Security and accountability are free public goods!

Public goods are those that are non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good. Due to the fact that the use by paying and non-paying consumers cannot be controlled, governments have to step in to ensure provision of such social goods. In turn tax monies go towards enabling governments to provide these social services.

Internal security is one such public good that falls to governments to provide to citizens. Though private sector security companies complement government security, they are constrained in providing this service for all as they do not enjoy economies of scale on the one hand and also to provide security for all is not economically viable in terms of ensuring that all consumers pay for such services.

According to Paul Collier writing in an article titled “Development in Dangerous Places” another public good is accountability. Historically, rulers needed revenue for their armies, which in turn provoked pressure for accountability and good governance from the taxpayers. Ultimately, security and accountability to Collier are not just public goods but expressions of power.

In countries of Collier’s Bottom Billion however, social divisions reign supreme. This lack of national cohesiveness in turn makes it more difficult to provide public goods. For instance, the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya aptly demonstrated the weak bonding of nationhood where tribes hacked one another with machetes and arrows causing the nation’s internal security to run down the doldrums. Kenya, fortunately or unfortunately has in its independence not had to face a massive external threat from an external aggressor which would galvanise its more than 40 tribes into a feeling of being Kenyan against foreign attackers. The Somalia and Ethiopian border squabbles never even reached such a point because the Kenya is home to sub-tribes of both nations. And even the most recent Migingo Island squabbles, were over a piece of land that hosts more Kenyans than Ugandans.

This lack of social cohesion breeds numerous self-identities and cultures which clash, and not without blood being poured. What is left is a fragmented population, where for instance the hint that Luis Moreno-Ocampo intends to prosecute crimes against humanity, send politicians into a tizz, whipping up ethnic hatred at the drop of a hat.

The second weapon politicians use is to invoke the concept of sovereignty forgetting that sovereignty requires a sense of nationhood; something that they themselves have to ensure is muted, so as to contain groupings calling for accountability.

Collier even names the weakened status of the military in bottom billion countries as a tool used by the political elite to retain power. It is this same military that presides over hurried swearing in ceremonies of tin-pot dictators when they steal elections overnight. And it is this same military that terrorises the masses to accept these “democratic election results”. But, it is this same military that must remain toothless in order for unpopular leaders to survive.

During the Migingo saga, many Kenyans commented that a small military battalion should invade the one acre island to shut Museveni up. But Kenyans were told that diplomacy was the way to go, even after President Museveni himself insulted Kenyans and more specifically members of the Luo tribe, from whom the Prime Minister Raila Odinga originates.

This was not the first time Uganda’s army had tried to stray onto Kenya’s territory. In the Moi era, and indeed during Jomo Kenyatta’s reign, Uganda insurgencies were swiftly turned back, and it was common to find the borders being closed as a matter of national security. However, probably as a good neighbour Kenya has turned to diplomacy as its weapon of mass destruction. This in turn has also led to the proliferation of small arms which have intensified a heightened scare amongst citizens for their personal safety.

The impact on business

Providing a safe environment where firms can conduct their business is a key function of any government. Yet, around the world, as many as 15% of firms report losses due to crime. In spite of this, a much higher share of firms (almost 60%) protect themselves from theft by using private security services, which adds to the cost of doing business. Interestingly, 16% of African firms report losses due to crime, at par with Eastern Europe and Central Asia. However, over half of the African businesses employ private security firms. Consequently, African firms spend an unrivalled amount of money on security, equal to over half a percentage point of sales, which is considerably higher than East Asia or South Asia.

The Africa Competitiveness Report 2009 (ACR) shows that most of the competitive disadvantage of African firms is due to invisible costs—that is, losses experienced by factors that include corruption (non-accountability) and lack of security.

The business costs of crime and violence and the sense that the police are unable to provide protection from crime are particular concerns for African entrepreneurs. The ACR disaggregates security into costs of terrorism, crime and violence, organized crime and the perceived reliability of police services. Amongst the survey’s findings Morocco’s weakening security environment was found to contribute to the country’s declining competitive position. The security situation in Kenya is also extremely worrisome, particularly in crime and violence, the potential of terrorism, and the prevalence of organized crime.

Unfortunately for small enterprise, there is no significant difference in the cost of security services borne by small firms compared to medium and large ones (in terms of share of sales), nor is there a difference between foreign and domestic firms. Africa’s export potential is further impaired as local exporters tend to spend more (almost 10% more) than non exporters.

