Author: Admin

As new evidence emerges of Kigali’s sponsorship of rebels in foreign countries, Central African nations worry that Rwanda’s new drone fleet may find military applications. The drones begin flying strictly humanitarian missions in July or August, but can a government prone to nefarious military operations be trusted with drone technology?

If the country were not one with Rwanda’s history of regional skulduggery, ulterior motives for government’s embrace of a drone air force for humanitarian purposes might not be suspected. For more than a decade the UN has released evidence that Rwanda was a financial sponsor of the M23 rebel group that fought the government of neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Subsequent evidence has emerged of Rwanda seeking to destabilise the DRC by supporting other insurgency operations. The motive appears to be to keep portions of the DRC lawless so as to smuggle out that nation’s considerable mineral wealth for the enrichment of foreign entities, presumably Rwandan.

In May 2016, new UN evidence was presented implicating Rwanda in the training of Burundian rebels to overthrow the government of Burundi. The UN report confirmed the suspicions of the government of Burundi and enflamed dangerous ethnic tensions in the region. A predictable dance has emerged from Kigali as each new revelation of its misdeeds is publicised. The government of Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame routinely dismisses each report, treating evidence as hearsay and characterising proof as ‘unsupported allegations’. The denials are couched in a hauteur that employs such adjectives as “ridiculous,” “childish” and “unworthy of comment.”

As Rwanda and the UN circle one another in a thus far interminable pas de deux, with neither side knowing how to end the dance, a new tool has fallen into Kigali’s hands. The new capability of drone aircraft, like all new technology, has potential for doing great good but also great harm. However, wariness of Rwanda may prompt neighbouring nations to create drone air forces of their own, and not necessarily for humanitarian purposes, spending money that the region’s indigent nations require for social services and nation building needs.  Read more →

The CAR has made a serious effort at a free and competently-run election as a first step to bringing stability to one of the region’s most volatile countries. Only the eradication of militias will ensure ultimate peace.

The salutations from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that followed successfully conducted elections in the Central African Republic (CAR) were more than a pro-forma expression of cheer underscored with a note of relief that the insurgency-torn nation had pulled off a peaceful election. Under Ki-moon’s authority, the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the CAR (MINUSCA), with its 11,000-strong fighting force, is the glue that holds the country together. The decision to keep in place or withdraw the forces belongs to Ban. The holding of the presidential and ongoing legislative elections and the transitioning to a functioning government that will follow are key points in determining how long MINUSCA will stay. The UN has botched a sex scandal involving MINUSCA soldiers exploiting and abusing boy and girl child refugees by covering-up the crimes, which were eventually exposed in the media. During the fracas, Ki-moon threatened to disband MINUSCA if the contributing nations did not investigate their soldiers’ misdeeds.

MINUSCA’s main challenge is the rebel group, the Séléka. Predominately Muslim in membership but not a jihadist organisation seeking an Islamic state, Séléka ousted President Francois Bozizé in March 2013. In the ensuing months, Séléka committed atrocities against civilians and an opposing Christian militia called the anti-Balaka. With Séléka in possession of much of the country in 2014, peace was restored in an agreement that saw Bangui mayor Catherine Samba-Panza become president of an interim government. Keeping a lid on further violence as elections for a permanent government were carried out has been MINUSCA’s preoccupation. The task has made MINUSCA the UN’s most expensive mission ever. That the elections resulted in an administration headed by Faustin Archange Touadèra, who earned 62.7% of the 14 February 2016 runoff vote, was validation of the forces’ presence. On 20 February 2016, the Elections Commission declared that Touadèra had won a landslide 63% of the vote. Read more →

Efforts to wean African governments off inefficient and corrupt public companies meet violent resistance from workers and resentment from corrupt politicians

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is simply echoing what every economist knows and indeed, what every economics student learns early on: government-owned companies are usually corrupt, always inefficient and are a drain on treasuries of money that can be better used to improve government’s legitimate services. Governments should not be in the business of business. Rather, government should count on revenue from tax levies and other traditional sources and a firewall must exist to separate the public and private sector. Government-owned companies are bad for national economies, stifling competition wherever they exist. Such companies are hotbeds for nepotism and patronage as government officials use their influence to seat relatives and cronies on boards of directors or have these unqualified individuals ensconced in lucratively paying, do-nothing positions. The IMF routinely suggests to African governments that they shed public companies with the avidity of snakes shedding unwanted skins, but the warning is received as a pro-forma Jeremiah, and routinely ignored.

African governments that have inherited government-owned companies from previous authoritative regimes, such as in South Africa, and socialistic governments, such as Tanzania, are largely loathe to privatise – along with the majority of African nations whose government-owned companies originated in the colonial era. Government officials benefit financially (even if only under the table) from such firms, which encourages officials to give jobs to relatives and supporters. Even reformists’ governments find privatisation of powerful, entrenched entities a task too daunting. Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari seeks to reform the country’s scandal-plagued national petroleum company, but not as far as promoting privatisation.

Read more →

By Mohammed Maoulidi

 

In an interconnected world where communications have never been more sophisticated and penetrating, it is proving difficult for companies to claim that they do not know details of their businesses, even in remote areas. In our information age, ignorance is no longer an excuse; it is not even a plausible defence. Sooner or later malpractices are exposed. Company profits are then compromised by government fines and lost business. The risks of exploiting Africa are proving costlier and harder to avoid, as the chocolate child labour scandal of 2015 illustrates.

But what can be done against multinational corporations that abet human rights violations by turning a blind eye to abuses which boost their profits? Choosing not to act with due diligence regarding the origin of products from Africa or doing such investigations haphazardly or half-heartedly can be costly to a firm. Public relations problems are one result, sometimes leading to a buyer backlash in the form of a consumer boycott. Expensive global brands can have their expensively-maintained lustre tarnished. Customer loyalty suffers if buyers distance themselves from companies for which crimes against humanity are committed for the sake of company profits, whether these companies profess to be ignorant of such crimes or not. Consumers know that by purchasing products tied to human rights abuses they are condoning such abuses.

In late September 2015, a lawsuit filed against the world’s three top chocolate makers for involvement in human rights abuses in Africa illustrated another form of consumer protest that is also costly for multinationals.

This article is extracted from the November 2015 edition of IOA’s Africa Conflict Monitor (ACM) and is authored by ACM analyst Mohammed Maoulidi.

Read more →

By Mohammed Maoulidi

African agricultural land is destined to become more valuable and coveted by foreign nationals, but a lack of transparency in land sales to foreigners provokes anti-foreigner sentiments and the plight of Africans displaced by land transfers may convince displaced persons to become violent.

Foreigners mostly seek agricultural land and land for tourism developments, but all foreigner-owned land in Africa holds the potential to prompt violence from displaced people

Private equity funds are aglow with prospects of profits to be reaped by clients who get in on the acquisition of African agricultural land. Why not, when vast areas can be purchased cheaply from chiefdoms and local and national governments who have failed to exploit the potential of the land to feed their own people. Sometimes land is available simply at the price of building local infrastructure and providing local populations with community halls and soccer uniforms. Foreign purchasers sweeten the deals by promising jobs, making available advanced technologies and improving the food security of local populations.

READ MORE