Descendants of Solomons’ slaves looking forward to dual citizenship

The descendants of Solomon Islands’ slave labourers living in Fiji say they hope dual citizenship legislation being proposed in the Solomons will help them reconnect with long lost relatives.

In the mid-nineteenth century more than 60,000 Pacific Islanders from Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and Niue were coerced to work on canefields in Australia and Fiji through trickery and kidnapping, a practice known as Blackbirding.

A Solomon Islands government delegation doing consultations in Melanesia this week on dual citizenship met with leaders of descendants of blackbirded Solomon Islanders living in Fiji.

Chris Waiwori from the Dual-Citizenship Taskforce
Chris Waiwori from the Dual-Citizenship Taskforce Photo: PM Press Office

The secretary of the dual citizenship task force, Chris Waiwori, described the meeting as an emotional one during which community leaders told the delegation they appreciated the move towards dual citizenship and saw it as another avenue for them to try and mend their broken links to Solomon Islands.

The taskforce is now in PNG for the final leg of its consultations having earlier also visited Vanuatu.

A final round of local consultations on the dual citizenship bill will be done when the taskforce returns to Honiara before a final draft of the bill is submitted to cabinet.

The Solomon Islands prime minister Manasseh Sogavare had previously said he aimed to have the bill tabled in parliament early next year.

Source: RNZ

Aid in reverse: how poor countries develop rich countries

New research shows that developing countries send trillions of dollars more to the west than the other way around. Why?

e have long been told a compelling story about the relationship between rich countries and poor countries. The story holds that the rich nations of the OECD give generously of their wealth to the poorer nations of the global south, to help them eradicate poverty and push them up the development ladder. Yes, during colonialism western powers may have enriched themselves by extracting resources and slave labour from their colonies – but that’s all in the past. These days, they give more than $125bn (£102bn) in aid each year – solid evidence of their benevolent goodwill.

This story is so widely propagated by the aid industry and the governments of the rich world that we have come to take it for granted. But it may not be as simple as it appears.

The US-based Global Financial Integrity (GFI) and the Centre for Applied Research at the Norwegian School of Economics recently published some fascinating data. They tallied up all of the financial resources that get transferred between rich countries and poor countries each year: not just aid, foreign investment and trade flows (as previous studies have done) but also non-financial transfers such as debt cancellation, unrequited transfers like workers’ remittances, and unrecorded capital flight (more of this later). As far as I am aware, it is the most comprehensive assessment of resource transfers ever undertaken.

What they discovered is that the flow of money from rich countries to poor countries pales in comparison to the flow that runs in the other direction.

In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States

What this means is that the usual development narrative has it backwards. Aid is effectively flowing in reverse. Rich countries aren’t developing poor countries; poor countries are developing rich ones.

What do these large outflows consist of? Well, some of it is payments on debt. Developing countries have forked out over $4.2tn in interest payments alone since 1980 – a direct cash transfer to big banks in New York and London, on a scale that dwarfs the aid that they received during the same period. Another big contributor is the income that foreigners make on their investments in developing countries and then repatriate back home. Think of all the profits that BP extracts from Nigeria’s oil reserves, for example, or that Anglo-American pulls out of South Africa’s gold mines.

Most of these unrecorded outflows take place through the international trade system. Basically, corporations – foreign and domestic alike – report false prices on their trade invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, a practice known as “trade misinvoicing”. Usually the goal is to evade taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five.

GFI doesn’t include same-invoice faking in its headline figures because it is very difficult to detect, but they estimate that it amounts to another $700bn per year. And these figures only cover theft through trade in goods. If we add theft through trade in services to the mix, it brings total net resource outflows to about $3tn per year.

That’s 24 times more than the aid budget. In other words, for every $1 of aid that developing countries receive, they lose $24 in net outflows. These outflows strip developing countries of an important source of revenue and finance for development. The GFI report finds that increasingly large net outflows have caused economic growth rates in developing countries to decline, and are directly responsible for falling living standards.

Who is to blame for this disaster? Since illegal capital flight is such a big chunk of the problem, that’s a good place to start. Companies that lie on their trade invoices are clearly at fault; but why is it so easy for them to get away with it? In the past, customs officials could hold up transactions that looked dodgy, making it nearly impossible for anyone to cheat. But the World Trade Organisation claimed that this made trade inefficient, and since 1994 customs officials have been required to accept invoiced prices at face value except in very suspicious circumstances, making it difficult for them to seize illicit outflows.

