Last week, the International Crisis Group (ICG) published a new report on the eastern DRC in which it zooms in on a conflict over customary power in the Ruzizi Plain (Uvira territory, South Kivu). Apparently, ICG no longer tries to weigh in on broader diplomatic, political and military developments in the DRC, like the recently signed Framework Agreement and the current army restructuring process, but has decided to focus uniquely on conflict dynamics at the micro level. This choice reflects ICG’s understanding of the “root causes” of violence in the eastern DRC, which it describes as “local competition between communities for land and economic opportunities” (p.i). As the report concludes: “far from the national and regional preoccupations of the national government and the United Nations, ethnic spaces are being redrawn by violence” (p.24). In order to prove this point, the report subsequently presents an “anatomy” of the conflict around the customary chiefdom of the Ruzizi Plain, portraying it as primarily resulting from ethnic tensions between the (“immigrant”) Barundi and the (“autochthon”) Bafuliro that have existed since the colonial era.
Author: Mats Utas
Ten Reasons Not To Write Your Master’s Dissertation on Sexual Violence in War, by Marsha Henry
It’s the first day of Lent term and the students are nervously gathered in a small stuffy classroom. When I walk in and head towards the front of the room, the group falls silent. I introduce myself and we start a round of introductions and I ask students to speak briefly about their interest in the course. The first student tells me, and the class, that she’s in IR (International Relations), and is keen to take the course because she’s interested in studying sexual violence in war. Another student turns to her, incredulous because she too is interested in that exact subject, and that furthermore she has worked for 3 months in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and has ‘seen a lot’. A few more students echo similar interests and I’m trying hard not to stereotype these students. But it’s difficult. A mythical figure is beginning to crystallise in my head and I can’t stop it. This figure is young, female and possibly middle-class, sometimes Scandinavian. She’s studying IR, Human Rights or Gender Studies. A few male students also indicate an interest. Some indicate interest in other topics, but there is a numbers problem from the outset. I feel uncomfortable as this is the third year that I’ve taught this course, each time allotting only one lecture week to the subject of sexual violence in war, and subsuming it under the larger heading of ‘gender, sexualised violence and work in militarised contexts’. Each year students have asked for more time to be devoted to the subject, for the lecture week to be moved up, and for their to be less focus on diversity in the armed forces. When students come to me during office hours to discuss the scope of their dissertations on the subject I fidget. After a few conversations with colleagues, I decide I need to start compiling a list – of compelling reasons why students should not write on the subject of sexual violence in war. But what would I do with this list? Can it be shared? And what of my responsibility not to teach on the subject?
Generals for good? Do-good generals and the structural endurance of wartime networks
In the aftermath of civil wars there is a general belief that old command structures of former rebel movements and militias is a serious threat to newfound stability. Indeed there is enough evidence around pointing out how easily remobilized such networks are. There is however a tendency of viewing this mobilization as the very logic of the networks themselves – as if their very raison d’être is to create eternal conflict. The problem with this hackneyed focus on armed groups is that we are letting the leading political characters that acted behind the façade of the armed groups off the hook. In any DDR process a lot of effort is placed on dismantling chains of command, command and control etc., of armed groups. Despite this, ten years after the end of the second Liberian war contacts between commanders and their former soldiers still prevail, yet most commonly for non-military reasons. Indeed some networks of ex-combatants have disappeared but many others remain. It appears that what the DDR process chiefly managed to do was to drive the networks underground and out of sight of the international community.
The golden jubilee, by Linnéa Gelot
This year’s Africa Day 25 May is the 50th anniversary of the African Union (AU), former Organisation of African Unity (OAU). NAI researcher Linnéa Gelot comments on the AUs achievements and remaining challenges for the future.
The OAU was best known for its long and finally victorious decolonization struggle and the often problematic defense of African sovereignty and support for liberation struggle leaders. The OAU was also important in achieving consensus around a set of core principles and norms governing a pan-African political order. These were highly supportive of sovereign equality and non-interference, favoring a so-called ‘traditional’ notion of state sovereignty. The OAU also served as a platform for debate around important alternative African visions of economic development and governance, and the OAU initiated work that has since been built on by the AU: to serve as a vehicle for African states to speak with one voice on issues of common interest to the continent in global forums.
