Connect with us

Politics

Follow the Money: How to Make Dirty Cash Clean Without Omo

9 min read.

In a country like Kenya, where state corruption is rife, money stolen from the public coffers by powerful civil servants and those close to power, invariably ends up stashed in foreign offshore accounts

Published

on

Financial Flows
Download PDFPrint Article

Look to Windward Trading, Who Looted Half a Billion

Two events of momentous proportions took place in Kenya since the beginning of this year.

On January 30, sons of the slain drug lord Ibrahim Akasha, Baktash Akasha and Ibrahim Akasha, Indian drug suspect Vijaygiri Goswami and Gulam Hussien, a Pakistan, were extradited to the US to face charges of drug trafficking. Since 2014, the Akashas had been fighting not to be deported to the US.

In March 2015, the four were arrested with 98 packets of suspected heroin. The US then issued an Interpol “red notice” for their capture and request for extradition. The Manhattan District Attorney said of the quartet when they arrived in New York: “Kenya drug trafficking organization with global ambitions”.

On March 3, 2017, a meeting quietly took place at the Treasury Building in Nairobi between National Treasury Permanent Secretary Kamau Thugge and Senator Ian Gorst from Jersey Island. The two officials representing their respective countries were concluding an agreement that finally returned money that had been stashed in the tax haven island.

Jersey had just returned Ksh380 million ($3.8 million), part of Ksh500 million ($5 million) that had been stolen by two senior Kenyan state bureaucrats in 2011 and hidden in the island’s banks, known for their secrecy and lax tax laws.

A former chairman of the rich and influential parastatal, Kenya Power and Lighting Company (KLPC), Samuel Gichuru and a former minister of energy, Chris Okemo, had conspired to loot public money, which they then expatriated to the tax haven. As is normal with such conspiratorial and illicit transactions, Gichuru formed a ‘phantom’ company, Windward Trading Ltd, that was then used to siphon out the Ksh500 million.

In June 2011, Jersey’s Attorney General requested the extradition of the two, and the United Kingdom, under whose jurisdiction the island falls, issued an arrest warrant. In February 2016, the Royal Court of Jersey finally confiscated the stashed money after the company pleaded guilty to four charges of laundering corrupt money.

Even though the money has been repatriated, the extradition case is still going on and the remaining Ksh120 million was retained to cover transactional charges incurred by the Jersey government.

In a country like Kenya, where state corruption is rife, money stolen from the public coffers by powerful civil servants and those close to power, invariably ends up stashed in foreign offshore accounts

The case illustrates how illicitly acquired money is hidden, transferred and invested in foreign banks through a labyrinthine maze of electronic transfers. Identical mechanisms, including dummy companies, are also used by companies and individuals to hide income from tax authorities in the countries where it is earned and to transfer it to low-tax jurisdictions. Through such illicit financial flows (IFFs), Africa loses, according to the Tax Justice Network-Africa, the equivalent of $10 for every $1 it receives in aid.

In 2016, the Panama Papers, the world’s biggest data leak, provided a glimpse into the scale of the problem. Briefly, the Panama Papers refer to 11.5 million data files leaked from the Panama-based law firm, Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth largest offshore law firm. The leak named individuals who included presidents, influential politicians, powerful bureaucrats and companies that use the law firm as a registering agent to channel their — oftentimes illegally acquired — money to jurisdictions with secretive and lenient tax laws. The files traced 191 individuals and 25 companies to Kenya.

“IFF is a generic term,” says Jared Maranga of Tax Justice Network-Africa (TJN-A), a pan- Africa research and advocacy organisation based in Nairobi. Maranga is an investments and tax policy expert. He says the terminology depends on the form and nature of how the money is being moved. ‘Generally speaking, there are three ways in which IFFs are facilitated: through state corruption, bilateral and multilateral treaties and tax incentives.’

The Washington DC research and advocacy group Global Financial Integrity defines IFFs as illegal movements of money or capital from one country to another. This movement of money is what is classified as ‘illicit flow’ — especially when the money is illegally earned, transferred, or used.

The advocacy group says IFFs originate from three main sources: commercial engagements — through tax evasion, inflating and manipulation of prices of goods; criminal activities such as drug and human trafficking, illegal arms trade and smuggling of contraband; and corruption by influential and powerful state officials.

