Margaret Thatcher’s criminal legacy

Margaret Thatcher

By Finian Cunningham

Hours after the death of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the history books are being re-written and the beatification of the Iron Lady is well underway. 

Current British premier David Cameron praised Lady Thatcher for having “saved Britain” and for making the has-been colonial power “great again”.

Tributes poured forth from French and German leaders, Francoise Hollande and Angela Merkel, while US President Barack Obama said America had lost a “special friend”.

Former American secretary of state Henry Kissinger and former Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev also lamented the loss of “an historic world figure”. Polish ex-president Lech Walesa hailed Margaret Thatcher for having brought down the Soviet Union and Communism.

Such fulsome praise may be expected coming from so many war criminals. But it is instructive of how history is written by the victors and criminals in high office. Obama, Cameron, Hollande and Merkel should all be arraigned and prosecuted for war crimes in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia and Mali, among other places. Kissinger has long evaded justice for over four decades for his role in the US genocide in Southeast Asia during the so-called
Vietnam War in which over three million people were obliterated in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

The British state is to give Thatcher, who died this week aged 87, a full military-honours funeral. The praise, eulogies, wreaths and ceremonies are all self-indictments of association with one of the most ruthless and criminal political figures in modern times.

So, here is a people’s history of Thatcher’s legacy.

She will be remembered for colluding with the most reactionary elements of Rupert Murdoch’s squalid media empire to launch a war over the Malvinas Islands in 1982, a war that caused hundreds of lives and involved the gratuitous sinking of an Argentine warship, the Belgrano,
by a British submarine.

By declaring war, rather than conducting political negotiations with Argentina over Britain’s ongoing colonial possession of the Malvinas, Thatcher salvaged her waning public support in Britain, and the bloodletting helped catapult her into a second term of office in Downing Street. Her political “greatness” that so many Western leaders now eulogize was therefore paid in part by the lives of Argentine and British soldiers, and by bequeathing an ongoing source of conflict in the South Atlantic.

It wasn’t just foreigners that Thatcher declared war on. Armed with her snake-oil economic policies of privatisation, deregulation, unleashing finance capitalism, pump-priming the rich with tax awards subsidised by the ordinary working population, Thatcher declared war on the British people themselves. She famously proclaimed that “there was no such thing as society” and went on to oversee an explosion in the gap between rich and poor and the demolition of social conditions in Britain. That legacy has been amplified by both successive Conservative and Labour governments and is central to today’s social meltdown in Britain - more than two decades after Thatcher resigned. Laughably, David Cameron, a protégé of Thatcher, claims that she “saved” Britain. The truth is Thatcher accelerated the sinking of British capitalism and society at large. What she ordered for the Belgrano has in a very real way come to be realised for British society at large.

During her second term of office in the mid-1980s, the Iron Lady declared war on the “enemy within”. She was referring to Britain’s strongly unionised coal-mining industry. Imagine declaring war on your own population. That is a measure of her pathological intolerance towards others who did not happen to share her obnoxious ideological views - ideological views that have since become exposed as intellectually and morally bankrupt.

For over a year around 1984, her Orwellian mindset and policies starved mining communities in the North of England into submission. Her use of paramilitary police violence also broke the resolve and legitimate rights of these communities. Miners’ leader Arthur Scargill would later be vindicated in the eyes of ordinary people, if not in the eyes of the mainstream media. Britain’s coalmines were systematically shut down, thousands of workers would be made unemployed, and entire communities were thrown on the social scrap heap. All this violence and misery was the price for Thatcher’s ideological war against working people and their political rights.

The class war that Thatcher unleashed in Britain is still raging. The rich have become richer, the poor decidedly more numerous and poorer. The decimation of workers’ rights and the unfettered power given to finance capital were hallmarks of Thatcher’s legacy and are to this day hallmarks of Britain’s current social decay. But that destructive legacy goes well beyond Britain. The rightwing nihilistic capitalism that Thatcher gave vent to was and became a zeitgeist for North America, Europe and globally. The economic malaise that is currently plaguing the world can be traced directly to such ideologues as Margaret Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan.

