Sunday, February 06, 2005
Telegraph | News | The tyrant of Togo dies after heart attack
Telegraph | News | The tyrant of Togo dies after heart attack: "The tyrant of Togo dies after heart attack
By David Blair, Africa Correspondent
(Filed: 07/02/2005)
After beggaring his people and basking in the plaudits of Paris for almost four decades, the last of West Africa's Francophone tyrants died at the weekend, bringing to an inglorious end an era of Machiavellian French statecraft.
President Gnassingb� Eyadema of Togo, who gloried in France's 'special relationship' with Africa, suffered a heart attack at the age of 69, hours before he was due to leave his tiny domain for Paris.
Mr Eyadema was Africa's longest-serving despot and dominated Togo from the moment that he seized power in 1967.
Thereafter, he styled himself 'Le Guide', murdered his opponents, hounded thousands into exile and staged a series of rigged elections, once claiming a 99.95 per cent 'Yes' vote in a referendum on his rule. But President Jacques Chirac paid tribute to a 'friend of France' and a 'personal friend' after his death, adding: 'My thoughts turn towards the Togolese people. I am sure they will find themselves gathered together democratically in this ordeal.'
For decades an intense desire to safeguard the primacy of the French language and French influence over the continent has led France to back a cabal of tyrants.
Once France's African colonies gained independence in 1960, Paris established a loyal block of French-speaking countries. Some, like the Central African Republic, had great mineral wealth. Its ruler, the 'Emperor' Jean-Bedel Bokassa, was an occasional cannibal and caused a scandal by giving diamonds to Valery Giscard D'Estaing when he was the French president in the 1970s.
Other French allies"
By David Blair, Africa Correspondent
(Filed: 07/02/2005)
After beggaring his people and basking in the plaudits of Paris for almost four decades, the last of West Africa's Francophone tyrants died at the weekend, bringing to an inglorious end an era of Machiavellian French statecraft.
President Gnassingb� Eyadema of Togo, who gloried in France's 'special relationship' with Africa, suffered a heart attack at the age of 69, hours before he was due to leave his tiny domain for Paris.
Mr Eyadema was Africa's longest-serving despot and dominated Togo from the moment that he seized power in 1967.
Thereafter, he styled himself 'Le Guide', murdered his opponents, hounded thousands into exile and staged a series of rigged elections, once claiming a 99.95 per cent 'Yes' vote in a referendum on his rule. But President Jacques Chirac paid tribute to a 'friend of France' and a 'personal friend' after his death, adding: 'My thoughts turn towards the Togolese people. I am sure they will find themselves gathered together democratically in this ordeal.'
For decades an intense desire to safeguard the primacy of the French language and French influence over the continent has led France to back a cabal of tyrants.
Once France's African colonies gained independence in 1960, Paris established a loyal block of French-speaking countries. Some, like the Central African Republic, had great mineral wealth. Its ruler, the 'Emperor' Jean-Bedel Bokassa, was an occasional cannibal and caused a scandal by giving diamonds to Valery Giscard D'Estaing when he was the French president in the 1970s.
Other French allies"
Oct 16, 2003
Contact: Press Office202-646-5172
CLINTON WHISTLEBLOWER PETER F. PAUL SUES BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON FOR FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, UNJUST ENRICHMENT
California Lawsuit Over Post-White House Business Relationship That Never MaterializedFederal Government: “We’re Very Much Interested” in Pursuing Campaign Fundraising Violations by Hillary’s Senate Campaign(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates public corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against Bill and Hillary Clinton, among others, on behalf of Peter F. Paul, the Hollywood entrepreneur who underwrote and produced the August 12, 2000 “Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton,” a gala fundraiser that yielded $1.5 million in “hard money” contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Mr. Paul spent over $2 million on the event as part of a post-White House employment package for the former President. The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on October 14, 2003, alleges:
The President, through an intermediary, agreed to work for Mr. Paul’s companies after leaving office in exchange for a compensation package worth over $15 million, including Mr. Paul’s funding of the Hollywood Tribute. No post-White House business relationship ever materialized.