Still, illegal capital flight wouldn’t be possible without the tax havens. And when it comes to tax havens, the culprits are not hard to identify: there are more than 60 in the world, and the vast majority of them are controlled by a handful of western countries. There are European tax havens such as Luxembourg and Belgium, and US tax havens like Delaware and Manhattan. But by far the biggest network of tax havens is centered around the City of London, which controls secrecy jurisdictions throughout the British Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

In other words, some of the very countries that so love to tout their foreign aid contributions are the ones enabling mass theft from developing countries.

The aid narrative begins to seem a bit naïve when we take these reverse flows into account. It becomes clear that aid does little but mask the maldistribution of resources around the world. It makes the takers seem like givers, granting them a kind of moral high ground while preventing those of us who care about global poverty from understanding how the system really works.

Poor countries don’t need charity. They need justice. And justice is not difficult to deliver. We could write off the excess debts of poor countries, freeing them up to spend their money on development instead of interest payments on old loans; we could close down the secrecy jurisdictions, and slap penalties on bankers and accountants who facilitate illicit outflows; and we could impose a global minimum tax on corporate income to eliminate the incentive for corporations to secretly shift their money around the world.

We know how to fix the problem. But doing so would run up against the interests of powerful banks and corporations that extract significant material benefit from the existing system. The question is, do we have the courage?

Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/

For Pacific Island States, Climate Change Is an Existential Threat

 By Grant Wyeth

The decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change has caused much concern across the Pacific. Pacific Island states are some of the most vocal advocates for aggressive carbon reduction targets, and the Paris Agreement had been welcomed at the time of its creation by Pacific Island states.

For many Pacific Island states, the current forecasts for rising sea levels due to climate change will severely impact their territory. For island states such a Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Marshall Islands, rising sea levels are a genuine and immediate existential threat. These island states exist on territory that rises only a few meters above sea level, at best. This means that any rise in the sea level, no matter how incremental, eats into their very limited landmass. The current predicted sea level rise of 2 meters by 2100 would mean an almost total submersion for these three states.

Other Pacific Island states will also be greatly affected. Five low-lying islands within the Solomon Island archipelago have already been submerged. Changes in both geographic features and water temperatures also have the potential to alter the fishing stocks that Pacific Islands states rely on for food security.

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga was so concerned by Trump’s decision that he ordered his country’s officials to cancel any cooperation with the United States until Washington has a new climate change policy in place. In regards to Trump’s decision, Sopoaga stated: “I think it doesn’t make any sense to talk about any other thing if we don’t fix the problem of climate change… We are very, very distressed, I think this a very destructive, obstructive statement from a leader of perhaps the biggest polluter on earth and we are very disappointed as a small island country already suffering the effects of climate change.”The global, stateless, nature of the climate change phenomenon is keenly understood by Pacific Islands. With little capacity to stem this threat to their existence themselves, these countries rely on the big players to instigate reforms that might prevent more drastic warming of the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and surfaces.

For Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, a man who has set himself up as the global champion of the interests of Pacific Island states, the decision was disappointing, but he remained hopeful international cooperation could still result, stating: “I did what I could — along with many leaders around the world — to try to persuade President Trump to remain standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us as we tackled the greatest challenge our planet has ever faced. While the loss of America’s leadership is unfortunate, this a struggle that is far from over.”

Trump’s decision came right before Fiji assumes the presidency of Conference of the Parties (COP), the annual forum for countries that signed up to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The forum will be held in Bonn, Germany from November 6-17 this year.

Fiji’s presidency is a historic event, as it is the first Small Island Developing State to hold the presidency. Fiji’s presidency was designed to highlight the problems that climate change is producing for Pacific Island states — not just rising sea levels, but more intense weather events causing severe destruction, like Cyclone Winston last year, which caused damage valued at 10 percent of the country’s GDP.

In his speech to the UN Climate Change Conference in May (a precursor to the COP23 forum in November), Bainimarama reaffirmed Fiji’s commitment to the goals and the implementation of the Paris Agreement. He outlined his vision that Fiji’s presidency of the COP would have the interests of small island states at its core, wishing to build a coalition of partners to help these states build greater resilience against rising sea levels and extreme weather events. Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement severely undermines Bainimarama’s position, and Fiji’s prominent role in a major multilateral forum.

While Pacific Island leaders have been disappointed with Trump’s decision, that other major powers have reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris agreement will give them some solace. The recent India-Pacific Islands Sustainable Development Conference held in Suva, Fiji, is an indication that other significant powers have an understanding of the situation that Pacific Island states are in. The hope will be that the recalcitrance of the world’s major power will only be temporary, and a future administration will reaffirm its commitment to the Paris goals.

Source: https://thediplomat.com/