My week in DC is not yet over: I have some meetings still to do, but my on-line week nearly is. I admit it’s too early to appraise all that has happened. But I’ll offer first thoughts.
First highlight: World Bank MD Ngozi Ikonjo-Iweala calling for mass civil society action against illicit financial flows. Has the Bank got the issue? I think so.
Second, constructive dialogue with the Oxford team. I hope we can build on it.
Third, clear rejection of the view put forward by some economists that data prevents analysis of this issue or that there is even no issue at all. I think those who tried this line of arguing lost a lot of credibility.
Fourth, good support for progressive thinking e.g. on unitary taxation.
Fifth, some good focus on other areas e.g. human trafficking.
Sixth, the clear impression the Bank is committed to work in this area.
That was a good outcome at the Bank. It was a stressed two days, but in the end the effort in getting this far was well worthwhile β the programme for tackling abuse has moved forward.
And the Task Force? Better still. Highlights: Carl Levin, Lord Brennan, the economist’s panel soundly rejecting the idea there is no issue to address, the session on asset recovery that brought this down to the nuts and bolts of getting cash for development, some say my own session on country by country reporting (I admit, I greatly enjoyed it), and more. Unlike the Bank there wasn’t a duff presentation β not one. Many were superb. And with the Norwegian government re-elected this week their commitment to this work continues. Which is great news.
And why do this? As Tom Cardamone of GFI said in his closing comments: this all comes down to one word, which is justice. Justice for the poor of this world. That’s the start, the middle and the end of this work. I hate travelling β and I love my home. But the hassle of an event like this is worth it if we can help deliver real results. Nothing happens overnight in this sector, but my opinion is we are making progress against abuse; abuse that comes in many forms. And that is the motivation in all of this.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I have no words to express how important I believe it is that you demonstrate such huge public commitment to your principles. As a fellow CA, I’m very proud of the example you provide. Thank you.
“This all comes down to one word, which is justice. Justice for the poor of this world.” Yes, and justice for those who have been cheated by what Paul Mayners said on 8/9: “a fundamental imbalance between the power of the financial system & its accountability for its actions.”
The financial system has been driven more by greed for personal & corporate gain of a few rather than any real altruistic notion of creating wealth for the benefit of all mankind.
Mayners tells us: “Corporate leaders in the global financial sector have begun to talk about addressing moral failures and that is to be welcomed. But it’s time to move beyond sound bites and to start hearing how they intend to drive moral reform within their institutions.”. Now that is the real yardstick — & the big hurdle. Only when they measure up to it, and resolve to overcome the hurdle, will there be a any will to change deeeply entrenched false values in the system. Such a change will be a prerequisit for action to secure a just outcome that makes capitalism work for all people and not just a tiny minority.
There is a breeze of change; it needs to become a perfect storm for the good of mankind
Tax havens exposed on the Real News network
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4234
You might have had a good week in DC, Richard, but let’s face it, back home your side have completely lost the public spending debate in the last few days. There is now widespread support for “savage” cuts (to quote Nick Clegg) in public expenditure. Your arguments lie in tatters and we must now conclude that, since no major political party supports your policies, that they are dangerous, extremist and anti-democratic.
Peter, I think it is you that is undemocratic since you appear to have decided that no-one is allowed to hold opinions which are not cleared by our masters in parliament. Unlike you, I do not consider the MPs omniscient!