stone quarries off Entebbe Road, the only shocking thing about the Bwebajja quarry disaster was its timing. Such accidents normally take place during the rainy season, not in a dry spell like the current one. No wonder David Mutebi, 32, and his three dependants, aged between 12 and 14, were caught off guard. The four were crushed to death, when the 50-feet-deep stone quarry where they were working caved in. Edith Namutebi, Mutebis 27-year-old widow, survived only because her husband had instructed her to stay home and do the housework. She normally w orks with the rest of the family in the quarry. The accident took place at 9:00am Sunday morning. The first body was recovered at 3:00pm. For six hours Namutebi fervently prayed that the 50 or so local residents who made up the rescue team, backed by a police excavator, find nothing. The reality of losing an entire family was too harsh to face so she prayed for a miracle that her missing family starts emerging one by one from the nearby bushes where she believed they must have fled to escape the stone avalanche. Finally a miracle happened. As the police excavator removed yet another load of soil, a childs tiny hand came into view. Edith stopped praying. Ever so carefully, the soil around the hand was scraped away, to reveal a childs crushed body. Someone called for a mat in which to wrap the body, to spare the grieving mother the ghoulish sight. Too late, she had already seen it. It was her 12-year-old son, George Nsubuga. Finally realising the f utility of praying away the harsh reality, Edith started wailing inconsolably, as the remaining bodies were recovered one after another. Police, more used to fighting off good Samaritans who often rob the road accident victims they are supposed to help, were touched by the comradeship of the Bwebajja village residents, during the nine-hour rescue operation. By the time the police excavator arrived at the scene, five hours after the accident, the residents were already busy scooping out the tons of soil, using whatever utensil they could lay their hands on, recalls Albert Okoth, the officer in charge of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) at Kajjansi Police Station. A smashed Motorola mobile phone set, recovered a few metres away from Mutebis crushed body, was returned to the widow by one of the residents. It is not that Bwebajja residents are saints. It is the harsh working conditions existing in the stone quarries, which have forced the balombe to adopt the rare culture of always looking out for each other; responding to any call of distress, regardless of who is involved. After burying scores of colleagues who have died over the years while working in the stone quarries, the balombe have come to accept the fact that death is always hovering just a few metres above their heads, in form of an overhanging cliff, and can strike any time. There are over 5,000 balombe, eking out a living in the 300 or so stone quarries, found in Mutungo, Kawuku, Namulanda, Lutembe, Gerenge, Misinde, Bwebajja, Bweya and Ddewe villages, all located along or off Entebbe Road. Bwebajja village alone has over 30 quarries, providing a livelihood to about 400 local residents, who include miners, brokers, and landlords. Stone mining is the leading economic activity in the area, as most of the land is too rocky for agriculture. With the current boom in the countrys construction indust ry, there is ready money to be made from stones. Between 50-100 trucks, ranging from the 3-ton Dynas, to the 20-ton heavy trucks, popularly known as magulu kumi, ply the Kampala-Entebbe highway everyday, ferrying stones from the quarries to various construction sites around Kampala and the neighbouring towns. Each ton of stones delivered to the construction site costs between sh10,000-20,000 depending on size. But very little of that money trickles down to the balombe, who literally have to wrestle the stones away from the murderous quarries, aptly called magombe (burial ground or tomb) in balombespeak, using the most primitive methods and equipped with the most rudimentary tools. The bulk of the money goes to the brokers, who keep a vice-like grip on the whole process, from the quarry to the construction site. There are two types of brokers; the truck brokers and the quarry brokers. It is the truck brokers who negotiate with the cons truction site owner the deal to supply stones, and with the truck owner the
ugnet_: Poll says 66% want Museveni to retire
Poll says 66% want Museveni to retire By Bernard TabaireSpecial Projects Editor Aug 19, 2004 KAMPALA A majority of Ugandans want the constitutional limit of two five-year presidential terms to stay, a new national poll shows. Some 68.8 % of respondents say presidential term limits should remain, while 31.2 percent want them removed. The poll was commissioned by The Monitor. And Strategic Public Relations Research Limited of Nairobi conducted it throughout the country from August 1-5. The reputable research firm interviewed 1,800 people in all the regions of Uganda. The margin of error is 5 %. A campaign is underway by the ruling Movement government to amend Article 105 of the Constitution. The article provides that a person can be president for only two terms of five years each. However, amending that article to leave open presidential terms would mean that whoever is president could rule until he or she is defeated or dies in office. Government critics add that the removal of term limits is meant to allow President Museveni run for another term when his current and last one, as per Article 105 today, expires in 2006. Consequently, the poll shows, only 40.7 % trust that Museveni will respect the term limits clause and not