The Central Bank of The Gambia on behalf of the Gambia Government Tuesday issue a 3-year fixed coupon bond. The bond will be denominated in Dalasi and will be issued at
par. The bond shall be issued at a fixed coupon rate of 14.5%p.a. The fixed coupon rate shall carry throughout the term of the security.
The minimum bid will be GMD5.0million in multiples of GMD50,000.00. At the week’s auction, all the tenures with the exception of the 91-day (s/s) were massively over- subscribed. The 91/day bill lost 31bps, the 182/day 38bps and the 1 year note 45bps to close the week at 10.65%, 11.61% and 12.99% respectively.
Dalasi Directionless
The local currency had mixed fortunes on the interbank and parallel markets. Whilst it appreciated on the Interbank market, gaining 105butus against the pound sterling and 167bututs against the Euro, on the Parallel Market, it depreciated against all the major currencies. It lost 17butus against the U.S. Dollar, 38bututs against the Pound Sterling and 20butus against the Euro.
Dalasi Interbank Mid Exchange Rates
Dollar 26.80
Pound 42.45
Euro 36.55
CFA 285.00
Parallel Mid Exchange Rates
Dollar 26.75
Pound 43.63
Euro 39.70
CFA 295.00
Tuesday 23 February 2010
Saturday 20 February 2010
Gambia Gets Over US$7 Million From IMF
The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Friday completed the sixth review of the Gambia’s economic performance under a program supported by the Extended Credit Facility (ECF).
by PK Jarju
The Board also approved a waiver for the nonobservance of the fiscal performance criterion based on corrective actions, notably the government’s 2010 budget approved by the National Assembly, which aims for a near-zero basic balance. The Board’s decision allows the government to request a further disbursement amounting to SDR 2.0 million (about US$ 3.0million), bringing total disbursements under the ECF to the Gambia to SDR 20.2 million (about US$30.8 million).
The Executive Board also approved an extension for one year and an augmentation by SDR 4.67 million (about US$ 7.1 million) of The Gambia's ECF arrangement, originally approved on February 21, 2007.
At the conclusion of the Executive Board's discussion on The Gambia, Mr. Murilo Portugal, Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, stated:
“The Gambian authorities are pursuing satisfactory economic policies that have contributed to robust economic growth and low inflation. However, even after extensive debt relief, The Gambia remains at high risk of debt distress. High yields on Treasury Bills—largely as a result of fiscal slippages and the government’s recourse to domestic borrowing—have added to the domestic debt burden. The government’s efforts to strengthen its debt management strategy are, therefore, welcome. Until the debt burden is reduced, it will remain important to continue to limit external borrowing to highly concessional loans.
“The government’s budget for 2010 appropriately targets a near-zero basic balance that will return The Gambia to a path of declining domestic debt. Fiscal restraint will ease pressure on T-Bill yields and eventually generate fiscal savings for other spending priorities. Disciplined budget execution will be key to achieve these results, and the government’s new action plan to improve public financial management will help achieve such discipline.
“The authorities are committed to maintain low inflation and to take steps to ease pressure on interest rates. The reinforced banking supervisory framework, including the phased-in increase in the minimum capital requirement, will contribute to ensuring continued soundness in the banking system.”
by PK Jarju
The Board also approved a waiver for the nonobservance of the fiscal performance criterion based on corrective actions, notably the government’s 2010 budget approved by the National Assembly, which aims for a near-zero basic balance. The Board’s decision allows the government to request a further disbursement amounting to SDR 2.0 million (about US$ 3.0million), bringing total disbursements under the ECF to the Gambia to SDR 20.2 million (about US$30.8 million).
The Executive Board also approved an extension for one year and an augmentation by SDR 4.67 million (about US$ 7.1 million) of The Gambia's ECF arrangement, originally approved on February 21, 2007.
At the conclusion of the Executive Board's discussion on The Gambia, Mr. Murilo Portugal, Deputy Managing Director and Acting Chair, stated:
“The Gambian authorities are pursuing satisfactory economic policies that have contributed to robust economic growth and low inflation. However, even after extensive debt relief, The Gambia remains at high risk of debt distress. High yields on Treasury Bills—largely as a result of fiscal slippages and the government’s recourse to domestic borrowing—have added to the domestic debt burden. The government’s efforts to strengthen its debt management strategy are, therefore, welcome. Until the debt burden is reduced, it will remain important to continue to limit external borrowing to highly concessional loans.
“The government’s budget for 2010 appropriately targets a near-zero basic balance that will return The Gambia to a path of declining domestic debt. Fiscal restraint will ease pressure on T-Bill yields and eventually generate fiscal savings for other spending priorities. Disciplined budget execution will be key to achieve these results, and the government’s new action plan to improve public financial management will help achieve such discipline.
