(Monitor, Uganda) The ‘South Sudan Report’ and the morality of profiting from a neighbour’s misfortune

From: Biniam Tekle <biniamt_at_dehai.org_at_dehai.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:17:27 -0400

http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/--South-Sudan-Report---morality-neighbour-s-misfortune/689364-3379962-a0icg3z/index.html

The ‘South Sudan Report’ and the morality of profiting from a
neighbour’s misfortune

The “Rwandaphonie” business people in eastern DR Congo stash their
money in Rwanda, because there, it is safe from seizure from the bouts
of “anti-Tutsi” politics that often erupts there.

Wednesday September 14 2016

In Summary

Produced by investigative unit “The Sentry” co-funded by American
actor George Clooney and activist John Prendergast, it spent two years
following the money trail.
Army Chief, Gen Paul Malong, also the grand polygamist of Juba, and
the man blamed for a lot of the recent madness in the country, has at
least two luxurious mansions in Uganda in addition to a $2m mansion in
Nairobi.

By Charles Onyango-Obbo

The much-anticipated report on corruption and war-profiteering in
conflict-wracked South Sudan was published on Monday.

Produced by investigative unit “The Sentry” co-funded by American
actor George Clooney and activist John Prendergast, it spent two years
following the money trail.

It reports some extraordinary looting, nepotism, and corruption by the
South Sudan political and military elite who have made themselves rich
while the country has been impoverished by a civil war of their
making.
There are no saints and villians, both President Salva Kiir and his
former deputy and rival Riek Machar have their snouts in the murk.

The report makes for sad reading, but one cannot help reflect on the
ways in which South Sudan is different from almost every country in
the region. Almost everywhere else, you have a few years of idealism
and an attempt to do good after independence or liberation. Then the
“revolution” stalls or is hijacked, and the corruption starts. No such
thing for South Sudan.

The new country hit the ground stealing, so to speak. The other thing,
which shouldn’t really be surprising, the report says the top leaders
in the country have invested in property in neighbouring Kenya,
Ethiopia and Uganda. It also says that they have interests in
Australia.

Army Chief, Gen Paul Malong, also the grand polygamist of Juba, and
the man blamed for a lot of the recent madness in the country, has at
least two luxurious mansions in Uganda in addition to a $2m mansion in
Nairobi.

It’s last bit that interests us most today, because Uganda, Kenya, and
Ethiopia have also been the regional mediators.
If you are God-loving or a human rights activist, you would find
something terribly wrong with that because it seems the three
countries are actually profiting from the conflict in South Sudan, so
how can they be expected to go the extra kilometre to make peace
there. And wouldn’t the ability of the belligerents to invest in these
countries give them an easy way out and thus remove the incentive for
them to compromise for peace?

However, the South Sudan conflict has also stunk up the neighbourhood,
increased regional risk, and taken away some points from its
attraction as an investment destination. The loss, some economists
argue, is higher than the gain. But if you flip the argument, you
could argue that because neighbouring countries also get refugees (as
dramatically illustrated in Uganda’s case with the new flood of South
Sudanese refugees), suffer from loss of trading opportunities, and are
hit by the “stink factor” referred to earlier, they deserve some
“compensation”.
Profiting from a neighbour’s misfortune is one way of doing this.

These events, however, also point to some changes in our region, as
indeed the rest of Africa, since the economic liberalisation wave
kicked off at the end of the 1980s.

There are more private businesses, more rich people, and more thieving
politicians who are skimming off the fat.
All these people now need “first stop” destinations where they hedge
against future instability at home, a place where they can keep their
money, buy expensive homes.
Next, they move to “second stop” destinations – London, Geneva, New
York – where they stash their wealth to hedge against the bigger
“Africa risk”.

For this reason, it has become important for countries to invest in
“stability” in ways it wasn’t 30 years. The reward for being viewed as
stable can be huge – both honest and crooked people – will take their
money out of their countries and put it in yours, giving your economy
– especially the banking sector – a liquidity boost. If you get it
wrong, like South Sudan has, everyone will steal and take their loot
out. It’s a diverse business with a grey (or even dark) side, because
you don’t just need stability. You also require a certain
permissiveness that guarantees these people who bring their money
confidentiality. In otherwords, that no one in Kampala will come to
ask Malong where he found the $2 million to buy his villa.

For example, it is said that Paul Kagame’s Rwanda, the anti-corruption
republic, has not really ended corruption as such, it has driven a lot
of it off the radar. So what do Rwanda’s corrupt do? They use Uganda
and Kenya as their “first stop” destinations to stash their
“unexplained surplus”. On the other hand, the “Rwandaphonie” business
people in eastern DR Congo stash their money in Rwanda, because there,
it is safe from seizure from the bouts of “anti-Tutsi” politics that
often erupts there.
So there is that bit - a “first stop” destination can also be a
sanctuary. It’s complicated.

Mr Onyango-Obbo is the editor of Africa data visualiser
Africapedia.com and explainer site Roguechiefs.com. Twitter_at_cobbo3
Received on Tue Sep 13 2016 - 20:57:11 EDT

Dehai Admin
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2013
All rights reserved