Within Africa, individual country’s competitiveness is also adversely affected by the lack of security. For instance, Egypt one of Kenya’s major competitors has relatively high levels of security and a resulting low cost of crime and violence for business. In terms of interest from foreign investors to set up businesses in Africa, security makes many shy away from putting their cash in jeopardy in unsecure environments. Mauritius has been able to exploit insecurity on the continent, benefiting from significant inflows of FDI over the past years in part due to the fact that the level of security in the country is good, particularly by regional standards.

Within East Africa, Kenyan 75% of firms have to pay for private security services. This is 5% higher than the regional average. Kenya also pays the highest cost for these services. In turn government accountability data in East Africa indicates that government wastage of resources is highest in Kenya and the country also has the highest perception amongst its business community that the police are unreliable.

Security and accountability are two public goods that make economic development and growth possible. History has provided more than adequate testimony that civil conflicts in poor countries last longer than international wars. With such a looming dagger hanging over these countries, unless security and accountability to address wrongs are provided (not at cost!), the interest of entrepreneurs to venture into business will be lost. Somalia is a prime example of this where revenues generated from enterprise (whether legal or through illegal means such as piracy) are stashed away in foreign countries, further plundering the country into a failed status.

Finally as Collier states accountability is indeed a two way street between government and citizens. Thus standing up to demand security and accountability is required of us all in the democratic spirit of no taxation without representation!

Is the ICC Targeting Africa and Third World Countries?

The International Criminal Court was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. As of March 4, 2009, it has issued public arrest warrants for thirteen individuals.Two have died, seven of them remain free, four are currently in custody of the court. The four who are in custody are Thomas Lubanga former warlord from DR. Congo; Germaine Katanga former warlord from DR. Congo; Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui also from DR Congo; and Jean-Pierre Bemba from Central AfricaRepublic.

 

Among the seven who remain free are Joseph Kony from Uganda; Vincent Otti from Uganda, Raska Lukwiya from Uganda, Okot Odhiambo from Uganda and Dominic Ongwen also from Uganda. The rest are Bosco Ntaganda from DRC, Ahmed Haroun from Darfur, Ali Kushayb also from Darfur, and Omar Al Bashir fromSudan. All thirteen of the indicted individuals have been charged with war crimes, and eleven of them have also been charged with crimes against humanity.

 

A careful look at the list of the people indicted by the ICC reveals that all those indicted are Africans. This has raised a number of questions and concern that the court is targeting Africans or has been established purposely to deal with the third world. These claims appear to hold water and become weightier when one looks at what has gone on and continue to go on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya,Gaza and other parts of the world.

 

If Omar Al Bashir is a war criminal, what about those who invaded, occupied, destroyed and killed Iraqis? The allied forces did not have the UN mandate to invade and occupy Iraq. The claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was false. Is the ICC saying that there is no question to answer and that the invasion, occupation and killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, women and civilians was a just course and that the war did not violate any international law?  Are the ICC officials living on a different Planet?

 

Is the ICC aware of the continued insecurity in Iraq created by Bush, Tony Blair and Rumsfeld and the fact that most Iraqis today live in fear of their lives, and lack most basic necessities of life such as water and electricity? Is the ICC aware of the torture, humiliation and mistreatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib Prison and the fact that only low key officers were court marshalled by the US Army while the big fish continue to enjoy their life outside prison? How different is the estimated 655,000 Iraqi who have died so far and the estimated 300,000 Darfuris deaths?

 

Is the ICC not deliberately targeting Africans because they are financially poor, militarily weak and politically ill organised? How many African countries have the infrastructure to produce the millions of arms and weapons littered across the continent which are being used to kill and terrorise the people? What effort has the ICC made to prosecute the Western defence companies and contractors who have turned Africa into graveyards? What effort has the ICC made to prosecute the 85 companies who were implicated in a UN report of October 2002 for supplying arms to Uganda and Rwanda armies as well as to the 25 militia groups in DR Congo so that these companies could continue to meet the West insatiable appetite for technology, diamond, gold, coltan and timber? Is the ICC aware that the beneficiaries of the war in DR. Congo were named as Cabot Corporation, Eagle Wings Resources International, Trinitech International, Kemet Electronics Corporation, OM Group  (OMG); and Vishay Sprague all of them companies in the USA? Why haven’t those who finance the wars been arrested and prosecuted by the ICC? Is it because they are white and from the West? Is indicting the Africans who are just the foot soldiers and leaving the arms suppliers and financiers in the West not selective justice?