A final word on Thatcher’s real legacy, as opposed to the fakery from fellow war criminals, is her role in Ireland’s conflict. Her epitaph of “Iron Lady” is often said with admiration or even sneaking regard for her supposed virtues of determination and strength. In truth, her “iron” character was simply malevolent, as can be seen from her policies towards the Irish struggle for independence from Britain. In 1981, 10 Irish republican prisoners, led by a young Belfast man by the name of Bobby Sands, died from hunger strikes. The men died after more than 50 days of refusing prison food because they were demanding to be treated as political prisoners, not as criminals. Thatcher refused to yield to their demands, denouncing them as criminals and callously claiming that they “took their own lives”. No matter that Bobby Sands had been elected by tens of thousands of Irish voters to the British House of Parliament during his hunger strike. He was merely a criminal who deserved to die, according to the cold, unfeeling Thatcher.

As a result of Thatcher’s intransigence to negotiate Irish rights, the violence in the North of Ireland would escalate over the next decade, claiming thousands of lives. As with Las Malvinas dispute with Argentina, Thatcher deliberately took the military option and, with that, countless lives, rather than engage in reasoned, mutual dialogue. Her arrogance and obduracy blinded her to any other possibility.

As the violence gyrated in Ireland, Thatcher would also embrace the criminal policy of colluding with pro-British death squads. Armed,funded and directed by British intelligence, these death squads would in subsequent years kill hundreds of innocent people - with the knowledge and tacit approval of Lady Thatcher. It was a policy of British state terrorism in action, sanctioned by Thatcher. One of those victims was Belfast lawyer Pat Finucane, who was murdered in February 1989. He was shot 12 times in the head in front of his wife and children by a British death squad, after the killers smashed their way into the Finucane home on a Sunday afternoon.

Thus whether in her dealings with Las Malvinas row with Argentina, the British working people or Irish republicans, Margaret Thatcher was an intolerant militarist who always resorted to demagoguery, violence and starvation to get her political way. She was a criminal fascist who is
now proclaimed to be a national hero.

Reports this week say that Thatcher died with Alzheimer’s, the brain-degenerating disease in which the patient loses their faculty for memory. Western leaders, it seems, would also like to erase public memory of Thatcher’s criminal legacy.

Genetic Engineering, Eugenics and the Ideology of the Rich

By Colin Todhunter

Whatever the publicly stated aims of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) sector, and however terrible its impact is on health, the environment and cotton farmers in India, there is a much more sinister side to this industry. 

In order to govern and control a population, apart from the use of violence, people’s consent must be achieved via what Louis Althusser once called ideological state apparatuses: the education system, entertainment, religion, the political system and so on. Noam Chomsky’s book ‘The Manufacture of Consent’ discusses the important role of the media in this, and Antonio Gramsci wrote much about hegemony – the methods used by the dominant class to legitimize their position in the eyes of the ruled over – a kind of ‘consented coercion’ that disguises the true fist of power.

However, possibly the most basic and arguably effective form of social control is eugenics, a philosophy that includes reduced reproductive capacity of ‘less desired’ people.

There is a growing fear that eugenics is being used for the purpose of population control – to get rid of sections of the world population that are ‘surplus to requirements’. In the West, due to automation and the outsourcing of jobs, there is likely to be a large section of the population that will be permanently unemployed or underemployed. In places like China, Africa and India, promoting birth control has been high on the agenda for some decades.

Millionaire US media baron Ted Turner believes a global population of two billion would be ideal and billionaire Bill Gates has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the developing world. Based on the misguided premise that the world is getting overpopulated, fewer people means elites and the better off can reduce the competition for the resources they covert so much and maintain their current high levels of material consumption. Gates has also purchased shares in Monsanto valued at more than $23 million. His agenda is to help Monsanto get their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Africa on a grand scale.

Bill Gates

Here’s where things get interesting. In 2001, Monsanto and Du Pont bought a small biotech company called Epicyte that had created a gene that basically makes the male sperm sterile and the female egg unreceptive. In the US, GM foods are already on the market and unlabeled. The GM sector has spent millions to ensure this remains the case. US citizens thus have no idea of what could be in their food. These foods where not independently tested for their impact on health.

Would you like to know whether you are eating stuff that (according to Professor Seralini of the University of Caen in France) damages health?