“The authorities are committed to maintain low inflation and to take steps to ease pressure on interest rates. The reinforced banking supervisory framework, including the phased-in increase in the minimum capital requirement, will contribute to ensuring continued soundness in the banking system.”
Friday 19 February 2010
Independence? What Independence?
By Baba Galleh Jallow
In a classic work of historical and political theory, the German philosopher of history Reinhart Koselleck discourses a “space of experience” and “horizon of expectation” that may be used to chart the trajectory of historical evolution. Koselleck suggests that the past, the present, and the future are all part of a single movement of historical time within which society is embedded. Today’s “space of experience” was yesterday’s “horizon of expectation.” In other words, all human actions in the present are informed by past experience and motivated by future expectation. It is within this framework of historical temporality that I propose to examine the idea of African independence, which, I will argue, represents a myth for the great majority of Africans on the continent.
During the colonial period, nationalist leaders and their peoples shared a common horizon of expectation as a result of their common interest in ending colonial rule. This horizon of expectation was one of freedom from colonial oppression and the attainment of human dignity for all. Both leaders and people looked forward to a day when they shall all be free and equal, when exploitation and political oppression shall be a thing of the past, when together, they shall forge a nation of sovereign, proud and independent peoples. Their common space of experience under colonial rule was one of blatant abuse and near bondage to the whims, caprices and interests of a distant power that had no interest in the advancement of African peoples, in spite of loud protestations to the contrary. Thus, the struggle for independence was waged on a manifesto of freedom and equality that held lofty promises of emancipation for the peoples of the colonies.
Today, about five decades later, the bright horizon of expectation for which ordinary people struggled remains elusive. Millions of people across the continent remain oppressed, in some cases, more oppressed than their forbears and ancestors were by the colonial powers. The horizon of expectation ostensibly shared by the nationalist leaders and the people remains real for the people, but now represents a horizon of fear and insecurity for their leaders. Ideas of freedom and equality that were deployed to fight colonial rule have become taboo to the eyes, ears, and minds of African leaders because they threaten their power and privileges.
Like the colonial rulers before them, African leaders of the post-colonial period have no intention of facilitating the realization of a society of free and equal citizens. Capitalizing on the alleged otherness of African people that make them incapable and unsuited for living in a world of equality and freedom on one hand, and choosing to perpetuate the oppressive culture of the colonial system on the other hand, African leaders of the post-independence era continue to treat their peoples as if they are still colonized. And indeed they are – by their own pockets of greedy political cliques whose only interest is the perpetuation of their own selfish agendas.
The evidence for an argument against the reality of true independence for African peoples is overwhelming. The very structures of the colonial state remain in place. Even the buildings and residences of the colonial governments continue to be occupied, unchanged, by most African governments. The boundaries, divisions and districts demarcated by the colonial rulers remain largely unchanged. And the coercive methods and approaches deployed to oppress the African people have simply been rendered more efficient at what it does, and redeployed against the African people.
Poorly trained and armed colonial security forces have been replaced by brutal professional militaries, secret police and insidious surveillance mechanisms - all of these placed at the beck and calling of the a state whose arch enemies have become its very own people. Indeed, one can talk of a “war against society” that has been consistently waged by African governments against their peoples since the departure of the European colonizers. Rather than becoming the agent of peace and freedom for its people, the African state has become a brutal agent of conflict and bondage for its people.
Across the continent, ineffectual governments headed by brutal dictators make it a point to whip up public euphoria every now and then in the name of independence celebrations. Ironically, some of the most telling marks of colonial rule are displayed during these celebrations.
The president, who has conveniently replaced the colonial governor and monarch, perches on a high platform, bedecked in shining garb often glittering with the insignia of naked power. Behind him stand stone-faced and aggressive bodyguards to protect him from his own people. Around him are ranged the various dignitaries and privileged cream – often all rotten to the core – of an oppressed society.
For hundreds of meters below the elevated platform of the powerful and the privileged, the powerless and often sadly clueless crowds yell and gaze at the performance of banal power, to the accompaniment of ear splitting drumming and dancing in praise of an equally clueless despot. And then the ceremonies begin. The various symbols of the imperial spectacle - those archaic invented neo-traditions of the colonial system, originally designed to showcase the power of the colonial monarch and condition the minds of the subject peoples to unquestioning loyalty – are now deployed in even greater grandeur.
The army and police bands come marching in perfect order, beating their booming drums, and blowing their sonorous trombones to the accompaniment of clapping shiny boots. Ahead of them marches the master sergeant with the swishing sword shouting oh hoch! Making the soldiers and police turn their eyes right and salute that fat, grinning embodiment of banal state power.
