Africa: Genocide Financiers?
Agriculture is an increasingly lucrative investment; the need for food will never cease. The current and impending worldwide food crisis, which is as a result of rising commodity prices and global warming impacting farmlands (i.e. the desertification of arable land), contributes to the popularity of agriculture as a business venture. While minerals and crude oil are just as lucrative if not more, trade in both commodities were compromised in sanctioned Sudan.
Under the guise of win-win, armed with purported benefits for government, small businesses and local communities, cowboy capitalists have eagerly rushed to South Sudan to quench their thirst for its mineral- and oil-enriched land. The mutual benefit proposal laid out onto the boardroom table is spurious as land is usually sold at cut-rate prices and its inhabitants are dispossessed with rarely any form of compensation. Moreover, land or resource grab comes with an array of geopolitical and environmental issues pre- and post-land acquirement.
It takes a rambunctious, callous, self-assured, profit-driven person to cause (with content) long-term predicaments at the expense of the unaware and uninformed local community – all to appease their appetite for their soil. Consequently, it is unsurprising that some foreign investors openly and brazenly support dissent in a move to grow their personal and financial empires.
For years and on multiple media outlets, American Philippe Heilberg, an ex-Wall Street banker, has unabashedly shown more interest in expanding his profitable ventures than the well-being of the civilians whose country’s resources he’s attempting to exploit. From a quick glance at one of Heilberg’s social media sites, he can be found firmly supporting ex-Vice President Dr Riek Machar, whilst critiquing the government of South Sudan (GOSS) and President Salva Kiir Mayardit. With particular regards to the Bentiu massacre last April, Heilberg was quick to (temporarily) cease his usual anti-GOSS and Kiir rhetoric, and instead began to encourage the end of the genocide, without condemning the massacre or its perpetrators.
Land grab is still a major geopolitical issue for South Sudan even prior to the southern region of Sudan becoming an autonomous state. Before the 2009 Land Act, there were no laws established to protect populations affected by land acquisition from foreign investors. The southern Sudan region (before the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and referendum on secession), was under comprehensive trade sanctions as Sudan was sanctioned by the United States for terrorist activities. This move incapacitated US businesses’ ability to carry out lawful business dealings with Sudan in all areas excluding agriculture in the Gum arabic trade. After the signing of the CPA and the consequent secession, the newly independent South Sudan became unbound to these sanctions, making its grounds a suitable playground for US investors and alike. It can be interpreted that afterthe failure of the United States’ aggressive stance against Sudan, and the subsequent investments made by Asian and European oil companies in Sudan’s oil, the United States’ policy on Sudan began to shift from first militarily supporting the SPLM/A to overthrow the Northern regime, to supporting the peace process which ultimately lead to South Sudan’s secession. The 2005 CPA and 2011 secession were orchestrated to overcome the economic sanction barrier the Clinton Administration had initially imposed on Sudan in 1997.
Heilberg has had a steady presence in South Sudan. He is owner of Jarch Management Group Ltd, a US investment firm which aims to trade in mineral resources including oil, and acquire large plots of land for agriculture. Jarch Capital falls under Jarch Management Group Ltd.
Jarch has a diverse board with members from former CIA agents to South Sudan’s warmongers such as Peter Gadet and previously, the late Paulino Matip. Paulino Matip and his son Gabriel Matip joined the advisory board in 2007 and 2009 respectively. Gabriel Tang joined the board in 2010. Tang and Matip were members of the SSDF (South Sudan Defence Forces) and re-joined the SPLA after the signing of the CPA, and the Juba Accord of 2006(with the focus on the referendum on secession), improving Jarch’s influence within the SPLM/A. Both men including Gadet, have always been regarded as unreliable allies, consistently changing sides during the South’s struggle against the North. It was inevitable that Gadet has yet again defected the SPLA to join a rebel party/army (SPLM-IO (SPLM – In Opposition)). It is necessary to add that while many have critiqued the US for giving both the government of South Sudan and SPLM-IO a slap on the wrist by sanctioning ‘disposable’ figureheads in the current conflict, it can now be fully understood why Gadet was sanctioned by the US.