 

Is the ICC saying that the extraordinary rendition or secrete CIA prisons in Cuba, Morocco, Egypt and Thailand where presumed enemies of the West are arrested, tortured, imprisoned without trial; denied access to their lawyers and families are not violation of international law? If in the eyes of the ICC the conduct of the war in Iraq and its aftermath are just, why has the CIA destroyed 92 tapes believed to be contain evidence of torture and war crimes against Iraqis, Afghans and other so called war-on-terror suspects? Has the ICC deduced anything from the destruction of the tapes? Are Bush and his associates not destroying evidence that might incriminate them? Is it because the destruction of the tapes did not happen in Africa ?

 

If the ICC is not deliberately targeting Africa then why is it that the court has not said anything about the invasion, occupation and war in Afghanistan? Like Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been killed; infrastructure destroyed; and the people live in constant fear of their lives, all in the name of war-on-terror.

 

If the ICC is not targeting Africans, then what justification has it got not to indict the leadership of the Israeli government for the utter destruction of Gaza; the killing of more than1300 people; as well as the over 5300 who were injured in the 22 day air, sea and ground assault on Gaza. At least 4000 homes were destroyed and more than 50, 000 people were rendered homeless. UN and Red Crescent facilities, schools, mosques, hospitals and power installations were deliberately and systematically targeted and destroyed. Medical personnel were shot at as they tried to evacuate the injured and the dead; the seriously injured were prevented from leaving Gaza to receive medical care abroad and weapons that should not be used in populated areas were used. There was no discrimination between civilians, Police personnel and their facilities and Palestinian fighters as bombs were rained on everyone everywhere. Gaza today is the biggest prison in the world with  the people in dire need of food, water, electricity and medicines. Are those collective punishment not war crimes?

 

The fact that the Israeli government put together a team of lawyers headed by the Justice Minister to defend the soldiers should charges be brought against any of them, is an indication that even the Israelis believe their actions were tantamount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. When the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman in the person of Mark Regev was asked by an Aljazeera broadcaster on the use of white phosphorous in densely populated areas in Gaza, his response was that the Israeli Army did not use any weapons that the Americans, Canadians, British and the NATO forces did not use or are not using in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is to say, if we are guilty then they might be guilty as well. What justification has the ICC got not to indict the Israeli leadership?

 

Is the ICC saying that Russian leaders did not commit war crimes in their conduct of the wars inChechnya? Or those crimes have been ignored because it is another crime committed by leaders of another untouchable superpower?

 

Again are the Swiss government and the banking institutions in that country not guilty of crimes against humanity for keeping billions of dollars of stolen monies meant for the welfare of humanity? And how about the governments of Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, France and Jersey Islands and their banking institutions who have become well off through monies stolen from the poorest of the poor? Is the ICC saying keeping billions of dollars of stolen money meant for the welfare of the people not a crime against humanity? Or the ICC has closed her eyes and ears because the institutions and corporations involved are of Western origin?

 

There have been a number of calls mostly in the West for Robert Mugabe to be put on trial for not providing the medicines needed to fight the cholera epidemic that is ravaging Zimbabwe. The question is, if Mugabe should be put on trial, what about UBS in Switzerland which is keeping the money that could have been used by the people themselves to buy the medicines?

 

If Americans are calling for Bush, Rumsfeld and some Pentagon officials to be prosecuted for sending Americans to die in vain and for ordering detainees to be tortured then what is the ICC doing? What is the indiscriminate killing of children, women and civilians and the daily violation of the sovereignty ofPakistan telling the ICC? Has the ICC got different sets of rules for the third world and another for the so called developed world?

 

Is the US not culpable for selling or donating military machines that Israel used and continue to use to destroy Palestinian homes and kill unarmed civilians? Is leaving Bush and his cronies and indicting Omar Al Bashir and the other foot soldiers in Africa not selective justice?

 

If those indicted in Africa have committed any crime surely they must face the consequences of their actions but it will also be an injustice if those supplying the weapons and bankrolling the conflicts are allowed to go unpunished. Justice should not be biased or partial or perceived to be biased towards a certain class of the earth’s citizens. No one should be treated or made to feel s/he is above international law when it comes to things that matter to the whole world. No nation no matter her economic, social or military capabilities should be treated differently when it breaks international law. No individuals no matter the office that s/he holds should be exempted from prosecution if he or she breaks international law. It is by upholding this principle that the ICC will be seen to be impartial and unbiased. For what is good for the goose is equally good for the gander.

 

By Lord Aikins Adusei