In the run-up to release of the Post-2015 development framework, the Sustainable Development Goals, one concept has come up several times: the differential responsibilities of developed and developing countries. According to the Open Working Group tasked with drafting the proposed Goals and associated indicators, “Each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and the role of national policies, domestic resources and development strategies cannot be overemphasized. Developing countries need additional resources for sustainable development” (emphasis mine). Thus, “developed countries” will be financing the sustainable development of “developing countries.” Which is correct and proper. But how to distinguish between a developed country and a developing country?
Ask any development professional to name all of the developing countries and he or she will produce a list that mostly agrees with any other development professional’s list. I would assume that we can agree as a community on about 75 – 80% of the countries that would qualify as “developing.” It’s on the margins between “developing” and “developed” that we might disagree. For example, there are more poor people in India than anywhere else in the world, but India’s economy is one of the largest in the world. Is India developed or developing? Are Kenya and Nigeria with two of the three largest economies in Sub-Saharan Africa developed countries, like South Africa, or developing countries like their immediate neighbors? These are the debates that will consume much of the negotiations as countries try to position themselves to benefit from the resources that are made available to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. There will be many good and reasonable arguments on both sides as the status of these and other countries are decided. However, we will not have a long time for these debates as the final Goals will be approved in less than a year. Therefore, I propose a simple test to determine whether or not a country should be classified as “developed” or “developing”: Does the country sustain a Maserati or Ferrari dealership?
This question came to me when I was working in El Salvador and learned that a new Maserati dealership was opening in San Salvador. At first I was dismayed at the thought that Maserati would even consider opening a dealership in a country which had only recently suffered civil war and natural disasters, but then I figured that the bigwigs back in Italy had done their homework and knew that the conditions in El Salvador were ripe for sales. As such, we in the development community can use the presence of Italian super car dealerships, specifically Maserati, Ferrari or Lamborghini, as a marker for certain preconditions in a country, but we’ll keep the name “Maserati Theory of Development” because Maserati was the inspiration.
In order for a country to have a Maserati, Ferrari or Lamborghini dealership, we can reasonably assume the following:
- There is a cohort of individuals in the country who can actually afford enough of the cars to make the investment in a dealership (as opposed to one-by-one imports) a reasonable business decision;
- The quality of roads and infrastructure, especially road repair, in the country are high enough not to damage a car with a low chassis;
- Skilled workers are sufficient to conduct maintenance on the vehicles;
- The security situation is stable enough that luxury car drivers are not instantly targeted for theft;
- Banking system is secure enough to allow for payment transfers to be made reliably, both within the country and back to Italy;
- This would not be the first luxury car dealership to open in a country. That would be Mercedes.
So, what countries should be considered “developed” countries under the Maserati Theory? Below is a list of all countries with a Maserati, Ferrari or Lamborghini dealership according to the companies’ websites (Maserati; Lamborghini; Ferrari). All countries with a Maserati dealership also have a Ferrari dealership; countries in bold have a Lamborghini dealer only. The numbers next to the countries are their rankings on the 2014 Human Development Index. Worth noting, the “most developed” country, Norway, does not have a Maserati, Ferrari or Lamborghini dealership…
- Australia 2
- Switzerland 3
- Netherlands 4
- United States 5
- Germany 6
- New Zealand 7
- Canada 8
- Singapore 9
- Denmark 10
- Sweden 12
- United Kingdom 14
- South Korea 15
- Japan 17
- Israel 19
- France 20
- Austria 21
- Belgium 21
- Slovenia 25
- Italy 26
- Spain 27
- Czech Republic 28
- Greece 29
- Qatar 31
- Cyprus 32
- Estonia 33
- Saudi Arabia 34
- Poland 35
- United Arab Emirates 40
- Portugal 41
- Hungary 43
- Bahrain 44
- Kuwait 46
- Argentina 49
- Romania 54
- Oman 56
- Russian Federation 57
- Malaysia 62
- Mauritius 63
- Lebanon 65
- Panama 65
- Venezuela 67
- Turkey 69
- Mexico 71
- Azerbaijan 76
- Jordan 77
- Brazil 79
- Ukraine 83
- Thailand 89
- China 91
- Dominican Republic 102
- Indonesia 108
- Egypt 110
- Philippines 117
- South Africa 118
- Vietnam 121
- Morocco 129
- India 135
- Taiwan n/a
- Monaco n/a
So, check this list next time a country claims to be “developing” and in need of multi-lateral or bi-lateral assistance…
Michael P. Moore
December 31, 2014
moe (at) landminesinafrica (dot) org
Small confession: I like “Do they know it’s Christmas?” and will probably buy the Band-Aid 30 single. It’s a decent pop song with a few good hooks and the Band-Aid 25 version wisely ditched the synthesizers for electric guitars. As a depiction of Africa, it’s so laughably false as to stagger the imagination. Lines like “Tonight, thank god it’s them and not you;” “Where the only water flowing, is the bitter sting of tears;” and the repeated “Feed the world” are massive failures of fact but reflect Bob Geldof’s bombast and the simple point he was trying to make in 1984: “Give us your fucking money!”