Mrs. Clinton, through campaign officials, repeatedly promised Mr. Paul that the monies he spent on the event would be allocated and reported to federal election authorities in a lawful and proper way, but, to date, the campaign has failed to do so.
After denying to The Washington Post that Mrs. Clinton did not and would not accept any contributions from Mr. Paul, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign coerced Mr. Paul into making an additional $55,000 contribution (also never reported) to a political party in New York on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf.
The President and Mrs. Clinton, through intermediaries, coerced Mr. Paul into remaining silent about his contributions by threatening that the post-White House business relationship with the President would not materialize if Mr. Paul contradicted the public denials issued by the campaign.Mr. Paul has substantial, documentary evidence detailing his close relationship with the Clintons and his funding of the Hollywood tribute, including cancelled checks, hand-written thank you notes from the Clintons, and photographs. Also named in the complaint is Clinton fundraiser David Rosen, Clinton friend James Levin, and Hollywood celebrity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, who currently is under criminal investigation for his role in other Hollywood fundraisers. As a result of Mr. Paul’s disclosures, federal authorities have launched an investigation into the Clintons and other matters. Mr. Paul, who is facing alleged (and related) stock and bank fraud charges, remains eager to cooperate with federal authorities.“This lawsuit aims to hold the Clinton’s accountable for their fraud and deceit, which netted them over $2 million and help elect Hillary to the Senate. Mr. Paul looks forward to holding the Clinton’s accountable,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Contact: Press Office202-646-5172
CLINTON WHISTLEBLOWER PETER F. PAUL SUES BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON FOR FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, UNJUST ENRICHMENT
California Lawsuit Over Post-White House Business Relationship That Never MaterializedFederal Government: “We’re Very Much Interested” in Pursuing Campaign Fundraising Violations by Hillary’s Senate Campaign(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates public corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against Bill and Hillary Clinton, among others, on behalf of Peter F. Paul, the Hollywood entrepreneur who underwrote and produced the August 12, 2000 “Hollywood Tribute to Bill Clinton,” a gala fundraiser that yielded $1.5 million in “hard money” contributions to Mrs. Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign. Mr. Paul spent over $2 million on the event as part of a post-White House employment package for the former President. The lawsuit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on October 14, 2003, alleges:
The President, through an intermediary, agreed to work for Mr. Paul’s companies after leaving office in exchange for a compensation package worth over $15 million, including Mr. Paul’s funding of the Hollywood Tribute. No post-White House business relationship ever materialized.
Mrs. Clinton, through campaign officials, repeatedly promised Mr. Paul that the monies he spent on the event would be allocated and reported to federal election authorities in a lawful and proper way, but, to date, the campaign has failed to do so.
After denying to The Washington Post that Mrs. Clinton did not and would not accept any contributions from Mr. Paul, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign coerced Mr. Paul into making an additional $55,000 contribution (also never reported) to a political party in New York on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf.
The President and Mrs. Clinton, through intermediaries, coerced Mr. Paul into remaining silent about his contributions by threatening that the post-White House business relationship with the President would not materialize if Mr. Paul contradicted the public denials issued by the campaign.Mr. Paul has substantial, documentary evidence detailing his close relationship with the Clintons and his funding of the Hollywood tribute, including cancelled checks, hand-written thank you notes from the Clintons, and photographs. Also named in the complaint is Clinton fundraiser David Rosen, Clinton friend James Levin, and Hollywood celebrity fundraiser Aaron Tonken, who currently is under criminal investigation for his role in other Hollywood fundraisers. As a result of Mr. Paul’s disclosures, federal authorities have launched an investigation into the Clintons and other matters. Mr. Paul, who is facing alleged (and related) stock and bank fraud charges, remains eager to cooperate with federal authorities.“This lawsuit aims to hold the Clinton’s accountable for their fraud and deceit, which netted them over $2 million and help elect Hillary to the Senate. Mr. Paul looks forward to holding the Clinton’s accountable,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/02/06/do0604
.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/02/06/ixop.html
Would you trust these men with $64bn of your cash? Of course not By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/02/2005)
At tough times in my life, with the landlord tossing my clothes and record collection out on to the street, I could have used an aunt like Benon Sevan's. Asked to account for the appearance in his bank account of a certain $160,000, Mr Sevan, executive director of the UN Oil-for-Food programme, said it was a gift from his aunt. Lucky Sevan, eh? None of my aunts ever had that much of the folding stuff on tap.