After these come the school children holding their institutional banners and also doing the eyes right! Then come the scouts and all the other uniformed symbols of fake sovereignty. After the march past, everyone stands erect and the national anthem is sung, now replacing God Save the King! And then the president-cum-monarch gives his address to the nation in which he extols the prowess of the African peoples in defeating colonialism and attaining independence – an independence that for millions of ordinary Africans remains a very insidious myth – a socially useful lie that is deployed as occasion demands for the convenience of the new oppressors.
Independence is about much more than the building of schools, hospitals, universities, roads, televisions, radio stations, telecommunications facilities, and other institutions that are now cited as signs of sovereign development. In time, the colonial powers would have built these anyway. They would have had to. They had done so elsewhere.
Independence, above everything else, suggests independence from oppression; it suggests freedom of expression and association –freedom from fear of the state; it suggests the right of the people to better living conditions; it suggests, above all perhaps, the existence of a state whose primary role is that of servant to the enlightened and empowered people of a sovereign nation. In short, independence requires strict adherence to all those lofty ideals for which the African people demanded freedom from colonial bondage, which are ensconced in all our national constitutions and which, sadly, are conveniently by-passed and neglected by those who claim to be governing in the name of the oppressed African people. Short of this, independence remains a very ugly myth – a socially useful lie – for the overwhelming majority of African peoples across the continent.
In a classic work of historical and political theory, the German philosopher of history Reinhart Koselleck discourses a “space of experience” and “horizon of expectation” that may be used to chart the trajectory of historical evolution. Koselleck suggests that the past, the present, and the future are all part of a single movement of historical time within which society is embedded. Today’s “space of experience” was yesterday’s “horizon of expectation.” In other words, all human actions in the present are informed by past experience and motivated by future expectation. It is within this framework of historical temporality that I propose to examine the idea of African independence, which, I will argue, represents a myth for the great majority of Africans on the continent.
During the colonial period, nationalist leaders and their peoples shared a common horizon of expectation as a result of their common interest in ending colonial rule. This horizon of expectation was one of freedom from colonial oppression and the attainment of human dignity for all. Both leaders and people looked forward to a day when they shall all be free and equal, when exploitation and political oppression shall be a thing of the past, when together, they shall forge a nation of sovereign, proud and independent peoples. Their common space of experience under colonial rule was one of blatant abuse and near bondage to the whims, caprices and interests of a distant power that had no interest in the advancement of African peoples, in spite of loud protestations to the contrary. Thus, the struggle for independence was waged on a manifesto of freedom and equality that held lofty promises of emancipation for the peoples of the colonies.
Today, about five decades later, the bright horizon of expectation for which ordinary people struggled remains elusive. Millions of people across the continent remain oppressed, in some cases, more oppressed than their forbears and ancestors were by the colonial powers. The horizon of expectation ostensibly shared by the nationalist leaders and the people remains real for the people, but now represents a horizon of fear and insecurity for their leaders. Ideas of freedom and equality that were deployed to fight colonial rule have become taboo to the eyes, ears, and minds of African leaders because they threaten their power and privileges.
Like the colonial rulers before them, African leaders of the post-colonial period have no intention of facilitating the realization of a society of free and equal citizens. Capitalizing on the alleged otherness of African people that make them incapable and unsuited for living in a world of equality and freedom on one hand, and choosing to perpetuate the oppressive culture of the colonial system on the other hand, African leaders of the post-independence era continue to treat their peoples as if they are still colonized. And indeed they are – by their own pockets of greedy political cliques whose only interest is the perpetuation of their own selfish agendas.
The evidence for an argument against the reality of true independence for African peoples is overwhelming. The very structures of the colonial state remain in place. Even the buildings and residences of the colonial governments continue to be occupied, unchanged, by most African governments. The boundaries, divisions and districts demarcated by the colonial rulers remain largely unchanged. And the coercive methods and approaches deployed to oppress the African people have simply been rendered more efficient at what it does, and redeployed against the African people.
Poorly trained and armed colonial security forces have been replaced by brutal professional militaries, secret police and insidious surveillance mechanisms - all of these placed at the beck and calling of the a state whose arch enemies have become its very own people. Indeed, one can talk of a “war against society” that has been consistently waged by African governments against their peoples since the departure of the European colonizers. Rather than becoming the agent of peace and freedom for its people, the African state has become a brutal agent of conflict and bondage for its people.
Across the continent, ineffectual governments headed by brutal dictators make it a point to whip up public euphoria every now and then in the name of independence celebrations. Ironically, some of the most telling marks of colonial rule are displayed during these celebrations.