Since Bob Geldof announced Band-Aid 30, I’ve seen a lot of commentary about how the song is dated, it contributes to a false stereotype of Africa and Africans, it takes away from other charitable ventures, Geldof’s a smug bastard whose just trying to stay relevant, et cetera. And this is all very true. But it should not take away from the fact that money raised by Band-Aid 30 will do some good and the awareness-raising that goes along with the single will do much more.
Band-Aid 30 might, might raise US $10 million. The United States government has discussed allocating $6 billion. But Band-Aid does two things the US government cannot: 1) it gets people to contribute to global development challenges who would otherwise not do so, and 2) it’s a gateway drug for future development professionals.
Bob Geldof is not a dumb man. He knows the lyrics aren’t true, but this is the fourth release of the single and each time he’s released it, the song has topped the British music charts and raised money and awareness for what are fairly complex issues like politically-engineered famines and multilateral debt relief. Band-Aid also gives people a simple answer to the age-old question of “What can ordinary people do about extraordinary problems?” Simple: buy the record (or probably MP3 file or iTunes single these days) and feel good about yourself. People who do not otherwise give to global charities will buy the Band-Aid 30 single and those dollars will go to fight Ebola. That’s a pretty good outcome. Is it as good as giving directly to Doctors without Borders or Samaritan’s Purse or the other organizations on the ground in West Africa right now? No. But my guess is the people who buy Band-Aid 30 weren’t going to give money to those organizations. So if the option is not giving anything to fight Ebola and buying Band-Aid 30, then Band-Aid 30 is the preferable option.
But what Band-Aid 30 will also do is also engage people. How many people will read about the US’s contribution? Not many. How many will buy the Band-Aid single? Many, many more. Some of the people who buy or listen to the single will want to learn more about Ebola and the health systems in West Africa. Will this be a large number? No. But these will become the people who support the MSFs of the world. I clearly remember listening to Band-Aid and Live Aid in 1984 and 1985 and that sparked a lifelong interest in international development. My guess is there are many other development professionals for whom Band-Aid was their gateway drug to global issues. People need to start somewhere and Band-Aid is an invitation to do so. People who buy the single will watch the documentaries and the news reporting with a little more interest and care and learn about the realities of the situation.
So it’s okay to buy the Band-Aid 30 single; but also send MSF a much bigger donation…
Michael P. Moore
November 14, 2014
moe (at) landminesinafrica (dot) org
With the teams for the 2014 World Cup Finals in Brazil set (BBC News), it should come as no surprise to anyone that Somalia is not one of the 32 participants. Algeria, Cameroon, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire and Nigeria will represent Africa and Ghana will likely be one of the favorites. Somalia did not field a team during the qualifying rounds due to prohibitions against playing and watching football issued by Al Shabaab which controlled most of Somalia until last year. However, Somalia will be able to participate in qualifying for the next African Cup of Nations and the next World Cup, participation that seemed almost impossible just two years ago.
In 2011, as part of its campaign to impose control and its own version of Sharia on Somalia, Al Shabaab banned all watching of football, on television and in person. Al Shabaab threatened to punish any who defied their “order against bad traditions” (The Somalia Report). This ban followed Al Shabaab’s bombing of two nightclubs in Kampala, Uganda on the night of the World Cup Final in Johannesburg in 2010 which killed 74 people and injured dozens more (BBC News). These bans and attacks were not about football or about Islam, but about demonstrating Al Shabaab’s total control in Somalia and its ability to attack those who opposed the group.