And nor, it seems, did Mr Sevan's. She lived in a modest two-room flat back in Cyprus and her own bank accounts gave no indication of spare six-figure sums. Nonetheless, if a respected UN diplomat says he got 160,000 bucks from Auntie, we'll just have to take his word for it. Paul Volcker's committee of investigation did plan to ask the old lady to confirm her nephew's version of events, but, before they could, she fell down an elevator shaft and died.
If you're a UN bigshot, or the son of Kofi Annan, or the cousin of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or any of the other well-connected guys on the Oil-for-Fraud payroll, $160,000 is pretty small beer. But, if you're a starving kid in Ramadi or Nasariyah, it would go quite a long way. Instead, the starving-kid money went a long way in the opposite direction, to the Swiss bank accounts of Saddam's apologists. "The Secretary-General is shocked by what the report has to say about Mr Sevan," declared Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Britain's own Mark Malloch Brown.
That's how bad things are at the UN: even the Brits sound like Claude Rains. Of course, the Secretary-General isn't "shocked" at all. And nor are the media, which is why the major news organisations can barely contain their boredom with the biggest financial scam of all time - bigger than Enron, Worldcom and all the rest rolled into one. If ever there were a dog-bites-man story, "UN Stinkingly Corrupt Shock!" is it.
And, in a way, they have a point: what happened was utterly predictable. If I had $64 billion of my own money, I'd look after it carefully. But give someone $64 billion of other people's money to "process" and it would be surprising if some of it didn't get peeled off en route. Especially if that $64 billion gives you access to a unique supply of specially low-priced oil you can re-sell at market prices. Hire Third World bureaucrats to supervise the "processing" and you can kiss even more of it goodbye. Grant Saddam Hussein the right of approval over the bank that will run the scheme, and it's clear to all that nit-picky book-keeping will not be an overburdensome problem.
In other words, the system didn't fail. This is the transnational system, working as it usually works, just a little more so. One of the reasons I'm in favour of small government is because big government tends to be remote government, and remote government is unaccountable, and, as a wannabe world government, the UN is the remotest and most unaccountable of all. If the sentimental utopian blather ever came true and we wound up with one "world government", from an accounting department point of view, the model will be Nigeria rather than New Hampshire.
That's why Washington has no interest in joining Gordon Brown's newly announced Cash-for-Guilt programme, under which the Chancellor (or, to be more precise, you) has agreed to improve the Afro-kleptocracy's cash flow by transferring 10 per cent of its debt burden to the United Kingdom - a perfect example of the malign combination of empty European gesture-politics and Third World larceny that's been the default mode of progressive transnationalism for far too long. By contrast, consider the splendid John Howard. In announcing Australian's $1 billion tsunami aid package, he was careful to emphasise that he wouldn't be wiring it via the estate of Benon Sevan's late auntie.
If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt with the organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report of the week accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their official one. As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide.
That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated." So thank goodness this isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group - which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their pretty little heads about it.