seek another term, now commonly referred to as the third term or ekisanja. Some 59.3 % of the respondents think that the President will actually push for the removal or changing of Article 105. Asked whether Museveni should run for another term or retire, 66% of the respondents say the President should go home come 2006. Suppose the President had his way and ran for office again? Some 60.4% of the respondents say they would not support him. Most of those who do not support the President running again say it is time for a change to another leader. The rest say he should respect the Constitution, and that he is a dictator who has violated human rights.The minority who would support Museveni if he ran say they would do so because the President is a good leader, he has promoted security and improved the economy. A few fear that his removal would lead to war so they have no choice but to keep him in State House. At 79.4 percent, the northern region is strongest in its opposition to lifting term limits, while the corresponding figure in western is 57.9 percent. However, asked the question: Who would you support to be President in 2006? Some 35 percent respondents said Museveni followed by Besigye at 20.8 percent. Much as he is at the top, Musevenis numbers are very low compared to the landslide figures of 1996 and 2001. Resolution of third term issue: Fourty-six percent respondents would prefer Parliament to resolve the term limits issue, compared to 25.8 percent who are for the referendum. The rest would rather a combination of both Parliament and a referendum solved the matter. But in the event that there is a conflict between Parliaments views and the findings of the referendum, 53.9 percent say the national assembly should carry the day. The Constitution actually does charge Parliament with amending Article 105. If, however, a referendum were called on the third term issue as the Movement government wants, 52.7 percent of Ugandans would participate because it is a constitutional right. They also say it would be a way to support their position, express themselves, defeat the Movement position, and that, in any case, it is a democratic process. Those who would rather stay at home say a referendum on term limits was a waste of time and resources. It would not be free and fair and it is unconstitutional. The religious community was ranked highest, at 6.12 on a scale of 10, as the institution that has handled best the debate on the third term followed closely by the Judiciary and the opposition parties. Cabinet is last at 4.54. © 2004 The Monitor Publications Gook "Rang guthe agithi marapu!" A karamonjong word of wisdomAdd photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
ugnet_: Fwd: New Vision on Corruption
Note: forwarded message attached.__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---BeginMessage--- Ssebutinde furious over High Court judgement POINTED CASE: Ssebutinde addressing journalists over the ruling yesterday By Jude Etyang, Stephen Muwambi and Edward Anyoli JUSTICE Julia Ssebutinde, seething with anger, yesterday disputed the High Court judgement which nullified her report on corruption in the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA). In a two-hour press briefing at her chambers in Kampala, Ssebutinde said Justice John Baptist Katutsi, who quashed the report, had no jurisdiction to review her report because they are both High Court judges with equal discretion. Ssebutinde, pointing out that she was stepping out of judicial ethics to criticise Katutsis ruling in public, said she was commenting because she chaired the six-month commission of inquiry. She said she wanted to respond to allegations against her in the trial, which Katutsi believed and based his ruling on, without giving her a hearing. A judicial officer is not allowed to review the work of a colleague at the same level. The right thing to do would be to take the application to the next level, the Court of Appeal. The principle is to pres erve the independence of the judiciary, otherwise we would be redoing each others work, she said. She questioned, What gives you the right to cancel your sisters work? Are you substituting her discretion with yours? Ssebutinde said the Attorney General had during the trial challenged Katutsis jurisdiction but the latter over-ruled the objection without a sound reason. She carried out a post-mortem of the judgement and blamed Katutsi for making his ruling without evidence except from the affidavit of the applicant Annebrit Aslund, who challenged the report findings basing on a newspaper story. How do you quash a report on the strength of a newspaper clipping. He (Katutsi) had the powers to order for the report? she said. How do you as a judge dealing with hard evidence accept this (Aslunds affidavit) as evidence? Wasnt it possible to ask (finance minister Gerald) Ssendaula or any of us (commissioners) to swear an affidavit of what was in the report? Ssebutinde asked. She rejected Katutsis ruling that the report was a nullity because other commissioners James Kahoza and Fawn Cousens did not sign it. She said the report was not signed by commissioners, including herself, because the law did not require it. Ssebutinde said she and the commission secretary only signed the cover letter of the report, which she said, is not part of the report. Ssebutinde attacked the Governments view that the report was not binding because Cousens and Kahoza had disowned it. Ssebutinde said the Government had consistently sought to destroy the report because it lacked the political will to fight corruption. One thing that has baffled me about government is how an important decision can be made without calling any of us who