Importers whose aim is to dodge paying tax use underhand tactics such as inflating the price of goods to evade or undercut Custom duties, VAT or income tax. Crime syndicates launder their illicit profits by mixing them with legal money earned from legitimate business such as buying and selling of used cars, for example. Bureaucrats create fake companies to transfer dirty or stolen money to a bank account in a foreign country. Huge sums of cash are also ferried across the border by human traffickers with the aim of depositing the money in a foreign country.

In a country like Kenya, where state corruption is rife, money stolen from the public coffers by powerful civil servants and those close to power, invariably ends up stashed in foreign offshore accounts. As a way of ‘cleaning’ it, the cash is used to buy real estate in developed countries in Europe and the Americas or invested in legitimate businesses through buying shares in multinational companies. In 2004, a report by report by the international risk consultancy Kroll commissioned by the Mwai Kibaki administration identified over Ksh130 billion ($1.3 billion) that relatives and associates of former President Daniel arap Moi had hidden in nearly 30 countries using a web of shell companies, secret trusts and frontmen.

IFFs have also provided drug barons with devious ways of moving their money without being detected. If the drugs trade itself is a dangerous and risky business, laundering the proceeds, which run into billions of shillings, is even a riskier undertaking.

In Kenya, drug lords have over time used both traditional and innovative means to hide and move their cash without attracting undue attention. And in situations where they cannot avoid detection, they have employed the time-tested methods of arm-twisting, bribery and coercion.

All the Major Banks Have Been Involved in Hiding Drugs Money

According to a 2009 report by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, drug traffickers launder approximately $100 million per year through the Kenyan financial system. ‘I’ll tell you this as a matter of fact,’ says Anselm Mbogo, a retired forensic auditor and banking fraud investigator, who in the course of a three-decade career worked in nearly every big local and international bank in Kenya. ‘All the major banks in Kenya have at one time or the other been involved in hiding or moving drugs money.’ Today, as a forensic consultant, his clients include some of his former employers. ‘The banks are still susceptible to money laundering by the drug lords,’ he says. ‘[That’s] basically because the drug barons have perfected the art of circumventing the 2012 Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) laws on money laundering and because bankers, just like any other human beings. are vulnerable to bribery and corruption.’

In a move to curb money laundering the CBK decreed that no more than $10,000 (Ksh1 million) could be deposited in a single transaction. It also developed regulations requiring banks to know their customers and their customers’ sources of funds, and to report any suspicious transactions.

Drug barons are attracted to heavy cash retail businesses, which move money on a daily basis. Retail businesses such as supermarket chains, matatus, pubs, are easy targets for cleaning illegal money because customers pay in cash

Laundering by banking officials is neither new nor is it about to end. ‘Four years ago, HSBC, a banking institution based in London, got into big trouble after it was found to have facilitated drugs money from Mexico,’ says Mbogo. HSBC bank was accused by the US federal banking authority of clearing suspicious travellers’ cheques worth of billions of dollars.

A Dynamic Three-Stage Process

Money-laundering is a dynamic three-stage process. The three stages are usually referred to as placement, layering and integration. Placement involves introducing the dirty cash into the financial system, perhaps mingling it with ‘clean’ funds to create an aura of legitimacy. Layering involves attempts to distance the money from its illegal source through layers of financial transactions. Integration makes the money available to the criminal as proceeds of legitimate commerce such as purchase of shares in business or investment in luxury goods and real estate.

Because illicit money generated from the drug business has to be infused into the financial system, it involves an intricate web of people and movement to ensure no paper trail is left behind. First, the money is ‘broken up’ into different amounts, even in different currencies, then moved around different accounts, to effectively obscure the audit trail. Once this is successfully done, the owner can access his clean money.

‘A couple of years ago. if you recall, a new entrant into Nairobi politics, inadvertently boasted that he ran 200 bank accounts,’ says Mbogo. ‘Just ask yourself, why would a person need 200 accounts, never mind the only business he was known to be engaged in was running some matatus in the city?’

According to Mbogo’s banking fraud investigations in Kenya, secondhand car bazaars and real estate construction businesses are the closest we have to drug money being laundered. ‘Let’s put it this way, drug barons are attracted to heavy cash retail businesses, that move money on a daily basis,’ says Mbogo. ‘Retail businesses such as supermarket chains, investing in the running of matatus, running a pub business, are easy targets for cleaning illegal money because customers pay in cash; hence it is easy to create fake transactions and receipts, which are reported as business sales when depositing cash on a daily basis.’

