Many developing countries that are rich in natural resources are even poorer than other countries that are less well endowed. This is because natural resources serve as an enticing prize to fight over. Many countries with significant mineral deposits or valuable cash crops are in the grip of repressive or corrupt regimes or torn apart by armed conflict. This problem has come to be known as ``the resource curse.''
Now a broad movement has emerged to tackle the resource curse. Global Witness, a small British non-governmental organization (NGO), acted as the pioneer when it campaigned to close the Thai/Cambodian border to Khmer Rouge timber exports, ending illegal trade in teak and other rare hardwoods. The resulting loss of revenue played a key role in the demise of that genocidal organization.
Global Witness next turned to the problem of diamonds in Angola, and a campaign against "conflict diamonds" led to the Kimberley Process of Certification. Last year, Global Witness, together with more than 60 groups from around the world, launched "Publish What You Pay," a campaign to force resource companies to disclose their payments to developing country governments. It was endorsed by the British government, and many oil and mining companies responded positively.
I am proud to be associated with Global Witness and the "Publish What You Pay" campaign. But "Publish What You Pay" is only the first step in tackling the resource curse. Governments must disclose what they receive and, even more importantly, they must be held accountable for the way they use their revenues. That is what Caspian Revenue Watch, which I also support, seeks to accomplish.
Caspian Revenue Watch aims to build the capacity of civil society in the new states surrounding the Caspian Sea, through research, training, and partnerships, to monitor the collection and expenditure of government revenues from the extractive sector. Greater accountability could result in a greater contribution to meeting the UN's Millennium Development Goals than most other initiatives.
Here the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline sets a valuable example. The World Bank financed the project on the condition that Chad commits itself to complete transparency and uses the revenues for poverty reduction. A stringent supervisory mechanism was put in place with civil society participation; almost immediately, the Chad government was caught diverting a US$25 million signature bonus for arms purchases. Unfortunately the mechanism expires when oil actually starts flowing. Obviously that arrangement must be extended.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced an Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last September. The need for greater transparency in the management of resource revenues was endorsed by the G8 declaration at Evian in June. This was followed by a high-level meeting hosted by the UK government in London in June and attended by governments, major oil and mining companies, international financial institutions, and representatives of civil society.
The overwhelming majority of the 59 participants at that meeting endorsed the principles of EITI. A few producing countries volunteered to be pilot cases in which the government and all the companies involved would disclose revenues and their use according to templates designed by the UK team. The volunteers were East Timor, Ghana, Mozambique and Sierra Leone, with other important resource-rich countries indicating that they may follow.
This is a promising step forward, but there is always a danger that a declaration of principles and a voluntary approach will turn into a sham. Public opinion must be mobilized to keep governments and companies to their promises. It is civil society that has moved the process this far, and it must become even more deeply engaged, particularly in the producing countries, to maintain the forward momentum and ensure that the movement succeeds in lifting the resource curse once and for all.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute. Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.