United we stand

The UN is a very important player in the Congo. With more than 26,000 employees in the peace-keeping force alone, and a major presence from all the other major UN agencies such as the World Food Programme, UNICEF and the UN Development Programme, their expenditure on housing and logistical support is truly massive. If they were to leave, it is said, the rents of housing in Kinshasa would halve, and you can be sure that several landlords would fall on their swords. After all, once you’ve got used to making 30% return on you capital, it’s tough to go back into survival mode.

The UN also, of course, employs thousands of lower paid Congolese: the cleaners, drivers, secretaries, junior professionals etc. Pay is good for everyone – as I mentioned a few months ago, the cleaning staff get almost as much in a month as a mid-to-senior level civil servant gets in a year. Without the UN their lives would be very different, and most would be out of work.

So strong is the need to spend, rather than save, money, that they have standardised allowances for staff with absurd results. For example, the wife of an Ambassador, who had been working in the Congo for a year, was offered a job with a UN agency. It was a senior job, and she would be getting a salary even higher than her husband.

But when it came to signing the contract she couldn’t believe her eyes: she would also be paid a $10,000 moving allowance, and $5,000 a month housing allowance.

“But,” she said, being fundamentally honest, “this can’t be right, I am already living here so do not need a moving allowance, and I already have a house so do not need a housing allowance.”

“Madam,” came the reply, “your personal circumstances are of no relevance to us. These are standard allowances and you will be paid them no matter whether you require them or not.”

Of course the various UN agencies, especially the peacekeepers, need transport for materials, food and equipment. They have their own aircraft but they are not adequate for the work. So they must send goods through local carriers.

They approached one of the biggest transport companies asking whether they could send a shipment by river from Kinshasa to Kisangani.

“Yes, of course we can, provided you book the shipment in advance.”

“What is your rate?”

“$48 a ton, or $40 a ton if it is a complete shipload.”

“Agreed,” said the UN man, and that seemed to be that.

A few days later the shipper received the contract. The rate was $65 a ton. He called back to ask what was going on.

“I’m sorry I didn’t explain,” came the reply, “that is the rate that we pay.”

Then the voice is lowered, conspiratorially: the nod and a wink sort of tone. “Between you and me, if we pay you less our commission is reduced proportionately, so we wouldn’t want to do that, would we?”

Not long after, the same company, which operates the largest airline in the Congo, had a similar request for air freight quotations. Even though he was dealing with different people, the negotiations followed exactly the same pattern. They refused to pay the rate quoted (even though, naturally enough, it was quite high in comparison to the rate they charge local firms) and insisted on paying at a higher rate.

So what did our already wealthy (very) entrepreneur do? He turned them down, saying that he refused to do business with dishonest people.

Good for him.