Britain should deal with tax havens the way De Gaulle took on Monaco

Polly Toynbee in The Guardian


The prime minister has opened the floodgates, dragging the chancellor after him. Whatever David Cameron says, his example means all MPs will soon publish their tax returns: how dare any refuse? Feeding frenzies against politicians are not a pretty sight.

It’s a curious phenomenon that democracy is hailed as the highest human endeavour, yet its practitioners are always held in public contempt. “Elites” everywhere are in the pillory, but none more than the “elite” we elect and then despise.

Why single out politicians? The Times quotes a Conservative MP saying this will inevitably extend to “all those in public life” asking, “Where does it stop? BBC journalists, councillors, judges?” Indeed, there is no clear line between public and private people. Donors to political parties, journalists certainly, anyone in public office or with a public contract – and their partners too. There is no stopping these dominoes. Cameron in the Commons said he was against public officials having to publish tax returns, but he has broken the secrecy spell, and transparency always leads to demands for more.

Money is not a private matter. It may be almost as exciting as sex but exposing private wealth is not like publishing rude photos from private bedrooms. Who has what and from where is public because everyone must pay tax on it, even if a depleted HMRC can scrutinise very little. On death, light shines in as wills are published, but real transparency would make everyone’s tax return a public document.

The social shock would be seismic. At first people would feel as naked as if their clothes were stripped off in front of neighbours and work colleagues. Why else was Cameron so shy about revealing the scale of his wealth? He had done nothing unusual for families of his kind: it was the graphic exposure of his hundreds of thousands that made him blush. Why? Because people with inherited money know it’s not fair, they didn’t earn it and they are just lucky winners in life’s lottery.

The Daily Mail delivered a mighty full-page blast of anger against any questioning of Osborne’s £1m inheritance tax gift, which will cost the exchequer £5.8bn. Misleading as ever, they write of “most people”, and Downing Street talks of “millions of ordinary people” doing “proper tax planning” for inheritance. Yet as it is, only the super-rich pay inheritance tax, just one in 20 estates. Forget the seven-year rule, abolish this tax and instead tax recipients for all gifts they receive above a threshold over their lifetime.

The Mail warns that all this embarrassing exposure means “people with private means will no longer wish to go into public life, putting their advantages at the service of the less fortunate”. But that’s just it, these leaders with private means have harried the “less fortunate” mercilessly. They inflict billions of cuts on the poorest – in bedroom tax, benefit cap, child benefit freeze, two-child limit, and ruthless disability fit-for-work tests – while sanctions drive many into food bank destitution. The “less fortunate” may not be grateful to those with private means who rule over them. No wonder Cameron blanches at revealing his all.

Sheltering wealth, the right calls any protest against inequality “the politics of envy”. Most families still haven’t regained their pre-financial crash incomes, yet anyone with high-value property watches their assets inflate into the stratosphere. When unearned income such as Cameron’s soars but wages lag behind, anger at untaxed riches is inevitable.

Polls show people make a sharp distinction between genuine “wealth creators”, such as self-made entrepreneurs or superstars, and the trustafarians and rent-seekers who are enriched for no discernible merit. Resentment is often channelled into cynicism and sour trolling, not into political action. Will this start to change?

In Scandinavian countries, total tax transparency has helped create societies far more equal than ours. At the click of a mouse in Norway, people can find out what others own and earn, and everyone knows where they stand. Transparency stops women being paid less than men. Transparency makes employers more likely to pay themselves and their staff fairly. The culture of openness breathes an implicit belief in social justice.

But here, research from the London School of Economics’ professor John Hills shows how clueless most people are about the earnings of others, wildly underestimating British inequality. Both rich and poor delude themselves that they are far nearer the middle than they are. They know people who are better off and worse off, wrongly concluding themselves to be middling.

In my book Hard Work, I ran focus groups of the super-rich who refused to believe how much richer they were than the rest. Those with yachts envy those with a yacht and a crew, so they never feel truly rich. With the decline of unions, pay secrecy allows employers to divide and rule in the dark.

The disinfectant of sunlight makes shifty dealings and criminality much less likely, so it’s time for us to turn Norwegian. Don’t let’s strip public figures naked one by one, but let’s open the window and have every citizen’s tax return exposed. Tax works when everyone knows everyone else pays it too: I-will-if-you-will transparency is the same, all jumping in with one big splash, everyone’s income and wealth revealed together.

But don’t let gossipy obsession with personal wealth and inheritance distract from the main issue revealed in the Panama Papers. The prime task is to sweep away secrecy that allows our flotilla of tax havens to hide the world’s wealth from taxmen.

Cameron announces new rules obliging havens to answer HMRC requests for information on the beneficial owner of a company within an hour. But that’s bogus transparency, depending on occasional official requests. Tax experts say all beneficial ownership must be published openly so any investigator can check who owns what any time.

In the same way, all dealings between HMRC and companies must be published, so we can see how Google, Amazon, Facebook and myriad others escape paying what they owe. After deep cuts, HMRC needs assistance from the prying eyes of journalists, the public, company competitors and anyone who might investigate mega-avoiders.

Today Cameron’s promise fell far short of that genuine transparency. He needs to get tough with the treasure islands and follow Charles de Gaulle’s example. When Monaco refused a tax measure he requested, he forced them to surrender by surrounding the kingdom with soldiers and turning off their water supply.

