* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
For many diplomats, news organisations and even other campaign groups, corruption is a word that is hard to utter
It’s something people find hard to talk about. Much more comfortable to use a gentler euphemism. Mention it and who knows what trouble you’ll be in? You could be sued for libel if you’re a journalist, ostracised if you’re a diplomat.
“You’ll be very impressed with me,” a senior World Bank official once told me, following a meeting with government officials in Cambodia. “I mentioned the word ‘corruption’.” I remember thinking, “And?!” But that was it. “Gosh”, I thought, “that must have had [Cambodian Prime Minister] Hun Sen quaking in his boots.”
At Global Witness, we have been writing about corruption for nearly 20 years. We like to name the political leaders, banks and companies that have been guilty of it, revealing the systems that facilitate it. But for many diplomats, news organisations and even other campaign groups, it’s a word that’s hard to utter.
Global Witness has recently been investigating a series of scandals in Africa, where Western companies have hopped into bed with senior figures from the political elite to secure precious mining and oil assets. It is very difficult to prove corruption in all cases, of course, but even in these cases we do have enough evidence to speak about the high risk of corruption at the very least.
But time and again in the news, it is recounted that we are concerned over “transparency” – not corruption. Newspapers will say there “is no suggestion of wrongdoing,” when clearly there is. Radio interviewers will instruct us that, if we do talk about corruption, not to mention any company by name. Recently, after raising concerns about the possibility of corruption related to a major Nigerian oil-field acquisition at the AGM of the Italian oil company Eni, we faced what can only be described as a media blackout there. Apart from one article in La Repubblica, the rest of the journalists simply presented the company’s annual results as if we had been invisible.
Fellow campaign groups find it hard to speak the “C” word too. Some say it is better to work in partnership with companies, rather than naming and shaming them. But as we have found in our investigations, these so-called ‘partners’ are often some of the worst perpetrators.
Imagine if the same reluctance was applied to human rights abuses. A massacre is perpetrated in plain view of diplomats, journalists and international campaigners – and the most that is reported is that “shots were fired” but “there was no suggestion of wrongdoing.” This would be not only grossly irresponsible, it would allow the perpetrators to get off scot-free and make further atrocities more likely.
I would suggest that a failure to report on corruption, or the risks of corruption, in the face of strong evidence is arguably as great a failing. Grand corruption and state looting - the kind that leaches entire countries of a sizeable chunk of their GDP - makes already poor populations desperate, often denying all prospects for development. Whole generations end up without access to education, and healthcare and sanitation become unaffordable luxuries. Disease spreads and people die of malnourishment.
Keeping silent on corruption means the problem will never be tackled. Talking about it only in generalities and never in specifics achieves nothing beyond empty promises.
Campaigners who fear turning the public off development aid are shooting themselves in the foot: not talking about corruption only makes matters worse. Taxpayers are rightly outraged when they learn that billions of dollars are being spent on development aid to countries, where leaders steal their countries’ resources. A feeling that this behaviour has been hidden from them will only deepen the resentment.
Given the secret nature of corruption, it is usually impossible for anyone but law enforcement to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. So, one must be prepared to talk about the risks of corruption. For example, if in country x, the president’s wife is found to have routinely been granted a 50% shareholding in every oil deal struck over a five-year period, the risks of corruption would be glaringly obvious - even without a tape-recorded conversation or a bank account statement providing incontrovertible evidence. Waiting for the smoking gun will mean that corruption will remain unchallenged or that it will be allowed to continue for far too long, destroying countless lives in the meantime, and sometimes tearing countries apart.
Earlier this month the Africa Progress Panel, led by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, published a report looking at how
Global Witness has expressed further concerns over these deals, arguing in detailed briefings that the assets may have been obtained through corruption – something that is vigorously disputed by the companies concerned. Now one of those companies, the Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC), is under investigation by the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in what is emerging as one of the London Stock Exchange’s biggest corporate scandals. It has been reported that the SFO is zeroing in on at least one of the Congo deals in question.
Given the huge sums involved for one of the world’s poorest nations, it was clearly important that we raised the corruption risks surrounding the deals. Now the SFO can seek disclosure from companies, banks and everyone else involved to get to the bottom of the matter. If no one spoke up, figures in the Congolese elite and international companies would be freer to carry on with business as usual, without anyone poking their noses in.
The British government, which is emerging as
Despite the silence from many quarters, the matter is finally being investigated in the DRC. Meanwhile, fear of mentioning the “C” word means that many other countries are being leached of their wealth without a peep.