Fair investments? Swedish Governmental funds, land grabbing and human rights in Sierra Leone, by Tilde Berggren
According to a number of local and international NGO’s, journalists and researchers monitoring the situation on the ground, the large scale investment in Sierra Leone between Addax Onyx Group (AOG) and Swedfund, as well as a range of additional investors, is causing concern. The main concern is that the investment is contributing to poverty, decreased access to basic rights and may increase instability and anger amongst the local population. Swedfund is dismissing the concerns, arguing that the monitoring of the situation is sufficient and emphasizes that the project is in its start-up phase and it is therefore too early to measure impact. However, those monitoring the situation are many and conclusions based on their monitoring are coherent and consistent and can therefore not be dismissed.
Swedfund is defined as a bilateral Development Finance Institution, it is a development finance institution owned by the Swedish State. In 2011 Swedfund signed an agreement to become equity partner with Addax Onyx Group (AOG), committing EUR 10 million to an investment in Sierra Leone. Sweden contributed to create the largest private sector agriculture investment in Sierra Leone ever made. The purpose: to grow sugarcane and produce ethanol for the European market. The Swedish Government and Swedfund claims to be committed to comply with principles for businesses and human rights and to ensure that investments and aid contributes to ensure respect for human rights.
It is more a rule than an exception that negative impacts on the lives of ordinary people of large scale investments are ignored. In the majority of cases it is those that have access to information and the financial capital that are taking the lead in exploitation of natural resources while working for governments and multi-national corporations.
It is not unusual that businesses invest in conflicts and post-conflict affected areas where no or few accountability mechanisms exist and where corruption is the norm. To meet the rising demand for accountability of corporations, principles have been developed by international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank. The idea to ensure that the corporations be held responsible to some kind of reasonable standards in their pursuit of financial capital is good.
Because of the complicated nature of domestic and international law and the way it relate to multi-national corporations, an alternative to strict legal accountability has taken shape in non-binding international standards. These principles are non-enforceable and may in some cases rather hamper accountability and access to justice in countries without proper accountability mechanisms than helping to support them. Investment agreements may pave the way for abuse and violations of human rights provide huge financial gains for international investors and a select few of national political and economic elite.
It is the State that has the responsibility to protect its population against human rights abuses by third parties, such as corporations. It is important to distinguish the responsibility of States and corporations. States ratify legally binding conventions, meaning that they have a legal responsibility to respect and protect human rights. Corporations are merely legally bound by the agreement they have entered, be it with a state, another corporation or an individual. Corporations are bound by the domestic laws governing the state where they establish their business. Even if corporations are bound to “respect” human rights, as established in non-binding UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly resolutions, this is not, to date, a legal responsibility under international law, rather a moral and ethical responsibility.
A State does not violate its human rights obligations if proper accountability mechanisms, such as laws, policies and procedures for investigations, prosecution in a court of law and effective legal remedies, are implemented and enforced. In cases of human rights abuses committed by corporations, it is the responsibility of the State to prevent, punish and compensate when abuses occur, corporations are not attributed such authority.
It is not unusual that long term agreements are entered into between States and multi-national corporations. A corporation may declare in an agreement and in its general corporate social responsibility strategy that it intend to apply international non-binding standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. A corporation may apply the processes established in these international principles and follow the standards in detail. Yet, the agreement between a State and a corporation may have severe impact on the human rights and lives of large numbers of people unless domestic standards and mechanisms exists to hold corporations responsible for abuse..
When corporations lease large areas of land, people that remain on the land can in the best-case scenario agree to limited or no possibility to continue using their land for income and food generating purposes. They might stay on the land without being able to use it or they might leave. They might also be offered to start working for a corporation if such possibilities arise. This often happens under unpredictable and dire working conditions and lack of alternatives to income makes it hard to opt out.
Take the example of the above mentioned private investment in Sierra Leone between Addax Bioenergy and the Government of Sierra Leone. Addax have leased 44 000 hectares of land, equivalent to 26 000 soccer fields from the Government of Sierra Leone. The land lease agreement is valid for a period of 50 years. 92 villages exist on the leased area, which is inhabited by approximately 14 000 people. Around 2000 work opportunities is estimated to have been created the past four years for these 14 000, 4000 were promised so far. The people living on the land are paid an average of 8 dollars per 1 hectare and family a year.
The overall lease agreement is entered into between Addax and local Chiefdom Councils. The lease sets out how, amongst other issues, the rent of the lease will be distributed between the central government, the chiefdom council, the local district council and amongst ”those adults treated as land owners”, (which means those people inhabiting the leased land). These adults are not legal land owners of the land; since they according to the laws governing Sierra Leone cannot own land. The Chiefdom Council agrees, in the lease, to “use their best endeavors” to ensure that the lease is signed.
The local land owners were also given a document called an ”acknowledgement agreement” in which they by receipt of an annual payment of 1.40 USD per acre of land, to be shared amongst family, acknowledged the validity of the lease agreement between the local authorities and the corporation.