were involved in the commission. How do you trash everything unless you have a hidden agenda? she asked. If the federo people can talk with Museveni, wha t was so complex that it could not be solved in this matter. Now we are throwing away the baby with the bath water, she said. She said there were grounds to appeal against Katutsis verdict but said she would not be surprised if the Government did not. Ssebutinde said it was wrong to say Aslund was not given a hearing yet she appeared before the commission countless times. Ssebutinde also questioned why Katutsi trashed the entire report yet the contested areas make only 1%. All the other thieves are now pardoned without lifting a finger because court has trashed the report, said Ssebutinde. She said Ugandans had lost because one foreigner had asked for the trashing of the report trying to save Ugandas granary. Ends Published on: Wednesday, 18th August, 2004 Not too late for Sebutinde report THE HIGH Court on Monday nullified the Sebutinde report into allegations of corruption in the Uganda Revenue Authority. The High Court ruled that it had ceased to be a judicial commission since the report was only signed by Justice Julia Sebutinde and not by the other two commissioners, Fawn Cousens and James Kahoza. The application to nullify the report was brought by Annebritt Aslund, the former URA Commissioner General who felt that she had been unfairly vilified. Aslund was awarded costs. Cousens and Kahoza refused to sign because they felt that Sebutinde was determining some issues unilaterally. Nevertheless there was common ground between the three commissioners on many points. Government should not have accepted the Sebutinde report in the first place. It should have advised Sebutinde to go back and remove the contentious items in the report so that all the three commissioners could sign it. It would then have remained
ugnet_: Drought in Texas: Israel and the American Elections
Drought in Texas Israel and the American Elections By URI AVNERY (www.counterpunch.com) Once upon a time, an assistant to Levy Eshkol, our late Prime Minister, rushed up to him and cried: "Levy, a disaster! A drought has set in!" "Where?" the Prime Minister asked anxiously, "in Texas?" "No, here in Israel!" the man replied. "Then there's nothing to worry about," Eshkol said dismissively. Right from the beginning, the State of Israel has been critically affected by events in the United States. "If America sneezes, Israel catches cold," is the local version of the universal saying. This is particularly true in the run-up to American elections. They can be as important for Israel as our own, since the occupant of the White House can influence the fate of Israel in many significant ways. But they have an additional significance: the months before the American elections are a kind of open season for Israel. The basic assumption is that no candidate for the White House would dare to provoke the American Jewish voters at election times. They are an extremely well organized and highly motivated political bloc, ready to donate heaps of money, which gives them political clout well beyond their numbers. Actually, there are now more Muslims than Jews in the United States, but they are not organized, their motivation is weak, their willingness to donate large amounts of money near zero. Their adherence to the Palestinian cause, for example, cannot match the fierce loyalty of most of the Jews to Israel. Moreover, in this the Jews are now joined by tens of millions of Christian evangelical fundamentalists. Israeli governments naturally time their most controversial moves to coincide with the American elections. The more closely fought the elections, the more attractive it is for Israeli planners and adventurers. The State of Israel unilaterally declared its independence in May 1948, when Harry Truman's reelection campaign was in a critical condition. David Ben Gurion made the decision against the advice of some of his wisest colleagues, who warned him that the United States would oppose the move with all its might. He bet on the inability of the American system to do that during an election campaign. At the time, Truman was desperately in need of money. Some Jewish millionaires provided it. To show his gratitude, and against the express advice of his Secretary of State (George Marshall) and especially his Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal), Truman immediately accorded the new state de facto recognition. (Stalin trumped him and recognized Israel de jure.) Since then, this has been a repeating pattern. The Israeli government ordered the army to attack in 1967 (starting the Six Day War) after receiving an OK from President Lyndon Johnson, who at the time was still hoping to be reelected in 1968. The critical first year after that war, when America failed to induce Israel to withdraw from the territories its army had conquered, was, of course, an election year. Most of our present troubles stem from that. Only once did the calculation fail. In 1956 Ben Gurion colluded with France and Britain against Egypt's Gamal Abd-el-Nasser. After conquering the Sinai peninsula, Ben-Gurion declared the "Third Israeli Kingdom". He was convinced that the Americans were preoccupied with their election and would not interfere. He was wrong. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was standing for reelection, was assured of a landslide majority. He did not need the Jewish vote. He was also a man of principle. So he presented Ben- Gurion with what amounted to an ultimatum: evacuate the Sinai or else. Four days after setting up his "kingdom" Ben-Gurion announced its demise. But this was an exception. Ariel Sharon, who considers himself a personal disciple of Ben-Gurion (as does Shimon Peres), is basing his present policy on the same calculation. President George W. Bush is fighting for his political life. He will not dare to provoke a quarrel with Israel at this juncture. So from now until November, Sharon can do much as he pleases. President Bush's famous Road Map is dead. (I can hear him exclaiming: "Road Map? What Road Map? The only Map I need is of the road to the White House!") His demand for a freeze on all building activity in the settlements, "even for the natural increase", is becoming a joke. Sharon has just openly flouted this by announcing plans for 600 new houses in the Ma'aleh Adumim settlement. Emissaries of the Security Council and the State Department (Zionist Jews, by the way) are practically begging Sharon on their knees to dismantle dozens of new settlements (referred to as outposts") put up since he assumed power in 2001. Sharon has promised this to Bush many times, in return for reversals of long-standing US policy. Sharon must be hard put not to laugh in their faces. However, Sharon does have a vital interest in Bush's reelection. He is afraid of John Kerry, even if he says exactly the same as Bush on the
RE: ugnet_: Poll says 66% want Museveni to retire
Gook, So up to 71% of Ugandans want dictator M out! No suprises there. I hope the message finally sinks into thisbald man's head! I'm considering flying to Seattle in September to deliver the samemessage to the same. yFrom: "gook makanga" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: ugnet_: Poll says 66% want Museveni to retire Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:40:49 + The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ---BeginMessage--- Poll says 66% want Museveni to retire By Bernard TabaireSpecial Projects Editor Aug 19, 2004 KAMPALA A majority of Ugandans want the constitutional limit of two five-year presidential terms to stay, a new national poll shows. Some 68.8 % of respondents say presidential term limits should remain, while 31.2 percent want them removed. The poll was commissioned by The Monitor. And Strategic Public Relations Research Limited of Nairobi conducted it throughout the country from August 1-5. The reputable research firm interviewed 1,800 people in all the regions of Uganda. The margin of error is 5 %. A campaign is underway by the ruling Movement government to amend Article 105 of the Constitution. The article provides that a person can be president for only two terms of five years each. However, amending that article to leave open presidential terms would mean that whoever is president could rule until he or she is defeated or dies in office. Government critics add that the removal of term limits is meant to allow President Museveni run for another term when his current and last one, as per Article 105 today, expires in 2006. Consequently, the poll shows, only 40.7 % trust that Museveni will respect the term limits clause and not seek another term, now commonly referred to as the third term or ekisanja. Some 59.3 % of the respondents think that the President will actually push for the removal or changing of Article 105. Asked whether Museveni should run for another term or retire, 66% of the respondents say the President should go home come 2006. Suppose the President had his way and ran for office again? Some 60.4% of the respondents say they would not support him. Most of those who do not support the President running again say it is time for a change to another leader. The rest say he should respect the Constitution, and that he is a dictator who has violated human rights.The minority who would support Museveni if he ran say they would do so because the President is a good leader, he has promoted security and improved the economy. A few fear that his removal would lead to war so they have no choice but to keep him in State House. At 79.4 percent, the northern region is strongest in its opposition to lifting term limits, while the corresponding figure in western is 57.9 percent. However, asked the question: Who would you support to be President in 2006? Some 35 percent respondents said Museveni followed by Besigye at 20.8 percent. Much as he is at the top, Musevenis numbers are very low compared to the landslide figures of 1996 and 2001. Resolution of third term issue: Fourty-six percent respondents would prefer Parliament to resolve the term limits issue, compared to 25.8 percent who are for the referendum. The rest would rather a combination of both Parliament and a referendum solved the matter. But in the event that there is a conflict between Parliaments views and the findings of the referendum, 53.9 percent say the national assembly should carry the day. The Constitution actually does charge Parliament with amending Article 105. If, however, a referendum were called on the third term issue as the Movement government wants, 52.7 percent of Ugandans would participate because it is a constitutional right. They also say it would be a way to support their position, express themselves, defeat the Movement position, and that, in any case, it is a democratic process. Those who would rather stay at home say a referendum on term limits was a waste of time and resources. It would not be free and fair and it is unconstitutional. The religious community was ranked highest, at 6.12 on a scale of 10, as the institution that has handled best the debate on the third term followed closely by the Judiciary and the opposition parties. Cabinet is last at 4.54. © 2004 The Monitor Publications Gook "Rang guthe agithi marapu!" A karamonjong word of wisdomAdd photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug ---End Message---