With the success of the African Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the military support received by the United Nations-backed government from Ethiopia and Kenya, portions of Somalia have been liberated from Al Shabaab. Al Shabaab still holds sway in much of the country, but Mogadishu, Kismayo and several other cities are under the control of the Somali government led by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Development projects have re-started and a re-invigorated AMISOM force will soon launch another campaign against Al Shabaab. The narrative of Somalia has changed from the World’s Worst Failed State (a title soon to be taken by the Central African Republic) to a security-challenged partner in East Africa. Somalia is by no means out of the woods as near daily stories of Al Shabaab attacks demonstrate the continuing threat, but where the international community once saw a hopeless situation, it can now see a viable state in the not-too-distant future.
With liberation from Al Shabaab has come football. It’s not great football, Somalia is currently ranked 201st in the world just behind those footballing powers of the British Virgin Islands and Andorra and just ahead of neighboring Djibouti and South Sudan (FIFA), but in addition to playing its first international matches in years, a domestic league has resumed. With eight teams and a completely renovated Banadir Stadium in Mogadishu (paid for by FIFA who has been asked to fund renovations of other stadiums), Somalis can choose to watch football (Sabahi) and thousands chose to come out and watch the opening match of the season (won by Heegan, 3-2 over Gaadiidka). That choice is the important element. Other outlets are talking about football’s ability to be a peace-building tool which is important (RFI), but just having to opportunity to play and watch football should be the story. Among the 20,000 spectators in the stands at a game over the weekend were many women, a mingling of the sexes also banned by Al Shabaab (Bloomberg News). In addition to the new domestic league games, the Council of East and Central Africa Football Associations (CECAFA) is exploring the possibility of hosting a youth tournament in Somalia with the participation of teams from the member associations, including the countries that have supported the AMISOM peacekeepers, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya and Burundi (RBC Radio).
Side note, the Banadir Stadium is not the Mogadishu Stadium that has been used many times over the last 20 years as a military staging site including by the United Nations peacekeepers that were called in to rescue the US Army Rangers and Special Forces operators after the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993. Banadir Stadium was severely damaged by mortar fire in 2009 when Somali government forces attacked Al Shabaab members who were using the stadium as a base. Banadir Stadium now has an astro-turf pitch and VIP seating.
Football in Somalia is a sign of belief on the part of the Somali people that conditions are improving. After 20 years of conflict, famine and dislocation, it’s good just to be able to enjoy a game. Somalis believe that they will be safe at the stadium; they have disposable income to afford a ticket; they feel there is value in entertainment. The mere fact that a game can be played shows that change has happened in Somalia, or at least in the capitol. Over the coming years, the Somali government, neighboring states and the international community must consolidate the gains that have been made, but in the meantime, play ball.
After the Washington Post’s reprehensible piece on fraud and mismanagement in US not-for-profit organizations, I took the Post to task on this site. The Post’s story and database generated other attention and some Senators and state regulators piled on with Iowa’s Charles Grassley saying, “Tax-exempt dollars are meant for tax-exempt purposes, not bankrolling someone’s personal Champagne lifestyle.” Falling for the Post’s poor reporting, Grassley said it’s “stunning that diversion appears to be so common.” Here in Washington, DC, the city’s Attorney General said that he will investigate whether “nonprofits are fulfilling their basic obligation to protect the charitable assets entrusted to them.” One of the Attorney General’s staff suggested that not-for-profits are “tolerating embezzlement,” and some will now be under “greater scrutiny” (Washington Post).
Well done, Washington Post; just when not-for-profits are needed more than ever, you’ve called the entire industry into question on the basis of one bad apple. Thanks. Let me use your own pages to show the problem: On November 1st, food stamp subsidies (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) were reduced by US $5 billion (Washington Post). In Washington, DC, this translated to a $15 million cut affecting 140,000 people; roughly a quarter of the city’s population. Local not-for-profit groups, including Martha’s Table and D.C. Hunger Solutions, are scrambling to fill this Congressionally-mandated cut, but as you published on November 7th, “Martha’s Table’s food budget is $1 million for the entire year” and “when SNAP benefits are cut by 5 percent, charitable organizations have to double their contributions across the nation to keep up.” Food banks survive on the generosity of others, generosity that you, Washington Post, have threatened with your reckless reporting. Martha’s Table and D.C. Hunger Solutions used the Post’s editorial page to ask “those who are able should increase their charitable giving — in money and in food” (Washington Post). Will the Post assure its readers that such charity is well-deserved and needed or continue to suggest that all not-for-profits are subject to fraud and embezzlement?