In return the “landowner” agreed not to interfere with the company’s rights under the lease and they acknowledge the company’s rights to use their plot of land. The signing by the “landowner” on behalf of his family consolidates the free, prior and informed consent process, according to the corporation. The lease gives the corporation exclusive possession over villages, rivers, forests etc. that forms a part of the leased land.
If any conflicts arise on the lease they shall be resolved by arbitration in London, hence not by the national judicial system of Sierra Leone. Knowing the costs involved in arbitration, the chances that any local authorities, would contest any clause in the lease by arbitration in London, are extremely slim. If, however, the parties resort to arbitration, the right to appeal is waived by the lease agreement.
Keeping the above in mind, the process establishing the above lease and “acknowledgement agreement” has beencarried out in accordance with established principles by the United Nations on business and human rights and IFC standards. A large number of information sessions were held with the inhabitants of the land and the corporation. Several evaluations and assessments were made by the corporation. The corporation feels proud to inform that now, contrary to before, the land owners have a paper showing their registered plot of land. Note however the land owners are not the “owners” they are just called “owners”.
It must be stressed that the majority of the inhabitants in the staked out area have very low, if any education, and often they have not travelled further than to the district town Makeni. The majority of the people in the area live beneath the poverty line. This means that they barely have food for the day. When signing, or putting their thumbprint on the acknowledgement agreement, they could not grasp the large scale implications. The agreement was already established by their own local authorities. They received less than two dollars a year per acre for land they had farmed and resided on for generations.To them, giving up access to their cassava plantations and the use of a plot of land in exchange for the promises of a large scale investment most likely came with the idea of progress towards a better life. In their world, when the notion of jobs, roads, income, food, education and health arise, it is not difficult to sign such a document. However, they also knew that they did not have a choice, on their behalf, the local authorities had already leased the land and, as noted in the lease agreement ”used their best endeavors to ensure that the lease would be signed” and that the corporation be ensured to ”peacefully and quietly” enjoy the land without any interruption.
It is argued that benefits will come with the investment, but despite these, what the land lease agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and Addax really implies is that 14 000 people no longer have rights to use the land, freely access areas to hunt and in some cases access clean water. They do however have access to rice. The corporation has established rice plantations. There are growing concerns by local NGOs that rice does not sufficiently ensure the nutrition needs of the inhabitants.
Hesitation to sign the acknowledgement agreement might have arisen if the inhabitants of the land had equal access to information and knowledge as the corporation and the Sierra Leonean Government. But for a person living far away from international business know-how it is virtually impossible to strategically understand the financial and long term implications of the agreement.
Perhaps they would have thought twice, questioned or demanded conditions had they had equal access to information. This is where the Government of Sierra Leone should have stepped in, to ensure that the human rights of the inhabitants of the land were protected. But the Government did not. The Government was the party that signed the lease agreement. The basic livelihood of 14 000 citizens was with a signature replaced with uncertain futures, as temporary laborers, at the whims of a large-scale investor with limited socio-economic concerns for the population. Surprisingly those working for the company and investors, such as the Swedish Government appear to have a very hard time understanding why the inhabitants now complain about the establishment of the corporation.
Without doubt the people did not have access to information about the overall consequences of the agreement. They did not know the implications of the clauses stipulating that Addax Bioenergy do not need pay corporation tax until 2022 and is exempted from paying duty on a number of goods and the overall implication of this on Sierra Leone. What if they knew that international firms shift profits to lower tax jurisdictions cost Africa $38bn (£25bn) a year? According to the Africa progress report 2013, by the Africa Progress Panel chaired by Kofi Annan, Africa lose through such tax loopholes, twice as much as the total gains from all donor funds. Perhaps there would have been hesitation in signing? Had it been that Sierra Leone was a country where abuse of power was not common, had Sierra Leone not been governed by a system of complex local and central power structures, in which high levels of corruption exist, had they known that research indicates that prospects of a better life increase only for those already having a good life when these kind of investments are made, perhaps they would not have signed any agreement.
Perhaps the inhabitants would have questioned the consequences for their country, for themselves and for the coming two generations. Perhaps they would have demanded that any conflicts between Addax and the Government of the lease agreement be settled in a local court where they could access justice, instead of in a court of arbitration in London. What will happen when the illusions of newfound prosperity fades and the 14 000 people start requesting for the indications of a better life they had when they signed the agreement?