A big time building materials hardware company does not have to receive “illegal” money directly from a drug baron. All it needs to do is ask the property developer, in this case the money launderer, to deposit the money into a certain account

Big time supermarkets chains deliver huge volumes of cash, sometimes 4-5 time a day to banks. ‘The banks, in all fairness, cannot suspect that some of this money could be from illicit drug profiteering. On a good day, the biggest supermarket chain in Kenya deposits anything between Ksh30 million and Ksh50 million,’ says Mbogo. ‘The same applies to the matatu industry and bar owners. They deposit money on a daily basis, oftentimes 2 to 3 times depending on the briskness of the business.’

Eliud Njoroge, one of the few hedge fund managers in the country, says supermarket stocks are a good investment for drug kingpins. ‘They will identify a popular and fast growing supermarket chain and buy into it by way of stocks, which are in hundreds of millions of shillings. The yearly dividends that accrue, will be clean money, never mind the dirty money that was injected into the business through buying its shares.’

The forensic auditor avers that the proliferation of car bazaars in Nairobi coincided with the increased drug trade in this part of the world, when the Indian Ocean littoral was identified as an important ‘unmanned’ route. In the secondhand car businesses, you can claim to be banking money every day from fake car sales. With the setting up of a legitimate motor car business as a front company, the drug money is infused into the financial system legally through the opening of multiple accounts that handle money accrued from sales.

The other popular way that illicit drug money has been injected into the financial system is through the property development projects. ‘Just like the proliferation of secondhand car marts, it is also not a coincidence that the boom in the real estate industry has taken place in the past couple of years,’ observes Mbogo.

Like a supermarket, real estate development is a heavy cash business that involves employing casual labourers who are paid daily, or sometimes weekly. It also involves the buying and hiring of expensive heavy machinery (not on a daily business though), and building materials on a daily basis. ‘The construction business is favoured by drug barons because it facilitates what we call trading in goods,’ says the forensic auditor.

‘A big time building materials hardware company does not have to receive “illegal” money directly from a drug baron. All it needs to do is ask the property developer, in this case the money launderer, to deposit the money into a certain account. Once that is done, he can then go to the hardware shop and be given all the materials he has paid for. There is no money exchange, but there is value for money, which leaves no paper trail.’

The introduction of mobile money 10 years ago was a blessing to the drug barons, says Mbogo. The barons today have maximised the use of M-Pesa, Safaricom’s mobile money transfer innovation that mainly targeted Kenyans who did not have banking facilitates. There are 60,000 plus M-Pesa agents countrywide, as opposed to 840 bank branches in the country.

Today, a simple e-mail sent from Swindon, southeast London by a Kenyan living in the UK, to a fellow Kenyan in Nairobi can facilitate the moving of millions of shillings without actual movement of the money itself

‘Just like trading in goods to exchange value for cash, customers who use M-Pesa exchange cash for virtual value that goes into their phone. This allows them to buy goods, transfer money and even receive credit. Drug barons nowadays are moving huge amounts of money through M-Pesa in multiple credit lines, which allows them to even withdraw the money in another country. ‘Mobile transactions are made through text messages and therefore are difficult to trace,’ says Mbogo.

Safaricom, the company that runs the M-Pesa banking facility, recently said since 2016, Kenyans have been moving on average Ksh16 billion ($160 million) a day. The maximum amount one can transfer in a single transaction is Ksh140,000 ($1,400). ‘Let’s assume a drug lord operates or has access to upward of 10 mobile phone lines. He is capable of moving Ksh140,000 in all these credit lines, every day, every week, every month, several times over. In a year, he will have moved a humungous amount of money, running into hundreds of millions of shillings, without raising an eyebrow from the concerned authorities,’ explains Mbogo.

And There’s Always Been Hawala

One of the oldest forms of sending and transferring money without moving the money itself, Hawala, an Indian concept used in many centuries, is still as attractive to drug barons as it is to people who either do not have bank accounts or want to avoid the banking system altogether. ‘Today, a simple e-mail sent from Swindon, southeast London by a Kenyan living in the UK, to a fellow Kenyan in Nairobi can facilitate the moving of millions of shillings without actual movement of the money itself.’ Mbogo says he once traced an e-mail correspondence between the UK and Nairobi’s River Road that talked of money transfer. ‘The system works on trust, there is no paper work, the e-mail is written in coded language, you’d have to be knowledgeable in the language to know what’s being talked about.’