And it’s not just the Washington Post and US not-for-profits that are coming under attack. Last week in online publication, Pambazuka News, two items caught my eye. From Uganda, Vincent Nuwagaba, “a human rights defender, researcher and life member of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)” wrote an editorial declaring that Ugandan not-for-profit organizations “are guilty of murdering this country” are “far [more] corrupt than the government they demonise.” Without naming a single example, Nuwagaba accuses directors of being “chauffeured” in expensive cars, paying journalists to cover events and write supportive stories, and “cheat and fleece their employees.” He declares “80 percent of NGO staff are pretenders, hypocrites and outright dishonest. The human rights organisations flagrantly abuse human rights. The anti-corruption organisations are more corrupt than corruption itself.” His logic is flawed when he says that because “the media are always awash with stories chronicling ghost soldiers, ghost teachers, ghost students, ghost pensioners and virtually ghost everything… Does it not plausibly follow that we have ghost NGOs and ghost CSOs [?]” No, it doesn’t. The accountability structures in not-for-profits are different from those in governments. But Nuwagaba doesn’t discount civil society entirely, he calls for “the association of social scientists… [to] provide lasting solutions to the decay that characterize our society” (Pambazuka News) assuming that such an association would be immune to the corruption he sees in every other organization.
Unfounded and arbitrary accusations like those brought by Nuwagaba and the Washington Post leads to the “greater scrutiny” described by the Post and also allows for increased regulation of the not-for-profit sector. In Cambodia, Russia and Ethiopia, laws have been passed that limit the amount of funding not-for-profit organizations can receive from external sources. In these countries, the limitations are specifically imposed upon organizations that advocate for human rights and government accountability and have been used to investigate and close organizations that challenge the regime. By accusing all organizations of fraud and corruption, the Post and Nuwagaba provide cover for these authoritarian regimes to stifle opposition voices. In Kenya, the Parliament has gone one step further and proposes a law that states “A Public Benefit Organization shall not receive more than fifteen percent of its total funding from external donors.” Kenya’s law covers all organizations, including those that provide humanitarian relief and development support and would force donor countries to give the assistance dollars that would have gone to Kenyan not-for-profits to the Kenyan government. At the moment, not-for-profits represent 200 billion shillings (equivalent to US $2.3 billion) of Kenya’s economy and while I do not know the proportion that derives from international sources, I imagine it’s the majority of that amount. And with Kenya facing a one trillion shilling budget shortfall (Pambazuka News), additional threats to the economy are unwelcome, and to assume that donors would contribute to the Kenyan government, when the President and Deputy President of Kenya face prosecution in the International Criminal Court, would be false.
Not-for-profit organizations fulfill a very important role in development and providing social safety nets. Yes, they are subject to fraud, waste and theft, but so are all industries. To suggest that they are more susceptible or even complicit in such is to threaten the health and livelihoods of those that have come to depend upon them. Frankly, I wish not-for-profits were not needed and that the public sector and the private sector could provide for all of societies’ needs, but that is not the case, not today. However, just as the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protect my right of association, so too do those documents protect the right of the media to publish whatever they choose. And, as I will fight for the media’s right to publish irresponsible journalism, I hope the media will accept mine and civil society’s right to point out the media’s errors and false assumptions.
Michael P. Moore
November 18, 2013
Off-Topic: A defense of the not-for-profit sector and critique of the Washington Post’s “investigation”Posted: October 28, 2013
For my day job (when I’m not writing and researching about the continuing threat of landmines on the Continent) I work as a finance manager for a not-for-profit company in Washington, DC. My entire professional career has been in this field working for a variety of organizations. I have worked for a professional association, a university, and three international development organizations of differing sizes and missions. In addition to the work I have done for these organizations directly, I have conducted audits of dozens of organizations in the United States and around the world (the only continent I have not been to is Antarctica). When I was thinking about launching Landmines in Africa, the alternative was “Free 2 Associate,” a blog that would have discussed the nonprofit sector, international development and the increasing challenges faced by the sector. I am good at what I do and am pretty pissed off at the Washington Post for its article in yesterday’s paper, “Inside the hidden world of thefts, scams and phantom purchases at the nation’s nonprofits” (Washington Post). Had I written this yesterday, I would have used words like “shoddy,” “irresponsible” and “ignorant” and felt justified in doing so. I still feel that way, but will settle (as my blood pressure has) for “sensationalist and lazy garbage.”