Anger against corrupt local leaders was part of fuelling the conflict in Sierra Leone. Thus, feelings like those existing before the war may again arise. Increased malnutrition, lack of water and food may create cleavages between local communities and ethnic groups. Signs of anger and protests against the corporation have already occurred. People are starting to question the agreements they signed. . The corporation, the investors, the Sierra Leone government are justifying the situation by referring to compliance with international principles established for human rights and business. Addax Bioenergy followed many existing principles of corporate social responsibility. However, fairness and equality in access to knowledge and information did not exist. If the Government of Sierra Leone does not represent the people then investing countries like Sweden must step in and take responsibility. It is not justifiable to support investments in a country when accountability systems are not in place, corruption is known to be rampant and human rights violations are not tackled by the state.
The Africa Progress report 2013 released 10 May, indicates that the establishment of corporations may improve the overall financial situation of a country, but not the situation of the poor; instead they rather tend to increase the gap between poor and rich.
According to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, countries with weak land governance increases the risk of large-scale land deals turning in to actual “land grabs” where free, prior and informed consent of affected communities is not sought and human rights violations often occur.
Evidence shows that few jobs are created by biofuel-related investments relative to other sectors and where small-scale farming is replaced by large-scale and heavily-mechanized monocultures. Many of the former land users’ end up jobless and landless according to the Special Rapporteur.
The case of Sierra Leone, supported by the Swedish Government’s aid scheme and implemented by Addax bioenergy is justified by compliance with the processes stipulated in the principles for business and human rights.. What is not noted by the Swedish Government, the Government of Sierra Leone and Addax is that compliance with international standards for businesses and enterprises, does not exclude responsibility for human rights. States must comply with legally binding human rights law. There should be a scrutiny of the ways corporations and donor countries use the principles of human rights. States with natural resources must be held accountable for allowing investments, prone to result in human rights abuses, establish when legal conditions and accountability mechanisms does not exist. Corporations and donors must take moral and ethical responsibility. Responsibility cannot be avoided by hiding behind processes established in principles of business and human rights.
Tilde Berggren is a human rights lawyer having worked the past eight years with policy development at the United Nations headquarters in New York, including with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Advisor on Gender Issues, with human rights monitoring and reporting in the UN Mission in Sierra Leone and with Civil Rights Defenders in Kosovo and Macedonia.
According to a number of local and international NGO’s, journalists and researchers monitoring the situation on the ground, the large scale investment in Sierra Leone between Addax Onyx Group (AOG) and Swedfund, as well as a range of additional investors, is causing concern. The main concern is that the investment is contributing to poverty, decreased access to basic rights and may increase instability and anger amongst the local population. Swedfund is consistently dismissing the concerns, arguing that the monitoring of the situation is not sufficient and not carried out in detail, hence not trustworthy and does not illustrate the overall situation. Swedfund on their side emphasize that the project is in its start-up phase and therefore it is therefore too early to measure impact. However, those monitoring the situation are many and conclusions based on their monitoring are coherent and consistent and can therefore not be dismissed.
The new sterile and faceless Africa?
Finally I got the chance to see Jens Assur’s photo exhibition Africa is a Great Country at Liljewalchs in Stockholm. There have been a lot of discussions concerning the provocative Africa-is-a-country title and this has partly overshadowed the content. Is the title ironic or not? Colleagues of mine have already discussed this at NAI Forum. Assur himself states, in his introductory text to the exhibition, that it is meant as an irony directed towards Swedes who still talks about travels to “Africa” – as a monolith – and doesn’t break the continent down into the 50 + countries it contains of. But he doesn’t clarify why he pairs “great” with Africa as a country. Is that also an irony? That is probably not his intention; yet it comes out as a not a very thought through title. Or maybe it is; maybe it has been one of the few ways to lure an audience to an otherwise rather dull exhibition?
The (LRA) conflict: Beyond the LRA lobby & the hunt for Kony… and towards civilian protection – By Kristof Titeca
On the 28th of February this year, an unfortunate incident happened in Garamba National Park, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA)-affected area in North-Eastern Congo. A group of Congolese soldiers went on patrol, in order to track LRA-elements; while at the same time a group of (armed) park rangers was patrolling the park. In an area where civilians were present, both groups noticed each other, and both groups considered the other group to be the LRA. The shooting between the two groups, left one Congolese soldier and one civilian dead, and three soldiers and one civilian wounded. The following day, the park rangers were actually attacked by the LRA in the same area, but managed to push them away after heavy fighting. A park ranger later died of his injuries. At least, all of this was the official version of the events, which was communicated by the Congolese soldiers involved. Reports from local civil society groups and international military actors revealed that the above group of soldiers was poaching in the park: they had killed 2 hippopotamus, and had asked civilians to help them cutting and transporting the animals. The park rangers had noticed them, and fighting erupted, which resulted in the above injuries and killings. In retaliation, the soldiers had attacked the park rangers the next day. They also threatened to attack any park ranger leaving the park, or passing through their area. This tense situation also had a strong effect on civilian life: not only were civilians wounded through the above attacks; civil society actors complained that markets could no longer take place, as civilians feared more violence and attacks by the soldiers, who were blaming civilians for the park rangers’ attacks.