The really bold drug barons will set up their own banks to avoid all the hassle of bribing the numerous people from the police to banking officials; dodging the tedious procedures and the obvious scrutiny from government bureaucrats. ‘In this county, we have had such banks, some OF whose operations have been suspended, but I can tell you as night follows day, the banks are still very much in operation,’ says Mbogo.

 


Right of reply
Jersey Finance letter to The Elephant

Jersey Finance letter to The Elephant

Attachment:

Letter's attachment

Letter’s attachment

Support The Elephant.

The Elephant is helping to build a truly public platform, while producing consistent, quality investigations, opinions and analysis. The Elephant cannot survive and grow without your participation. Now, more than ever, it is vital for The Elephant to reach as many people as possible.

Your support helps protect The Elephant's independence and it means we can continue keeping the democratic space free, open and robust. Every contribution, however big or small, is so valuable for our collective future.

By

Mr Kahura is a senior writer for The Elephant.

Politics

Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?

Being nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine grass-roots legitimacy but it is hard not to suspect that some of the losers in the nominations process might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn.

Published

on

Who Won Kenya’s “Nominations”?
Download PDFPrint Article

Who won Kenya’s “nominations”, the tense and often unpredictable political process through which parties select which candidates they want to represent them in the general election scheduled for 9 August? That may sound like a silly question. Social media is full of photographs of smiling candidate clutching their certificates of nomination—surely we need to look no further for the winners?

But maybe we do. Beyond the individual candidates in the contests for nominations, there are other winners. One may be obvious: it seems the general feeling is that Deputy President William Ruto came out better from the nominations than did his principal rival in the presidential race, former opposition leader Raila Odinga—about which more below. However, for some, coming out on top in the nominations may prove a poisoned chalice. Where nominations are seen to have been illegitimate, candidates are likely to find that losing rivals who stand as independents may be locally popular and may gain sympathy votes, making it harder for party candidates to win the general election. This means that there are often some less obvious winners and losers.

One reason for this is that nominations shape how voters think about the parties and who they want to give their vote to, come the general election. Research that we conducted in 2017, including a nationally representative survey of public opinion on these issues, found that citizens who felt that their party’s nomination process had not been legitimate were less likely to say that they would vote in the general election. In other words, disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out. In 2017, this appeared to disadvantage Odinga and his Orange Democratic Movement (ODM), whose nomination process was generally seen to have been more problematic—although whether this is because they were, or rather because this is how they were depicted by the media, is hard to say.

In the context of a tight election in 2022, popular perceptions of how the nominations were managed may therefore be as significant for who “wins” and “loses” as the question of which individuals secured the party ticket.

Why do parties dread nominations?

The major parties dreaded the nominations process—dreaded it so much, in fact, that despite all their bold words early on about democracy and the popular choice (and despite investments in digital technology and polling staff), most of the parties tried pretty hard to avoid primary elections as a way of deciding on their candidates. In some cases that avoidance was complete: the Jubilee party gave direct nominations to all those who will stand in its name. Other parties held some primaries—Ruto’s United Democratic Alliance (UDA) seems to have managed most—but in many cases they turned to other methods.

That is because of a complicated thing about parties and elections in Kenya. It is widely assumed—and a recent opinion poll commissioned by South Consulting confirms this—that when it comes to 9 August most voters will decide how to cast their ballot on the basis of individual candidates and not which party they are standing for. Political parties in Kenya are often ephemeral, and people readily move from one to another. But that does not mean that political parties are irrelevant. They are symbolic markers with emotive associations – sometimes to particular ideas, sometimes to a particular regional base. ODM, for example, has been linked both with a commitment to constitutional reform and with the Luo community, most notably in Nyanza. So the local politician who wants to be a member of a county assembly will be relying mostly on their personal influence and popularity—but they know that if they get a nomination for a party which has that kind of emotive association, it will smoothen their path.

Disputed and controversial nomination processes can encourage voters to stay away from the general election, making it harder for leaders to get their vote out.

This means that multiple candidates vie for each possible nomination slot. In the past, that competition has always been expensive, as rival aspirants wooed voters with gifts. It occasionally turned violent, and often involved cheating. Primary elections in 2013 and 2017 were messy and chaotic, and were not certain to result in the selection of the candidate most likely to win the general election. From the point of view of the presidential candidates, there are real risks to the primary elections their parties or coalitions oversee: the reputational damage due to chaos and the awareness that local support might be lost if a disgruntled aspirant turns against the party.