Would you like to know if what you are eating contains something that could make you sterile?

Bill Gates’ father has long been involved with Planned Parenthood:

“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that.”

The above quotation comes from a 2003 interview with Bill Gates.

Planned Parenthood was founded on the concept that most human beings are reckless breeders. Gates senior is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a guiding light behind the vision and direction of the Gates Foundation, which is heavily focused on promoting GMOs in Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

 The Gates Foundation has given at least $264.5 million to AGRA. According to a report published by La Via Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) in 2010, 70 percent of AGRA’s grantees in Kenya work directly with Monsanto and nearly 80 percent of the Gates Foundation funding is devoted to biotechnology. The report also explains that the Gates Foundation has pledged $880 million to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a heavy promoter of GMOs.

Rather than embrace a move towards genuine food sovereignty and address the underlying political and economic issues that cause poverty, the Gates Foundation has chosen the promotion of corporate-controlled agriculture which has led to the disempowerment of farmers.

As the GM sector continues to hammer at India’s door, we have every right to be concerned, not only because of the much reported impact of seed monopolies and GMOs’ 

well-documented detrimental effects on health and the environment, but also because of concerns over just which genes may be in the foodstuffs that we eat and are unknown to us.

Researcher F  William Engdahl states that genetic engineering cannot be understood without looking at the global spread of US power. Leading figures in the US financed ‘Green Revolution’ in the agriculture sector of developing countries in order to create new markets for petro-chemical fertilizers and petroleum products, as well as to expand dependency on energy products. Food has now become weaponised to secure global dominance.

The world’s problems are not being caused by overpopulation, but by greed and a system of ownership that ensures wealth flows from bottom to top. It’s not about stopping population growth in its tracks, but about changing a widespread global system and mindset that is based an over reliance on oil and unsustainable depletion of natural resources, with the US being the biggest culprit.

Millionaires like Ted Turner believe it should be a case of carry on consuming regardless, as long as the population is cut. This is the ideology of the rich who regard the rest of humanity as a problem to be ‘dealt with.’ He says there are “too many people using too much stuff.” He couldn’t be more wrong. For instance, developing nations account for more than 80 percent of world population, but consume only about one third of the world’s energy. US citizens constitute 5 percent of the world’s population but consume 24 percent of the world’s energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as two Japanese, six Mexicans, 13 

Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians and 370 Ethiopians (mindfully.org)

So, should we be weary of a hugely politically connected sector that has ownership of technology that allows for the genetic engineering of food and a gene that could be used (or already is) for forced sterilization? Of course we should. This is a sector whose stated objective is to control the world’s food chain and, by implication, the global population.

In today’s technologically-driven world, state-corporate concerns are using the full panoply of hi-tech means to control us. Some decades ago, theorist and social philosopher Herbert Marcuse summed up the problem facing modern society by saying that the capabilities— both intellectual and technological— of contemporary society are immeasurably greater than before, which means that the scope of society’s domination over the individual is also immeasurably greater than ever before. It appears none more so than where the GM sector is concerned.

China Vs America : Which Way for Africa?

Chinese President Xi Jinping By Abdirahman Takhalatakhal

Africa is this century’s most visible economic battle ground for China and the West. But in recent years, this battle has been intensified so much so that it is being waged out in the open. Last year, Hillary Clinton, former U.S. Secretary of State, visited 6 African countries in an effort, among others issue, to curb China’s influence in this rising continent. Recently, China’s new President, Xi jinping, was in Africa visiting Tanzania and then South Africa where he  joined his counterparts from the BRICS economic bloc. Mr. Jinping’s African trip was out to solidify China’s economic interest in the continent, while reassuring the wary African population that China is here is to stay. So the question is: Which economic powerhouse is more beneficial to Africa’s economic growth?

To address this question requires extensive research, which seasoned analysts on Africa agreed is not yet conclusive. But probably the short answer is both.