The Malian crisis: causes, consequences, responses by Morten Bøås and Mats Utas
Even if Northern Mali has been in the hands of armed Salafist forces since spring 2012, it has not yet morphed into another ‘Afghanistan’. The Salafist forces, may have taken the name of al-Qaeda, but they are of a different origin and nature than the one in Afghanistan. The danger is, however, that if the international response to Mali is too heavy-handed, it may create a dynamic that pushes the conflict into a similar pattern like the one in Afghanistan.
On January 11, 2013, French airplanes attacked strongholds of Islamist rebels in the north of Mali. Soon thereafter land troops followed in a quick sweeping raid, clearing most of rebel controlled areas. French forces, assisted by several thousand troops from Chad and Niger, thereby efficiently ended the offensive of Islamist rebels and gained nominal control over the cities of Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu. This was, however, the easy part.
The Islamists have not completely lost the battle for northern Mali. They still have the capacity to resist and even strike inside towns formally under French control. As France is scaling down its number of troops from 4,000 to 1,000 by the end of the year, controlling this vast territory will prove even more difficult for the remaining French force and the joint ECOWAS/AU mission and the Malian army.
A scary end for Democrazy in Mali, by Ruben Eberlein
Each time political scientists in the West talked about democratisation in Africa during the last twenty years, you could bet that Mali was rated as a reformer and a good example. The country received a lot of plaudit from Western governments, the academic world and developmental organizations especially for its transition from a long period of military rule under Moussa Traore to a civil government under Alpha Konare. He became the first democratically elected President in 1992.
The coup of March 2012 terminated the Malian experiment with democracy for the time being. Dissatisfied with the hesitant reaction to the uprising of Tuareg and Islamists in the North, young officers under the leadership of Captain Amadou Sanogo disposed the President Amadou Toumani Toure. In August 2012, an interim cabinet under President Dioncounda Traore with 31 ministers officially took over, but most observers believe that the military still holds the real power.
Despite all the regalia, Mali’s democracy had and has not much in common with a parliamentarian democracy in the Western world. Politics and economy of the country were and are coined by clientelistic networks between some big men or big women and a multitude of poor and politically marginalized people. The sheer number of NGO’s and political parties cannot hide the fact that Mali is a neopatrimonial state where the logics of the formal and the informal are intimately intertwined.
West Point – Conflicting perceptions of crime, security and Liberian ex-combatants (by Mariam Persson)
Chaos is something we tend to see when we don’t understand how things work. Chaos is what we think we witness when we forget to take our time to listen to people’s stories, and let fear and excitement lead us in our hunt for sensational war stories.
I struggle to keep up with Adam today. He is walking fast and Will and I have to hurry along the narrow alley-ways between the small zinc houses and sheds not to lose sight of him. We have to squeeze ourselves between women cooking for their families, children playing in the small open spaces and chasing each other between the houses. I apologise for being in the way and for just walking in where women are preparing food, people are having their meals or taking a rest. Most people just give me friendly smiles back and continue with their business. A few look a bit surprised to see a stranger there but most don’t bother at all. I try to focus on where Adam is going so he won’t have to wait for us on every corner, but I haven’t seen Will in a long time and we get caught up in our conversation as usual and Adam patiently has to wait. Adam turns left and right along narrow paths between the cramped houses. I turn to Will and joke about whether Adam actually knows where he is going. Will laughs and admits that he has no idea where we are either. But Adam knows his way around here. He used to live here for some years just after the war. For me West Point still is a maze. I had only been in this community a few times since I first started to visit Monrovia some years ago. Situated on a peninsula jutting out into the Atlantic Ocean this township of the Liberian capital wasn’t a place one often just passed by without any particular errand. However, doing research on what I call ‘post-war rebel networks’, ex-combatants who had preserved their links to each other after the war came to an end, it was maybe a bit strange that my research hadn’t brought me to this township that often in the past, judging from its reputation of being inhabited by so many ex-combatants. But my informants had been residing elsewhere. I only recently had begun to spend more time in West Point.