This helps to explain why in 2022 many parties made use of direct nominations—variously dressed up as the operation of consensus or the result of mysterious “opinion polls” to identify the strongest candidate. What that really meant was an intensive process of promise-making and/or pressure to persuade some candidates to stand down. Where that did not work, and primaries still took place, the promise-making and bullying came afterwards—to stop disappointed aspirants from turning against the party and standing as independents. The consequence of all that top-down management was that the nominations saw much less open violence than in previous years.

So who won, and who lost, at the national level?

Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates. That brings us to the big national winners and losers of the process. Odinga—and his ODM party—have come out rather bruised. They have been accused of nepotism, bribery and of ignoring local wishes. This is a particularly dangerous accusation for Odinga, as it plays into popular concerns that, following his “handshake” with President Kenyatta and his adoption as the candidate of the “establishment”, he is a “project” of wealthy and powerful individuals who wish to retain power through the backdoor after Kenyatta stands down having served two-terms in office. In the face of well-publicised claims that Odinga would be a “remote controlled president” doing the bidding of the Kenyatta family and their allies, the impression that the nominations were stage-managed from on high in an undemocratic process was the last thing Azimio needed.

Moreover, perhaps because Odinga seems to have been less active than his rival in personally intervening to mollify aggrieved local politicians, the ODM nominations process seems to have left more of a mess. That was compounded by complications in the Azimio la Umoja/One Kenya Alliance Coalition Party (we’ll call it Azimio from now on, for convenience). Where Azimio “zoned”—that is, agreed on a single candidate from all its constituent parties—disappointed aspirants complained. Where it did not zone, and agreed to let each party nominate its own candidate for governor, MP and so on, then smaller parties in the coalition complained that they would face unfair competition come the general election. That is why the leaders of some of these smaller groups such as Machakos Governor Alfred Mutua made dramatic (or theatrical, depending on your view) announcements of their decision to leave Azimio and support Ruto.

Despite all the back-room deal-making, top-down political management was not especially successful in soothing the feelings of those who did not come out holding certificates.

So Ruto looks like a nomination winner. But his success comes with a big price tag. His interventions to placate disgruntled aspirants involved more than soothing words. A new government will have lots of goodies to distribute to supporters—positions in the civil service and parastatals, diplomatic roles, not to mention business opportunities of many kinds. But the bag of goodies is not bottomless, and it seems likely that a lot of promises have been made. Ruto’s undoubted talents as an organizer and deal-maker have been useful to him through the nominations—but those deals may prove expensive for him, and for Kenya, if he wins the presidential poll.

Money, politics, and the cost of campaigns

Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword. In the short term, many of them will have saved considerable money: depending on exactly when the deal was done, they will have been spared some days of campaign expenses—no need to fuel cars, buy airtime for bloggers, pay for t-shirts and posters, and hand out cash. But that will be a brief respite. The disappointed rivals who have gone independent will make the campaigns harder for them—and likely more expensive. The belief that they were favoured by the party machinery may mean that voter expectations are higher when it comes to handouts and donations on the campaign trail. And the fact they were nominated rather than selected by party members may undermine their grass-roots legitimacy.

Others may experience a similar delayed effect. Among the short-term losers of the nominations will have been some of the “goons” who have played a prominent physical role in previous nominations: their muscular services were largely not required (although there were exceptions). The printers of posters and t-shirts will similarly have seen a disappointing nominations period (although surely they will have received enough early orders to keep them happy, especially where uncertainty over the nomination was very prolonged). The providers of billboard advertising may have seen a little less demand than they had hoped for, although they too seem to have done quite well from selling space to aspirants who—willingly or not—did not make it to the primaries. But where the general election will be fiercely contested, entrepreneurs will likely make up any lost ground as the campaigns get going. In these cases, competition has been postponed, not avoided.

Those in less competitive wards, constituencies or counties—the kind in which one party tends to dominate in the general election—are unlikely to be able to make up for lost time. These “one-party” areas may be in shorter supply in 2022 than in the past, due to the way that the control of specific leaders and alliances over the country’s former provinces has fragmented, but there will still be some races in which it is obvious who will win, and so the campaigns will be less heated.

Those who “won” by being directly nominated to their desired positions may also come to see this process as something of a double-edged sword.