First, let us glance at what the competing parties are alluding against each other. The West, for example, is accusing China of taking advantage of Africa’s rich natural resources without regards to Africa’s long-term development. Furthermore, the West charges that China’s activities in Africa undermine the realization of good governance, which is a much needed element in the continent. As part of her 11-day tour of Africa in August of 2012, Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State, told a university audience in Senegal that the US was committed to a model of sustainable partnership that adds value, rather than extracts it from Africa. In a statement which was widely interpreted as aimed at China’s disregard of promotion of good governance, Clinton said, America will stand up for democracy and universal human rights even when it might be easier to look the other way and keep resources flowing.

US Vice President Biden (L) and Obama (R)

China, in the meantime, claims that the West is mischaracterizing China’s involvement in Africa. Contrary to the West’s accusations, China says it looks at Africa as a partner, not a poor continent in need of aid with unnecessary strings attached as the West looks at it. China also counters the West’s criticism with its own. It was the West which was only interested in African resources, not China, Lu Shaye, head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s African affairs department, recently told a Hong Kong TV station, in remarks carried on the ministry’s website. Mr. Lu Shaye went further by asking, What have Western countries done for Africa in the 50 years since independence? Nothing. All they have done is criticize China and that is unfair.

During his first trip in Africa since he assumed China’s president, Xi Jinping told his Tanzanian counterpart and host Jakaya Kikwete that China’s involvement in the continent will help Africa’s economic growth. China sincerely hopes to see faster development in African countries and a better life for African people, Xi said in a speech laying out China’s policy on Africa, delivered at a Chinese-funded Conference Center in Dar es Salaam. Renewing an offer of $20 billion of loans to Africa between 2013 and 2015, Xi pledged to help African countries turn resource endowment into development strength and achieve independent and sustainable development.

Meanwhile, at the end of the same week that the Chinese President Xi Jinping began his trip in Africa as president, President Barack Obama hosted a meeting with four African leaders at the White House on Thursday March 28, 2013. These leaders, as the White House sees, are models for the region in terms of good governance, and solid democratic institutions. In his meeting with Ernest Bai Koroma, president of Sierra Leone; Macky Sall, president of Senegal; Joyce Banda, president of Malawi; and Jose Maria Pereira Neves, prime minister of Cape Verde. Obama said, my main message to each of these leaders is that the United States is going to be a strong partner.

He said, in a rare admission that America’s dealing with Africa was donor-recipient basis, not based on the old model in which we are a donor and they are simply a recipient, but a new model that is based on partnership and recognizing that no continent has greater potential or greater upside than the continent of Africa. Obama, in contrast to China’s accusation that the U.S. gives Africa handouts rather than real investments, says that America means business.

How Africans Should Milk the Sino-America Competition

Due to its rich natural resources, Africa is attracting the attention of the two largest economies the world ever saw United States and China. The fact is that both countries are acting on good faith; they want their people to prosper. The question is: What have the African leaders in mind; their interest, or their people’s economic welfare? Yes, there are more democratic African countries now than ever. But the level of corruption is still staggering. For start, the governed African class should demand good governance and respect for individual rights from their governments. And in this front, they, the African people, should lean on United States of America since it is the leader of the free-world.

Africans should also loudly ask their leaders to build twenty-first century infrastructure, including roads, bridges, which will allow them to connect their neighboring countries and beyond. In this global economy, it is competitive advantage to have a better infrastructure, which is a prerequisite to having a dynamic economy. And for this end, the Chinese work on Africa’s infrastructure is visible in many countries in the continent; and therefore, African should seek China’s assistance.

And finally, the most important aspect the Africans should seek is a transfer of knowledge. While Africa is in a position to choose that is before their natural resource is dried-up its leaders should educate tomorrow’s workforce. This is also beneficial to interested foreign countries, including China and the U.S.; and therefore, should invest in Africa’s education system because it is widely agreed upon that the only way to have a solid, dynamic economy is to have an educated workforce as its foundation.

In conclusion, it is safe to say, if the above measures are met, Africa will have a more dynamic, educated, and know-how workforce, because there is no limit to what a free citizen can do and create. Thus, African leaders must take sides: the side of their people that is in great need of education, healthcare, employment and sustainable development. Or, they can fatten their pockets by siding with whichever country that bribes them to simply extract their countries natural resources, in which case if and when any leader chooses the latter, then the responsibility falls upon the people who must demand a change and not give-up until one is realized. Africans must learn to trust themselves, in order for Africa to move forward. And only then will real, long-term economic growth be realized in Africa.