That's the transnational establishment's alternative to Bush and Howard: appoint a committee that agrees on the need to do nothing. Thus, a few days ago, the UN Human Rights Commission announced the working group that will decide which complaints will be heard at their annual meeting in Geneva this
spring: the five-nation panel comprises the Netherlands, Hungary, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't bet on them finding room on their crowded agenda for the question of human rights in Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, would you? One of the mystifying aspects of UN worship is the assumption that this embryo world government is a "progressive" concept. It's not. Its squalid geographic voting blocs, which use regional solidarity to inflate the status of nickel'n'dime dictators, are merely a Third World gloss on the Congress of Vienna - a relic of an age when contact between states was confined to their governing elites. In an era of jet travel, internet and debit cards that work in any bank machine from Vancouver to Vilnius to Vanuatu, there are millions of global relationships far better for the long-term health of the planet than using American money to set up Eurowimp talking shops manned by African thugs - which is what the UN Human Rights Commission boils down to.
The Bush Administration is now said to be considering using Kofi's "shock" to effect a regime change of its own at the UN. But to whom and to what? I'd be in favour of destroying the UN - or, failing that, at least moving its headquarters to Rwanda, but either of those options would require a level of political will hard to muster in modern sentimental democracies.
The best alternative to the trans‐national jet-set is nothing - or at least nothing formal. When the tsunami hit, the Americans and Australians had troops and relief supplies on the ground within hours and were coordinating their efforts without any global bureaucracy at all. Imagine that: an unprecedented disaster, and yet robust, efficient, compatible, results-oriented nations managed to accomplish more than the international system specifically set up to manage such events. Would it have helped to elect a steering committee with Sudan and Zimbabwe on it? Of course not. But, if the UN wants to hold meetings, hector Washington, steal money and give tacit approval to genocide, let it - and let it sink into irrelevance.
.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/02/06/ixop.html
Would you trust these men with $64bn of your cash? Of course not By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 06/02/2005)
At tough times in my life, with the landlord tossing my clothes and record collection out on to the street, I could have used an aunt like Benon Sevan's. Asked to account for the appearance in his bank account of a certain $160,000, Mr Sevan, executive director of the UN Oil-for-Food programme, said it was a gift from his aunt. Lucky Sevan, eh? None of my aunts ever had that much of the folding stuff on tap.
And nor, it seems, did Mr Sevan's. She lived in a modest two-room flat back in Cyprus and her own bank accounts gave no indication of spare six-figure sums. Nonetheless, if a respected UN diplomat says he got 160,000 bucks from Auntie, we'll just have to take his word for it. Paul Volcker's committee of investigation did plan to ask the old lady to confirm her nephew's version of events, but, before they could, she fell down an elevator shaft and died.
If you're a UN bigshot, or the son of Kofi Annan, or the cousin of Boutros Boutros-Ghali, or any of the other well-connected guys on the Oil-for-Fraud payroll, $160,000 is pretty small beer. But, if you're a starving kid in Ramadi or Nasariyah, it would go quite a long way. Instead, the starving-kid money went a long way in the opposite direction, to the Swiss bank accounts of Saddam's apologists. "The Secretary-General is shocked by what the report has to say about Mr Sevan," declared Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Britain's own Mark Malloch Brown.
That's how bad things are at the UN: even the Brits sound like Claude Rains. Of course, the Secretary-General isn't "shocked" at all. And nor are the media, which is why the major news organisations can barely contain their boredom with the biggest financial scam of all time - bigger than Enron, Worldcom and all the rest rolled into one. If ever there were a dog-bites-man story, "UN Stinkingly Corrupt Shock!" is it.
And, in a way, they have a point: what happened was utterly predictable. If I had $64 billion of my own money, I'd look after it carefully. But give someone $64 billion of other people's money to "process" and it would be surprising if some of it didn't get peeled off en route. Especially if that $64 billion gives you access to a unique supply of specially low-priced oil you can re-sell at market prices. Hire Third World bureaucrats to supervise the "processing" and you can kiss even more of it goodbye. Grant Saddam Hussein the right of approval over the bank that will run the scheme, and it's clear to all that nit-picky book-keeping will not be an overburdensome problem.