Jarch was unable to legally operate in a sanctioned Sudan. Heilberg attempted to bypass the imposed sanctions by registering Jarch in the British Virgin Islands, enabling him to have dealings with pre-CPA southern Sudan. With this novel solution, Jarch was able to purchase a Block B oil concession from the de facto SPLM in 2003. Dr John Garang, his wife Rebecca Garang, Dr Riek Machar, Kuol Manyang, Dr Lual A Deng, et al. were aware of this deal. Later, the SPLM gave this block to White Nile Ltd, violating its previous agreement with Jarch, who subsequently threatened legal action. However, Heilberg’s attempt at legal action would have been unavailing, as prior to 2009, laws on land ownership in South Sudan were not established, making it impossible to assert legal rights over the land he previously purchased. It’s also imperative to note that Kuol Manyang and Dr Lual A Deng were both board members of White Nile Ltd. Machar and his wife Angelina Teny were suspected stockholders in White Nile Ltd.
Besides the threat of legal action against the SPLM, Jarch also had a political response; Jarch forged ties with the SSDF. In an attempt to regain Block B, Jarch appointed Ambassador Joseph Wilson (who served as the Senior African Affairs Advisor at the National Security Council (NSC) under President Clinton’s NSC Advisor Anthony Lake in 1997), to the board of Jarch. With his outstanding negotiation skills, Ambassador Wilson succeeded in Kiir and Matip confirming Jarch’s 2003 agreement claims of Block B. Subsequently, Jarch appointed members of the SPLM/A to its advisory board, i.e. Paulino Matip as Advisor and Vice President.
In 2009, Jarch purchased 70% interest in LEAC (for Agriculture and Investment Company Limited), owned by Gabriel Matip. Additionally, Jarch leased about 400,000 hectares of land in Mayom County, Unity State. Paulino Matip claimed ownership of this land. Jarch stated that LEAC had the rights from the Southern Sudan government to grow, transport and export crops. Jarch provided the necessary finance. LEAC did not have access to the land, thus, Paulino Matip granted LEAC a lease on an area of 400,000 hectares. In this way, Jarch was bypassing Southern Sudan’s government but was still able to operate in Southern Sudan. Despite that, Paulino Matip never owned the land, rendering Jarch’s agreement void. Did the Matip’s hoodwink Heilberg out of his investment?
Conclusively, Jarch’s efforts to bypass the government of Southern Sudan ultimately backfired. The 2003 agreement that was re-recognised in 2007 was ultimately thrown out in 2009 after the government established the 2009 Land Act. Prior to the Land Act, there was ‘absence of clear and enforceable legal and regulatory framework for land transactions’, resulting in large leases of land to foreign investors. Customary laws amongst other necessary procedures in leasing land were ignored in the process of Jarch obtaining a concession of Block B. Customary laws were long established and practiced but unwritten. The laws were reinforced by integration into the written Land Act. Jarch’s purchase is void because land dealings made with specific regards to community and customary land requires the consultation of members in the community. With regards to customary land, ‘’the Traditional Authority shall determine the size and boundaries of land in respect of which the right is allocated in accordance with the customary law and practices.’’ The agreement was rightfully thrown out.
Truly a cowboy capitalist, Heilberg stated in an interview with Rolling Stone, ‘’I realised there was a lot of money to be made in breakups, and I vowed that the next time I’d be on the inside.’’ Heilberg also admitted in previous interviews that Jarch’s strategy is to back up dissident movements; any place with cracking foundations in its sovereignty.
Heilberg’s current stance in the conflict was foreseeable, particularly given his history with the longstanding rebels of South Sudan. The feeling is mutual between Heilberg and Machar; in 2008, Machar said he would endorse Jarch’s agreements on oil concessions.
Who is funding these rebels who have recently boasted new arms? How far Heilberg’s support stretches for the rebels is unclear. But with supporting the rebels who have committed ethnicity-based atrocities with elements reflective of the Rwandan Genocide, Heilberg can be deemed a supporter of genocide. If his support is financial, it can be stated with confidence that Heilberg is indeed a genocide financier.
South Sudan has taken the necessary steps to protect the land within its borders, but as with any new nation and with the current cracks in the foundation of its sovereignty, the laws are not as elucidated, enforced, comprehended and adhered to, as it ideally should be. Cowboy capitalists should be regarded with an immense level of caution. It can be said though, that GOSS, despite its shortcomings, has successfully turned Heilberg into a bitter man, with faltered dreams for South Sudan (or his empire rather…). At a Duke University talk in April 2013, he stated, “There is no governance [in South Sudan]; it’s a complete, utter disaster.” Heilberg’s disappointment and failings in South Sudan so far, can be (somewhat) deemed a blessing.