Source:Ocnus.net 2013

Oil: How Could Liberians Settle for Only Five Percent?

Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian President

By Honourable Saka
Liberians heaved a deep sigh of relief when Liberia recently announced to have discovered oil in commercial quantities, joining her West African sisters: Ghana, Nigeria and some others. Oil deposits in the West African coast have existed for decades. In my opinion, there is no discovery of oil anywhere in West Africa, but the exploitation of the oil belt that runs along the coast of the entire region which the oil executives knew about for decades but did not care to build rigs till now as they tried to gain control over the unstable situations of the Middle East at that time.

Africans must not be deceived. The oil scavengers are now looming over West Africa and if we are not careful to choose rightly between the Nigerian and Ghanaian models of exploitation, there will be no real benefit and this political bonanza could definitely be a curse for the Liberian people in the long run.

Obviously, like their Ghanaian neighbours, Liberians look forward to the prosperity that the oil and gas finds will bring to their country. If well managed, the black gold could transform the destiny of the entire country for generations to come through improved living standards.

Unfortunately, these aspirations may turn out to be a nightmare if the people do not rise up to the government to adequately scrutinize the oil agreements and set up a national platform for dialogue on the best way forward, so that together, there will be dialogue to secure a reasonable percentage share (70% and above) for the people whose interest the government claims to serve.

According to a statement issued by the Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Ellen Johnson, the American Oil company, Exxon Mobil will own a whopping 80% of the oil shares discovered in Liberia, while their Canadian neighbours, the Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL), will own 20%. Many people are wondering: where does this place the people of Liberia? What share does the government of Liberia have in this oil deal? The African people would want to know.

Liberian Oil Blocks

Again, why the rush to explore the oil without first putting adequate measures in place to guard against the challenges that may accompany the oil exploration in the near future? Where is the government rushing to? Is President Ellen Johnson considering early retirement in the coming months? Has the government considered building local refineries to process the crude oil or Liberia will follow the Nigerian model where the raw crude is shipped to Europe and the refined product is shipped back to the country at ridiculous prices? Has the government considered training local engineers to take over the management of the oil industry within the shortest possible time? Why must African leaders always allow such sensitive sectors of their economy to be held hostage by a few foreign corporations?

We (Africans) have a major problem. We rush to commission most projects without taking time to plan against the unforeseeable challenges that may likely show up in the near future.

Is Liberia well-prepared to deal with corruption in the oil and gas sector? Is the government prepared to face the angry youth who are likely to take up arms as we see in Nigeria? In Nigeria, many agitated so-called rebel groups rose up and took arms to fight the corruption in the oil and gas sector, a situation which is currently out of control. Will Liberia learn some lessons from Nigeria or as usual, wait unprepared for the problems to come up before they run to NATO for solutions?

Although President Ellen Johnson has not said what would happen to the Liberian share, the President and CEO of the National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL), Dr. Randolph McClain, explained that the negotiating team of the Liberian government secured a 5% citizens participation share in LB-13 and a further 5% royalty on oil produced from wells drilled under water depths of 1500 meters. Angered by the shocking news, Okechuku, a PhD student at Oxford University wondered:

A victim of the Liberian Civil War (Photo by Kuni Takahashi)

 When Liberia was in crisis, did the US and Canada send any help? I’m shocked at how a country's wealth is being giving away for peanuts. Is this the reason why the president was awarded the Nobel Prize some months ago? Ellen Johnson has always been the World Bank’s darling girl anyway. You don’t get a Nobel Peace Award without signing such deals.

The man is absolutely right! Of course that is the price the people pay when our leaders are given such awards by special interest foreign groups. Remember Ellen Johnson was given the Nobel Prize somewhere last year? Yeah, that was when the actual oil deal was sealed. The selfishness of our leaders is the reason for our underdevelopment. Our people must say no to all NGOs that are buying-off our leaders and our independence. It's a shame. How can a country that has suffered over a decade of economic hardship, settle for some 10% royalty in a multi-billion resource like oil?

