From Volume 37, Issue 17 of EIR Online, Published Apr. 30, 2010
Africa News Digest

British Empire Strategy Unchanged: Balkanize Sudan

April 21 (EIRNS)—The City of London-based imperial financial cartel announced its plan to split up Sudan before the April 11-15 national, state, and local elections. London needed the election to fulfill the requirements demanded by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), before the referendum scheduled for next January could take place. London and its allies are doing everything possible to get southern Sudan to vote for secession. The January 2005 CPA settled the protracted, British-engineered conflict between North and South Sudan.

While accepting the election, to pave the way for the referendum, the media reports of the British and their allies are describing the election as flawed, so as not to give any credibility to the government of President Hassan Omar al-Bashir.

The London Financial Times revealed its intention of splitting up Sudan, in an editorial yesterday. It stated that it hoped Jimmy Carter was right when he said that he expects the world to accept the results of the election, despite the technical problems of the elections. The Carter Center had 70 observers in 25 states in Sudan during the election.

The Financial Times stated in an editorial that, "the international community must not lose sight of the bigger goal, which is the referendum," adding bluntly that "A vote for secession ... is now all but certain." It called on its Western allies to join in the campaign for secession of the South.

Even before the elections took place, on April 8, the London Economist stated flatly that, "A flawed election would be better than none, for it would mean progress towards a peaceful north-south split." On the last day of the elections, April 15, the Economist charged that the vote was "rigged in the north, more or less fair in the south." The Guardian on April 18 reported that Sudan "is on the brink of splitting," and went so far to propose a name for South Sudan if the British have their way in promoting its secession: "Republic of the White Nile."

Despite the Western reports that the election fell short of international standards—a range of logistical troubles on the days of the election, intimidation of voters SPLM-ruled South, and problems stemming from the consequences of the rebellion in Darfur, Russia, China, the African Union, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) (a bloc of Sudan's neighbors, which were instrumental in the process that led to the CPA), are not lining up with the British-led attacks on the Sudan government and on the election, all of whom sent observers. And in their view, the election was a success, and a step forward for Sudan.

One example is Russian special envoy to Sudan, Mikhail Margelov, who said that there were only technical flaws at the polls, which did not impact the integrity of the process as a whole. He criticized Western monitors for their assessments made over the weekend, and told the Russian Interfax news agency: "This country is just emerging from a state of war." He also said that the opinion of the EU observers, to the effect that the elections "did not meet the key requirements of the electoral process," were too categorical. Margelov said the elections in Sudan should be judged by African, and not European standards. The Russian official stressed that the reported irregularities did not give enough grounds for casting doubt on the validity of the elections in Sudan. Russia had sent observers to monitor the election, as did China and the African Union, among others.

Some of the northern opposition parties made a show of boycotting the election on April 1, shortly before it took place, claiming the elections were flawed. Gerard Prunier, a French Africa expert who knows Sudan well, and is not a supporter of the ruling NCP, said at a forum in Washington, that the opposition parties pulled out because the election would have shown how weak they are. They no longer have the support of their traditional base, he asserted.

Sudan is facing outbreaks of violence among factions in the South, along with severe food shortages in that region, which will feed into the drive for secession being organized by the British.

How Goldman Sachs Screwed Ghana

April 27 (EIRNS)—An April 20 report from Ghana describes how Ashanti Gold was gobbled up by the British financial cartel, an operation in which Goldman Sachs played the critical inside role.

In 1998, Ashanti Gold was the third-largest gold mining company in the world. The first "black" company on the London Stock Exchange, Ashanti had just purchased the Geita mine in Tanzania, which positioned Ashanti to become even larger.

But, in May 1999, the Treasury of the United Kingdom decided to sell off 415 tons of its gold reserves. With all that gold flooding the world market, the price of gold began to decline. By August 1999, the price of gold had fallen to $252/ounce, the lowest it had been in 20 years, according to the report. Ashanti turned to its financial advisor—Goldman Sachs—who recommended that Ashanti purchase enormous hedge contracts to sell gold at a "locked in" price. Goldman advised Ashanti that the price was going to continue to fall.

But, in addition to being an advisor, Goldman was a worldwide seller of gold, and hedge contracts. One month later, in September 1999, 15 European Banks with whom Goldman Sachs had professional relationships, made a unanimous surprise announcement that all 15 would stop selling gold on world markets for 5 years. Because of the announcement, gold prices immediately rose. Since Ashanti now had contracts with 17 banks to sell gold at a low price, but had to buy at a high price to cover, it was in deep trouble.

Ashanti's stock plummeted, and in the end (2003), it was purchased by its largest African competitor, AngloGold, a British company operating out of South Africa, which bought it for a song. Not surprisingly, Goldman was also the financial advisor to AngloGold.

The operation was summed up in the report in this manner: "The destruction of Ashanti Gold by Goldman Sachs was saturated with fraud and conflicts of interest: Goldman Sachs served as Ashanti's financial advisors; profited from the contracts they designed and marketed for Ashanti; was involved in the manipulation of the gold prices on which the contracts depended; represented Ashanti's creditors when the contracts went bad; and profitted as the Financial Advisors to the company that picked up the Ashanti corpse for pennies on the dollar."

All rights reserved © 2010 EIRNS