Politics
Michela Wrong tracks sleaze to its source
Published 17 April 2006
Britain has a pretty spotty record when it comes to what is termed the "supply side" of sleaze
My favourite proverb comes from Ethiopia: "Slowly, slowly, the egg begins to walk." Meaning "slowly but surely", it conjures up a wonderful image of an egg, strutting around on two clawed orange feet. Well, as far as the campaign against corruption in Africa is concerned, the chicken's beak is showing signs of breaking through the shell.
People like me are always banging on about how sleazy elites sabotage Africa's development. Yet we are criticised for devoting less attention to those who smooth the crooks' path: the western chief executives, bankers and lawyers who offer the bribes, launder stolen money and set up dodgy shell companies. That's not because we're hypocrites; it's because top-level theft in Africa is so blatant, the greed so glaring, that it makes sense when you have limited space in which to get your message across to target the masters rather than their accomplices.
However, last year's Commission for Africa was right to stress that it takes two to tango. Embarrassingly, Britain, despite its much-trumpeted role in arguing Africa's corner at Gleneagles, has a pretty spotty record when it comes to what is termed the "supply side" of sleaze. So we should welcome a report on British business and banking practices in Africa, published late last month by the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group*. It paints a satisfyingly frank picture of collusion. If we're not the worst, there is still an awful lot of room for improvement.
Our anti-corruption laws are antiquated. The law-enforcement agencies, which still need the Attorney General's consent to proceed, have brought not a single prosecution for bribery of a foreign public official against any British individual or organisation. Back in 2001, the Home Office said it expected between ten and 20 investigations and one or two prosecutions a year. So much for that.
The record of UK banks on repatriating stolen funds - the millions removed by Nigeria's late Sani Abacha are a case in point - is enough to make one ashamed to be British. In the United States, companies operating abroad win export guarantees and government advocacy only if they sign "no bribery" warranties. Here, the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) is actually helping firms suspected of corruption: "in effect", as the report points out, "taxpayers' money is used to underwrite bribery". British overseas territories have become synonymous with shady business practices, the City of London is cynically dubbed "the Laundry of Choice", and for Africa's mobster rulers and their Mr Fix-Its, a central London flat has become the real-estate purchase of choice.
It's not a pretty picture, and the parliamentary group is pushing for big steps to be taken. Apart from calling for a new anti-corruption bill to be tabled by the end of the year, it recommends the appointment of an anti-corruption champion to co-ordinate action on an issue that straddles far too many ministries and investigative bodies. It also calls for a proactive approach to detecting bribery, with all government departments passing on evidence. It would like the government to introduce, by the end of 2007, a list of companies barred from government procurement because of overwhelming evidence of bribery. And on it goes.
So why do I believe that we are still only hearing the chicken's beak tapping at the shell? First, this isn't a white paper. The government can choose which recommendations - if any - to adopt, and is certain to come under the kind of pressure from big business that led to proposals to tighten ECGD guidelines being watered down in 2004.
Second, Britain is only one of many foreign countries operating in Africa. Until an international consensus has been established, African officials determined to do business the old way will simply look elsewhere - to the French, the Germans or market-gobbling Chinese - if they find their British partners won't play ball.
But the main reason is that this report deals with only half of the equation. We are obliged to do our bit: to stop dangling sweeteners, providing safe havens and pointing out legal loopholes. But real progress will come only when African leaders and their administrations stop regarding self-enrichment as the purpose and reward of power.
That change will come only with self-belief. I've always found it fascinating that the first thing Africa's post-independence leaders did when they got their hands on some cash was to send it to the west. As they defiantly vaunted Africa's proud identity, they sent their money to western banks, their children to western schools and their wives to western clinics. Scarred by the colonial experience, they betrayed with their every action the conviction that everything African was fundamentally worthless.
The young generation emerging across the continent must turn its back on that inferiority complex - and it will. Then the proverbial chicken will not only walk, but run squawking merrily down the street.
* The Other Side of the Coin: the UK and corruption in Africa by the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, published March 2006, is available on www.africaappg.org.uk
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