Is this all that our forefathers died for? Is this the hope and the dream the government sought to build when the people gave out their mandate? But more seriously, how much of this 10% will end up in the offshore accounts of many of these negotiating teams? This still remains unclear.
  
Meanwhile at the moment, although early indications are positive, the exact extent of oil deposits found in the country still remains unknown. Leaders have already settled for peanuts from big oil corporations as they hand over the oil reserves to the western firms with virtually nothing left for the ordinary Liberian in the near future.

The Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL) recently disclosed offering the politicians, a mere U$45m in cash toward the purchase of block 13 of Liberia's oil industry, a move which will see Liberia lose billions of dollars every year to the COPL. I wonder why these politicians will just sell the oil reserves for merely $45m when the actual oil deposit is yet unknown. How many of the poor Liberian families will benefit from the $45m given to the politicians?

Liberian politicians have been blinded by the mere $45millon they received as signature fee, forgetting about the long term financial loses, the environmental damage and all the hardships the country will endure while their foreign donors bag a whopping 95% profit shares on a monthly basis! Why are African leaders keen on the few millions today, while they ignore the billions which the big oil companies will be reaping in the coming years?
 

President Johnson sells off the dignity of liberians

Why are such sensitive agreements held in the corridors of secrecy when the destiny of entire generations depends on them? Why must the good people of Liberia allow a few selfish, greedy and corrupt politicians to negotiate on their behalf in camera?
For a country like Liberia which had been plunged into civil war and suffered decades of economic hardship, seeing the need to put such oil agreements in the public domain, and discussing them in consultation with leaders of the regional block would have been a better decision. But as usual, African leaders never consult their colleagues during such critical moments. Only a few millions into their offshore accounts and the agreement is sealed, leaving the poor masses to their fate.
Will Liberia Repeat Nigeria and Ghana’s Mistakes?

In Nigeria for instance, as western oil companies loot some $140 Billion a year of the country’s oil, two-thirds of the country’s 160 million people live on less than $2 a day. Western oil companies are literally looting Nigeria’s oil, paying as little as a 9% royalty. Simply put, at $100 a barrel, the western oil companies get $91 and Nigeria only gets $9. Or more shockingly, Big Oil makes $140 billion a year vs. Nigeria’s $10 Billion, writes Thomas C. Mountain as he reveals the shocking reasons why many Nigerians remain the poorest in Africa despite the country’s plenteous oil and gas.
Ghana's Oil Has Been Sold Off Already.

Former Prez of  Ghana John Kufuor, another puppet of the West

 Today in Ghana, when Tullow Oils makes a profit of $3 billion, Ghana gets only $3 million out of that. Can this agreement truly better the lives of Ghanaians? Yet, former president Kuffuor, the man who recently suggested that bad leadership is Africa’s problem, was the same president who signed this oil agreement with foreign firms. This is what happens when foreign corporations are allowed to secretly finance our politicians into power during election periods!

African citizenry must rebel against such dangerous oil agreements. Legislations must be introduced to ban all politicians from sourcing for funds from abroad during elections periods. The country’s planners should not neglect other sectors of the economy. They should diversify to avoid exogenous shocks due to volatility in the prices of oil on the international markets.

Privatization of state resources must cease with immediate effect. Governments cannot continue with the habit of selling off every strategic resource without adequate long term planning. African leaders must train more engineers to help build our industries so that we can manage the exploitation of our resources. Africans must develop the habit of managing their own affairs.
 

Late Venezuelan President Commandante Hugo Chavez

This is the beginning of a long walk to perpetual poverty and economic impoverishment in Liberia as Big Oil corporations begin to loot Liberian worth. For very $100billion of profits made by the oil corporations, Liberians will only get some few $100 million donations.

I miss Chavez, I miss Gadhafi. These leaders showed oil-rich Africans the way, but due to corruption and selfishness, our leaders will not follow their steps. Ghanaians have already settled for some 10% share in their most-talked about oil. Nigerians have quietly accepted 9% for more than 50yrs. Liberians must never settle for 5%! Anything less than 70% must be rejected by the people.

This is the only way we can fight poverty and say enough to the foreign corporations who continue to enrich themselves with African resources while the African people wallow in poverty.

It’s time we said enough is enough!

Source: Ocnus.net