I have two problems with the story, the first (and what drove me to a sputtering, expletive-ridden rant) is the tone. Starting with “the hidden world of thefts, scams and phantom purchases” in the title to unsupported claims of “financial skullduggery,” the article suggests that nonprofits are crime-plagued scams to bilk the government and the suckers who give them money. The article quotes a lawyer’s accusations that nonprofits are “allowing people to steal” money and states that the “the nonprofit sector has repeatedly run into accountability problems” on the basis of only two, albeit high profile, cases. The article claims that nonprofits actively try to hide any thefts and abuse the public’s trust in doing so. The Washington Post would have you believe that you cannot trust any nonprofit with your money because fraud and theft is so pervasive in the industry. To further fan the flames of discontent, the Post published the annual salaries of three people – the president, a vice president and the person accused of the fraud – it implicates in the American Legacy Foundation case (the only one it presents in any kind of detail), leading readers to assume that the employees of the Foundation, specifically the president and vice president, had a financial motive to keep the story quiet. The Post also repeatedly noted where no charges were filed against accused thieves.
The second problem with the story is factual. The Post accuses the nonprofit sector of insufficient scrutiny of its financial operations and are unusually susceptible to theft and fraud. As part of the financial operations of several organizations, I can assure you, dear readers, that this is completely false. Yes, nonprofits are subject to theft and fraud, but all industries are. The Post even says, “Little comparative data are available about the prevalence of fraud across business sectors,” but quotes one study which listed nonprofits as “second only to the financial services industry” in cases of “major embezzlements.” There are over 2 million nonprofit organizations in the United States with millions of employees around the world with at least $4.5 trillion in assets. Nonprofits are susceptible to theft and fraud simply because we are so numerous, we have such a large stake in the domestic and global economies, and we employ so many people. Fraud is a crime of opportunity and unfortunately, the amount of business nonprofits do and the number of people we employ means that there are opportunities for fraudulent behavior. There are even some funny stories like the time I was asked to pay a bribe for a service and when I balked, the person asking for the bribe offered to give me a receipt for the bribe so I could include it in my expense report.
The Post does identify one of the key sources of scrutiny for nonprofits, their employees, but misses the third, the board of directors. In the American Legacy Foundation case, an employee identified the fraud and reported it. When he or she did not see a satisfactory response, the employee reported it again to someone else. Every case of fraud that I know of was discovered not by an auditor or an accountant, but by an employee who was angered by the fact that a co-worker was stealing. Look at the quotes from the Post article, “We are horrified it happened on our watch,” “It’s sadder when it happens to a nonprofit,” “There are kids out there we could have touched that we didn’t, because this money was taken from our coffers,” “We do view ourselves as holding a public trust.” Most people who work at nonprofits know that they are being entrusted with someone else’s money and hold themselves and their co-workers to a very high standard. The organizations I have worked for helped landmine victims, searched for cures to malaria, sought to educate under-privileged students and protected fragile ecosystems. We do work that no one does and without us the world would be a worse-off place; we honestly believe this stuff and when someone steals from a nonprofit, they are stealing not from an organization, but from the people we try to help. As the President of the American Legacy Foundation said, the stolen money was money “that did not go to save lives.” I say with confidence, people in nonprofits do not stand for theft or fraud. If the Post were to investigate further, I’m sure they would find that most instances of fraud were reported by employees who detected the problem and took action.
Why don’t more people go to jail for fraud? How many bankers went to jail after the market collapses of 2008? Nonprofits report theft to authorities and it’s up to the authorities to pursue the case. We do what we can, we fire people. As for getting the money back, that requires lawyers and unfortunately, most nonprofits do not have the resources to hire lawyers to pursue civil trials. I’ve seen the anger at thieves when they were found in our midst and know that people wanted to use every lawyer in the phone book to get the money back, but the cost of litigation would exceed the amount stolen. Blame the high cost of legal fees on the absence of court cases, not will on the part of the organizations.