More definite losers are the parties themselves. In some ways, we could say they did well as institutions, because they were spared the embarrassment of violent primaries. But the settling of many nominations without primaries meant not collecting nomination fees from aspirants in some cases, and refunding them in others. That will have cost parties a chunk of money, which they won’t get back. That may not affect the campaigns much—the money for campaigns flows in opaque and complex ways that may not touch the parties themselves. But it will affect the finances of the parties as organizations, which are often more than a little fragile.

Are the losers actually the biggest winners?

Some losers, however, are really big winners. Think about those candidates who would not have won competitive primaries but were strong enough to be able to credibly complain that they had been hard done by due to the decision to select a rival in a direct process. In many cases, these individuals were able to extract considerable concessions in return for the promise not to contest as independents, and so disrupt their coalition’s best laid plans. This means that many of the losers—who may well have been defeated anyway—walked away with the promise of a post-election reward without the expense and bother of having to campaign up until the polls.

It is hard not to suspect that some of them might feel a little bit relieved at this out-turn. In fact, some of them may have been aiming at this all along. For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome. Instead of spending the next three months in an exhausting round of funerals, fund-raisers and rallies, constantly worrying about whether they have enough fifty (or larger) shilling notes to hand out and avoiding answering their phones, they can sit back and wait for their parastatal appointment, ambassadorship, or business opportunity.

For those with limited resources and uncertain prospects at the ballot, the opportunity to stand down in favour of another candidate may have been pretty welcome.

For these individuals, the biggest worry now is not their popularity or campaign, but simply the risk that their coalition might not win the presidential election, rendering the promises they have received worthless. Those whose wishes come true will be considerably more fortunate—and financially better off—than their colleagues who made it through the nominations but fall at the final hurdle of the general election.

Separating the winners of the nominations process from the losers may therefore be harder than it seems.

Continue Reading

Politics

Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning

Rwandans are welcoming, but the government’s priority must be to solve the internal political problems which produce refugees.

Published

on

Asylum Pact: Rwanda Must Do Some Political Housecleaning
Download PDFPrint Article

The governments of the United Kingdom and Rwanda have signed an agreement to move asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing. This partnership has been heavily criticized and has been referred to as unethical and inhumane. It has also been opposed by the United Nations Refugee Agency on the grounds that it is contrary to the spirit of the Refugee Convention.

Here in Rwanda, we heard the news of the partnership on the day it was signed. The subject has never been debated in the Rwandan parliament and neither had it been canvassed in the local media prior to the announcement.

According to the government’s official press release, the partnership reflects Rwanda’s commitment to protect vulnerable people around the world. It is argued that by relocating migrants to Rwanda, their dignity and rights will be respected and they will be provided with a range of opportunities, including for personal development and employment, in a country that has consistently been ranked among the safest in the world.

A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives. Therefore, most Rwandans are sensitive to the plight of those forced to leave their home countries and would be more than willing to make them feel welcome. However, the decision to relocate the migrants to Rwanda raises a number of questions.

The government argues that relocating migrants to Rwanda will address the inequalities in opportunity that push economic migrants to leave their homes. It is not clear how this will work considering that Rwanda is already the most unequal country in the East African region. And while it is indeed seen as among the safest countries in the world, it was however ranked among the bottom five globally in the recently released 2022 World Happiness Index. How would migrants, who may have suffered psychological trauma fare in such an environment, and in a country that is still rebuilding itself?

A considerable number of Rwandans have been refugees and therefore understand the struggle that comes with being an asylum seeker and what it means to receive help from host countries to rebuild lives.

What opportunities can Rwanda provide to the migrants? Between 2018—the year the index was first published—and 2020, Rwanda’s ranking on the Human Capital Index (HCI) has been consistently low. Published by the World Bank, HCI measures which countries are best at mobilising the economic and professional potential of their citizens. Rwanda’s score is lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa and it is partly due to this that the government had found it difficult to attract private investment that would create significant levels of employment prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment, particularly among the youth, has since worsened.

Despite the accolades Rwanda has received internationally for its development record, Rwanda’s economy has never been driven by a dynamic private or trade sector; it has been driven by aid. The country’s debt reached 73 per cent of GDP in 2021 while its economy has not developed the key areas needed to achieve and secure genuine social and economic transformation for its entire population. In addition to human capital development, these include social capital development, especially mutual trust among citizens considering the country’s unfortunate historical past, establishing good relations with neighbouring states, respect for human rights, and guaranteeing the accountability of public officials.