The president, who has conveniently replaced the colonial governor and monarch, perches on a high platform, bedecked in shining garb often glittering with the insignia of naked power. Behind him stand stone-faced and aggressive bodyguards to protect him from his own people. Around him are ranged the various dignitaries and privileged cream – often all rotten to the core – of an oppressed society.
For hundreds of meters below the elevated platform of the powerful and the privileged, the powerless and often sadly clueless crowds yell and gaze at the performance of banal power, to the accompaniment of ear splitting drumming and dancing in praise of an equally clueless despot. And then the ceremonies begin. The various symbols of the imperial spectacle - those archaic invented neo-traditions of the colonial system, originally designed to showcase the power of the colonial monarch and condition the minds of the subject peoples to unquestioning loyalty – are now deployed in even greater grandeur.
The army and police bands come marching in perfect order, beating their booming drums, and blowing their sonorous trombones to the accompaniment of clapping shiny boots. Ahead of them marches the master sergeant with the swishing sword shouting oh hoch! Making the soldiers and police turn their eyes right and salute that fat, grinning embodiment of banal state power.
After these come the school children holding their institutional banners and also doing the eyes right! Then come the scouts and all the other uniformed symbols of fake sovereignty. After the march past, everyone stands erect and the national anthem is sung, now replacing God Save the King! And then the president-cum-monarch gives his address to the nation in which he extols the prowess of the African peoples in defeating colonialism and attaining independence – an independence that for millions of ordinary Africans remains a very insidious myth – a socially useful lie that is deployed as occasion demands for the convenience of the new oppressors.
Independence is about much more than the building of schools, hospitals, universities, roads, televisions, radio stations, telecommunications facilities, and other institutions that are now cited as signs of sovereign development. In time, the colonial powers would have built these anyway. They would have had to. They had done so elsewhere.
Independence, above everything else, suggests independence from oppression; it suggests freedom of expression and association –freedom from fear of the state; it suggests the right of the people to better living conditions; it suggests, above all perhaps, the existence of a state whose primary role is that of servant to the enlightened and empowered people of a sovereign nation. In short, independence requires strict adherence to all those lofty ideals for which the African people demanded freedom from colonial bondage, which are ensconced in all our national constitutions and which, sadly, are conveniently by-passed and neglected by those who claim to be governing in the name of the oppressed African people. Short of this, independence remains a very ugly myth – a socially useful lie – for the overwhelming majority of African peoples across the continent.
Tuesday 2 February 2010
Copenhagen ’s climate finance – six key questions
Press release:
Unanswered questions threaten to breed mistrust in the promises of climate-change funding that governments made in the Copenhagen Accord at December’s UN summit, says a paper published today by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
In the Copenhagen Accord developed countries pledged US$30 billion over the three years from 2010 to 2013 and US$100 billion a year from 2020, for developing countries to tackle climate change.
“However, it is far from clear where the funding will come from, if it is genuinely new and additional, and how it will be allocated and channelled?,” says co-author Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow in IIED’s climate change group. “The paper raises six key questions that will need to be answered.”
Huq’s co-authors are Timmons Roberts, who is Director of Environmental Studies at Brown University in the United States , and Martin Stadelmann, a researcher at the Center for International and Comparative Studies, ETH and University of Zurich , Switzerland .
"Critics are claiming that much of the promise made at Copenhagen will be met with 'recycled aid,' says Roberts.
"Too many treaties have faltered as promises go unmet, and we cannot afford this to happen with climate change,” he adds. “To meet these critics there needs to be much broader discussion of what should count as climate finance, and how it will be monitored and tracked."
Unanswered questions threaten to breed mistrust in the promises of climate-change funding that governments made in the Copenhagen Accord at December’s UN summit, says a paper published today by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).
In the Copenhagen Accord developed countries pledged US$30 billion over the three years from 2010 to 2013 and US$100 billion a year from 2020, for developing countries to tackle climate change.
“However, it is far from clear where the funding will come from, if it is genuinely new and additional, and how it will be allocated and channelled?,” says co-author Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow in IIED’s climate change group. “The paper raises six key questions that will need to be answered.”
Huq’s co-authors are Timmons Roberts, who is Director of Environmental Studies at Brown University in the United States , and Martin Stadelmann, a researcher at the Center for International and Comparative Studies, ETH and University of Zurich , Switzerland .
"Critics are claiming that much of the promise made at Copenhagen will be met with 'recycled aid,' says Roberts.
"Too many treaties have faltered as promises go unmet, and we cannot afford this to happen with climate change,” he adds. “To meet these critics there needs to be much broader discussion of what should count as climate finance, and how it will be monitored and tracked."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)