Robert Fisk: It took decades for truth to be revealed in Algeria. How long will it take Syria?

ROBERT FISK in The Independent

Sunday 20 October 2013

Algeria’s ‘timid’ historians shy away from revealing the ugly truths about war

Major General Jamaa Jamaa was not a popular man in Beirut. One of Syria’s most senior intelligence officers in Lebanon until the withdrawal of Bashar al-Assad’s troops in 2005, he was headquartered in the run-down Beau Rivage Hotel in west Beirut and also in the Bekaa town of Anjaar, where Lebanese men would be taken for interrogation and later emerge – or not emerge at all – sans teeth or nails.  He was a loyal, ruthless apparatchik for Bashar’s father Hafez, and his mysterious killing last week in the Syrian war provoked no tears in Beirut.  The UN had interviewed Jamaa about the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri whose 2005 assassination brought about the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon.  But how did Jamaa die?  Syrian state television would say only that he was “martyred while carrying out his national duties to defend Syria and its people and pursuing terrorists (sic) in Deir el-Zour”.

All kinds of rebel groups – including, of course, the equally ruthless al-Qa’ida affiliates – wanted to add his name to their “kills”.  He was shot in the head by a sniper in the eastern Syrian oil town.  Jamaa was also killed, we were informed, by a booby-trap, and blown up by a suicide bomber.  All that we can be sure of is that his remains, such as they were, were taken for burial in the village hills above Lattakia where he was born.  How long before we know the truth?

I am brought to this question by the secrecy which still smothers the 1954-62 Algerian-French war of independence where a cruel French regime of occupation fought a war against an equally cruel and determined Algerian resistance, primarily led by the National Liberation Front, the FLN. French officers indulged in an orgy of torture while their Algerian opposite numbers slaughtered each other – as well as the French – in a Stalinist purge of thousands of their own followers suspected of collaborating with the French occupation. For decades, the French refused to discuss this most dishonourable of wars – censoring their own television programmes if they dared talk of torture – while the subsequent FLN dictatorship only published infantile accounts of the heroism of their “martyr” cadres. The French, you see, were fighting “terrorism”.  The FLN were fighting a brutal, Gaullist regime.

The parallels are, of course, not exact. But over the past months, a remarkable phenomenon has made its appearance in Algeria.  Dozens of elderly Algerian maquisards from the conflict that ended just over half a century ago, have turned up at small publishing houses in Algiers and Oran with  private manuscripts, containing frightening accounts of the savage war in which they fought and in which their officers tortured and massacred and assassinated their own comrades. Rival Algerian resistance groups – not unlike the “Free Syrian Army” and their Islamist rebel enemies in northern Syria today – also slaughtered each other.

Take, for example, the death of Abane Ramdane. The “architect” of the Algerian revolution, a friend of the French philosopher and revolutionary Franz Fanon, organizer of the Soummam congress which created the first independent Algerian leadership in 1956, Ramdane – a man almost as keen on his own personality as he was on the classless revolution he helped initiate – was assassinated in Morocco the following year, allegedly by the French.  For decades, he was extolled as a martyr who had “died under French bullets”.  But now a former member of the FLN has dared to suggest the names of his real killers:  Krim Belkacem, head of the FLN’s third wilaya (district) and later a minister of defence and foreign affairs in the newly independent government of Algeria;  Abdelhafid Boussouf, the vicious “father of intelligence” in all the Algerian wilayas, who condemned many of his own comrades to death;  and Lakhdar Ben Tobbal, a guerrilla leader who later negotiated with the French at Evian.

Then there’s the sinister figure of Si Salah, head of wilaya 4, who was persuaded – by French intelligence, although he did not know this – that hundreds of his own men were collaborators. On Si Salah’s personal instructions, almost 500 of his comrades were tortured to death or executed. But Si Salah, fearful that the FLN’s military wing might be defeated by the French, secretly opened negotiations with De Gaulle – and was then himself assassinated, supposedly by the French, but almost certainly by the FLN. The French investigative journalist, Pierre Daum, has spoken of the “extreme timidity of Algerian historians”, and recounted how one Algerian publisher said he lacked the courage to print a book on the infiltration of the FLN. 

“In 2005, this guy came to see me,” the publisher told Daum. “I refused his manuscript because it was filled with names, ‘X tortured Y’, and so on.  Imagine the children of a ‘martyr’ – who believe their father died under French gunfire – discovering that he perished under Algerian torture!”

The real story of the much more recent Algerian war – between the Islamists and the government in the 1990s (total deaths 250,000, a hundred thousand more than in Syria today) – still cannot be told by Algerian historians.  It has been left to today’s Algerian novelists to cloak facts in fiction in order to reveal the truths of this terrible conflict. One such tale – a real incident – is recalled in a novel. A junior officer in the Algerian army, it seems, was discovered to have betrayed his comrades to Islamist rebels. His wife and children were summoned from their village and taken by military helicopter to the barren hillside where the captured soldier was being held.  And there, in front of his family, the man was tied to a tree, doused with petrol, and burned alive.

How long must we wait, then, for the secrets buried beneath the rubble of the Syrian war?