In other words, the system didn't fail. This is the transnational system, working as it usually works, just a little more so. One of the reasons I'm in favour of small government is because big government tends to be remote government, and remote government is unaccountable, and, as a wannabe world government, the UN is the remotest and most unaccountable of all. If the sentimental utopian blather ever came true and we wound up with one "world government", from an accounting department point of view, the model will be Nigeria rather than New Hampshire.
That's why Washington has no interest in joining Gordon Brown's newly announced Cash-for-Guilt programme, under which the Chancellor (or, to be more precise, you) has agreed to improve the Afro-kleptocracy's cash flow by transferring 10 per cent of its debt burden to the United Kingdom - a perfect example of the malign combination of empty European gesture-politics and Third World larceny that's been the default mode of progressive transnationalism for far too long. By contrast, consider the splendid John Howard. In announcing Australian's $1 billion tsunami aid package, he was careful to emphasise that he wouldn't be wiring it via the estate of Benon Sevan's late auntie.
If Paul Volcker's preliminary report on Oil-for-Food dealt with the organisation's unofficial interests, the UN's other report of the week accurately captured their blithe insouciance to their official one. As you may have noticed, the good people of Darfur have been fortunate enough not to attract the attention of the arrogant cowboy unilateralist Bush and have instead fallen under the care of the Polly Toynbee-Clare Short-approved multilateral compassion set. So, after months of expressing deep concern, grave concern, deep concern over the graves and deep grave concern over whether the graves were deep enough, Kofi Annan managed to persuade the UN to set up a committee to look into what's going on in Darfur. They've just reported back that it's not genocide.
That's great news, isn't it? For as yet another Annan-appointed UN committee boldly declared in December: "Genocide anywhere is a threat to the security of all and should never be tolerated." So thank goodness this isn't genocide. Instead, it's just 70,000 corpses who all happen to be from the same ethnic group - which means the UN can go on tolerating it until everyone's dead, and Polly and Clare don't have to worry their pretty little heads about it.
That's the transnational establishment's alternative to Bush and Howard: appoint a committee that agrees on the need to do nothing. Thus, a few days ago, the UN Human Rights Commission announced the working group that will decide which complaints will be heard at their annual meeting in Geneva this
spring: the five-nation panel comprises the Netherlands, Hungary, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't bet on them finding room on their crowded agenda for the question of human rights in Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, would you? One of the mystifying aspects of UN worship is the assumption that this embryo world government is a "progressive" concept. It's not. Its squalid geographic voting blocs, which use regional solidarity to inflate the status of nickel'n'dime dictators, are merely a Third World gloss on the Congress of Vienna - a relic of an age when contact between states was confined to their governing elites. In an era of jet travel, internet and debit cards that work in any bank machine from Vancouver to Vilnius to Vanuatu, there are millions of global relationships far better for the long-term health of the planet than using American money to set up Eurowimp talking shops manned by African thugs - which is what the UN Human Rights Commission boils down to.
The Bush Administration is now said to be considering using Kofi's "shock" to effect a regime change of its own at the UN. But to whom and to what? I'd be in favour of destroying the UN - or, failing that, at least moving its headquarters to Rwanda, but either of those options would require a level of political will hard to muster in modern sentimental democracies.
The best alternative to the trans‐national jet-set is nothing - or at least nothing formal. When the tsunami hit, the Americans and Australians had troops and relief supplies on the ground within hours and were coordinating their efforts without any global bureaucracy at all. Imagine that: an unprecedented disaster, and yet robust, efficient, compatible, results-oriented nations managed to accomplish more than the international system specifically set up to manage such events. Would it have helped to elect a steering committee with Sudan and Zimbabwe on it? Of course not. But, if the UN wants to hold meetings, hector Washington, steal money and give tacit approval to genocide, let it - and let it sink into irrelevance.