Lastly, the Post’s article suggested that the “public” has a right to know about these cases. Well, they do, but not directly. Nonprofit organizations are governed by boards of directors who are tasked with acting on the public’s behalf. Often board members are recruited for their ability to bring in funds or make connections for the organization, but their first responsibility is to ensure that the organization adheres to its mission and acts in the public interest. There are organizations, like Board Source which are devoted to educating board members about their responsibilities and while more organization should take advantage of these resources, to say that nonprofits are held accountable is simply false. Most board members I know take their responsibilities very seriously and as key donors to organizations, they have a lot at stake when someone steals from their organization so they are motivated to act. When fraud is detected, the board should be notified so that the organization can take appropriate action. What the Post did not ask, despite mentioning the American Legacy Foundation’s high-profile board members was when they were informed of the detected fraud. The board provides direction in times of crisis, like a fraud investigation and whether or not to publicly disclose fraud is the role of the board, not a lawyer in Chicago with a beef against nonprofits.
After 15 years in the business, I do have some recommendations for organizations to minimize and monitor for fraud. First, change your auditor frequently. Most nonprofits are audited annually and a clean audit is a point of pride, but an audit is also the opportunity to ask hard questions. A new auditor will ask questions that an old auditor might not; from experience, I know a new auditor keeps the finance team on its toes. Second, minimize cash transactions. When organizations have large piles of cash lying around (and I’ve carried upwards of $10,000 at times), the temptation is high, as is the risk of outright theft by a third party. Third, tell your board everything. If you have done your job, your board is both your biggest cheerleader and your harshest critique because they believe in what you are doing and want to see you succeed. They will help make the hard choices. If you don’t trust your board enough to tell them about potential fraud, you recruited badly. Fourth, listen to your employees and keep them informed. Many of the people who work for a nonprofit for that particular nonprofit because they believe in the mission of the organization. They would be horrified to learn of any thefts and would be more willing to report it if they knew both that the organization is watching and that reports are taken seriously and fairly. A culture of suspicion is not helpful, but a culture of accountability is. Last, don’t believe everything you read in the paper.
Michael P. Moore
October 28, 2013
I appreciate that WordPress is able to do this for me automatically and save me a ton of time a research. See the link below for the 2012 annual report of blogging from LandminesinAfrica.org.
Here’s an excerpt:
4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 14,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 3 Film Festivals
Frequent readers of this blog, both of you, will recall in January I wrote about how Everton Football Club received sponsorship dollars from Hanwha SolarOne, part of the Hanwha group of companies which in addition to making solar panels, also makes landmines. As a longtime fan of Everton, I felt deeply offended that they would take money from such a company and have been without a team since (btw, Everton have won 15, lost 5 and drawn 9 since the post came out; you’re welcome, Toffees). When the 2012-2013 English Premier League season started I looked around for a new team and have been weighing the relative merits of two candidates, Stoke City and Newcastle United. Last weekend however, I watched a game with Sunderland who were sporting their new jersey sponsored by “Invest in Africa”:
Invest in Africa is a not-for-profit investment group founded by Tullow Oil plc, an oil exploration company with active oil projects in Ghana, Uganda, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire among other countries in Africa. When the sponsorship deal was announced, the Independent, the New York Times and the Football Ramble (a Sunderland-focused blog) all wrote pieces questioning the deal and bringing up concerns about the relationship between oil and African politics. Tullow Oil has been regularly accused of bribing Ugandan officials with payments documented in Uganda’s Parliament (All Africa) and was forced to issue unconvincing denials in October 2011 (Wall Street Journal) and April 2012 (Wall Street Journal). Since Uganda is the most corrupt nation in East Africa (All Africa), I’m tempted to believe that Invest in Africa’s investments include envelopes of cash. It’s a shame because the idea of promoting investment in the developing world is a good one; probably why former British Foreign Minister (and Sunderland vice-chairman) David Miliband pushed for the deal.
So the search for a new team continues. If you have suggestions for the official Landmines in Africa football team, please share them. But keep in mind that teams associated with defense industries (Everton, Bolton, Bayern Munich), oil industries (Arsenal, Chelsea, Barcelona, PSG, Manchester City and Sunderland), Luis Suarez (Liverpool) and Manchester United do not meet the “fit and proper” test.
Michael P. Moore, October 12, 2012