Rwanda aspires to become an upper middle-income country by 2035 and a high-income country by 2050. In 2000, the country launched a development plan that aimed to transform it into a middle-income country by 2020 on the back on a knowledge economy. That development plan, which has received financial support from various development partners including the UK which contributed over £1 billion, did not deliver the anticipated outcomes. Today the country remains stuck in the category of low-income states. Its structural constraints as a small land-locked country with few natural resources are often cited as an obstacle to development. However, this is exacerbated by current governance in Rwanda, which limits the political space, lacks separation of powers, impedes freedom of expression and represses government critics, making it even harder for Rwanda to reach the desired developmental goals.

Rwanda’s structural constraints as a small land-locked country with no natural resources are often viewed as an obstacle to achieving the anticipated development.

As a result of the foregoing, Rwanda has been producing its own share of refugees, who have sought political and economic asylum in other countries. The UK alone took in 250 Rwandese last year. There are others around the world, the majority of whom have found refuge in different countries in Africa, including countries neighbouring Rwanda. The presence of these refugees has been a source of tension in the region with Kigali accusing neighbouring states of supporting those who want to overthrow the government by force. Some Rwandans have indeed taken up armed struggle, a situation that, if not resolved, threatens long-term security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes region. In fact, the UK government’s advice on travel to Rwanda has consistently warned of the unstable security situation near the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.

While Rwanda’s intention to help address the global imbalance of opportunity that fuels illegal immigration is laudable, I would recommend that charity start at home. As host of the 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting scheduled for June 2022, and Commonwealth Chair-in-Office for the next two years, the government should seize the opportunity to implement the core values and principles of the Commonwealth, particularly the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression, political and civil rights, and a vibrant civil society. This would enable Rwanda to address its internal social, economic and political challenges, creating a conducive environment for long-term economic development, and durable peace that will not only stop Rwanda from producing refugees but will also render the country ready and capable of economically and socially integrating refugees from less fortunate countries in the future.

Continue Reading

Politics

Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement

The elite’s ‘solution’ to the climate crisis is to turn the displaced into exploitable migrant labour. We need a truly internationalist alternative.

Published

on

Beyond Borders: Why We Need a Truly Internationalist Climate Justice Movement
Download PDFPrint Article

“We are not drowning, we are fighting” has become the rallying call for the Pacific Climate Warriors. From UN climate meetings to blockades of Australian coal ports, these young Indigenous defenders from twenty Pacific Island states are raising the alarm of global warming for low-lying atoll nations. Rejecting the narrative of victimisation – “you don’t need my pain or tears to know that we’re in a crisis,” as Samoan Brianna Fruean puts it – they are challenging the fossil fuel industry and colonial giants such as Australia, responsible for the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions.

Around the world, climate disasters displace around 25.3 million people annually – one person every one to two seconds. In 2016, new displacements caused by climate disasters outnumbered new displacements as a result of persecution by a ratio of three to one. By 2050, an estimated 143 million people will be displaced in just three regions: Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Some projections for global climate displacement are as high as one billion people.

Mapping who is most vulnerable to displacement reveals the fault lines between rich and poor, between the global North and South, and between whiteness and its Black, Indigenous and racialised others.

Globalised asymmetries of power create migration but constrict mobility. Displaced people – the least responsible for global warming – face militarised borders. While climate change is itself ignored by the political elite, climate migration is presented as a border security issue and the latest excuse for wealthy states to fortify their borders. In 2019, the Australian Defence Forces announced military patrols around Australia’s waters to intercept climate refugees.

The burgeoning terrain of “climate security” prioritises militarised borders, dovetailing perfectly into eco-apartheid. “Borders are the environment’s greatest ally; it is through them that we will save the planet,” declares the party of French far-Right politician Marine Le Pen. A US Pentagon-commissioned report on the security implications of climate change encapsulates the hostility to climate refugees: “Borders will be strengthened around the country to hold back unwanted starving immigrants from the Caribbean islands (an especially severe problem), Mexico, and South America.” The US has now launched Operation Vigilant Sentry off the Florida coast and created Homeland Security Task Force Southeast to enforce marine interdiction and deportation in the aftermath of disasters in the Caribbean.

Labour migration as climate mitigation

you broke the ocean in
half to be here.
only to meet nothing that wants you
– Nayyirah Waheed

Parallel to increasing border controls, temporary labour migration is increasingly touted as a climate adaptation strategy. As part of the ‘Nansen Initiative’, a multilateral, state-led project to address climate-induced displacement, the Australian government has put forward its temporary seasonal worker program as a key solution to building climate resilience in the Pacific region. The Australian statement to the Nansen Initiative Intergovernmental Global Consultation was, in fact, delivered not by the environment minister but by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Beginning in April 2022, the new Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme will make it easier for Australian businesses to temporarily insource low-wage workers (what the scheme calls “low-skilled” and “unskilled” workers) from small Pacific island countries including Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, and Tuvalu. Not coincidentally, many of these countries’ ecologies and economies have already been ravaged by Australian colonialism for over one hundred years.

It is not an anomaly that Australia is turning displaced climate refugees into a funnel of temporary labour migration. With growing ungovernable and irregular migration, including climate migration, temporary labour migration programs have become the worldwide template for “well-managed migration.” Elites present labour migration as a double win because high-income countries fill their labour shortage needs without providing job security or citizenship, while low-income countries alleviate structural impoverishment through migrants’ remittances.

Dangerous, low-wage jobs like farm, domestic, and service work that cannot be outsourced are now almost entirely insourced in this way. Insourcing and outsourcing represent two sides of the same neoliberal coin: deliberately deflated labour and political power. Not to be confused with free mobility, temporary labour migration represents an extreme neoliberal approach to the quartet of foreign, climate, immigration, and labour policy, all structured to expand networks of capital accumulation through the creation and disciplining of surplus populations.

The International Labour Organization recognises that temporary migrant workers face forced labour, low wages, poor working conditions, virtual absence of social protection, denial of freedom association and union rights, discrimination and xenophobia, as well as social exclusion. Under these state-sanctioned programs of indentureship, workers are legally tied to an employer and deportable. Temporary migrant workers are kept compliant through the threats of both termination and deportation, revealing the crucial connection between immigration status and precarious labour.

Through temporary labour migration programs, workers’ labour power is first captured by the border and this pliable labour is then exploited by the employer. Denying migrant workers permanent immigration status ensures a steady supply of cheapened labour. Borders are not intended to exclude all people, but to create conditions of ‘deportability’, which increases social and labour precarity. These workers are labelled as ‘foreign’ workers, furthering racist xenophobia against them, including by other workers. While migrant workers are temporary, temporary migration is becoming the permanent neoliberal, state-led model of migration.

Reparations include No Borders

“It’s immoral for the rich to talk about their future children and grandchildren when the children of the Global South are dying now.” – Asad Rehman

Discussions about building fairer and more sustainable political-economic systems have coalesced around a Green New Deal. Most public policy proposals for a Green New Deal in the US, Canada, UK and the EU articulate the need to simultaneously tackle economic inequality, social injustice, and the climate crisis by transforming our extractive and exploitative system towards a low-carbon, feminist, worker and community-controlled care-based society. While a Green New Deal necessarily understands the climate crisis and the crisis of capitalism as interconnected — and not a dichotomy of ‘the environment versus the economy’ — one of its main shortcomings is its bordered scope. As Harpreet Kaur Paul and Dalia Gebrial write: “the Green New Deal has largely been trapped in national imaginations.”

Any Green New Deal that is not internationalist runs the risk of perpetuating climate apartheid and imperialist domination in our warming world. Rich countries must redress the global and asymmetrical dimensions of climate debtunfair trade and financial agreements, military subjugation, vaccine apartheidlabour exploitation, and border securitisation.

It is impossible to think about borders outside the modern nation-state and its entanglements with empire, capitalism, race, caste, gender, sexuality, and ability. Borders are not even fixed lines demarcating territory. Bordering regimes are increasingly layered with drone surveillance, interception of migrant boats, and security controls far beyond states’ territorial limits. From Australia offshoring migrant detention around Oceania to Fortress Europe outsourcing surveillance and interdiction to the Sahel and Middle East, shifting cartographies demarcate our colonial present.

Perhaps most offensively, when colonial countries panic about ‘border crises’ they position themselves as victims. But the genocide, displacement, and movement of millions of people were unequally structured by colonialism for three centuries, with European settlers in the Americas and Oceania, the transatlantic slave trade from Africa, and imported indentured labourers from Asia. Empire, enslavement, and indentureship are the bedrock of global apartheid today, determining who can live where and under what conditions. Borders are structured to uphold this apartheid.

The freedom to stay and the freedom to move, which is to say no borders, is decolonial reparations and redistribution long due.

Continue Reading

Trending