Fighting ideals and reality of corruption

Though it was not very much publicized, yet last month's ruling by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adds a new block to the ongoing fight against across border corruption and build on transparency.
After more than two years, an 800-page ruling was upheld by SEC on vote of 2-1 that as of 2014 listed US companies will be required by law to disclose any form of payment to foreign governments exceeding $100,000 be it in the form money transfer, cash or checks. A less publicized ruling by SEC asked companies to disclose any minerals coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Fighting corruption is not new. It has been taking various forms and shapes especially in the United States where there was a strong push sometimes because of activists and law enforcers' attempt to maintain the country's high moral ground. One of the well-known efforts to fight corruption took place back in the 1970s, where US companies were cornered and asked by law to refrain from paying kickbacks or be subjected to some fine, that some find easy to pay to continue business as usual.
With the growing trend of globalization, NGOs gaining more powers and influence on the public opinion, the decision making and the huge impact of the communication revolution that has turned the whole world into a small village operating online and in real time, the push this time may be different and help gain a new ground on the fight against corruption.
But still there is a long way to go on how to close the gap between the ideal and the harsh realities of life.
Take for instance the second ruling on disclosing minerals' deals coming from DRC. The logic is that minerals business and trade from the country has been fueling civil strife that has been ongoing for years. So cutting or reducing that lifeline may help reduce if not shut up completely the money trail that keeps the killing going. That may help, but the whole idea is based on a noble, somewhat naive notion, that if people knew of the source of these minerals, DRC in this case, they will stop buying and selling so as not to add more to the ongoing drama. That, generally, is not the case in real world.
The SEC ruling, though important, makes a step in the right direction, but will have limited impact unless three more developments take place. First it needs to be supported by similar ruling in other countries starting with Europe, which has been lecturing many Africans in particular on the need for transparency and the evils of corruption.
Unless other countries join such fights, US companies will find themselves disadvantaged with other competitors and will have then the stark choice of whether to opt for phasing out of business gradually or bear the brunt of financial punishment of breaking the law.
The second is to find a way to reconcile this drive with local laws as in some countries like Angola and Cameroon, foreign companies were asked specifically to stick to domestic regulations and discard what Americans see as their regulations having an upper hand over others. Such dichotomy can easily put companies on the spot and force them into a situation to decide which law to follow — the local one where the business is or that of the motherland, where there could be punishment.
Some years ago, then British Prime Minister Tony Blair was trying to push for transparency in Africa by asking companies to disclose what they pay foreign companies and Angola was quick to react threatening any company complying with that request to be shunned from doing business in Luanda.
And finally and more important such regulations are intended to fight some of worst practices that have been impacting human race throughout history. But in the end corruption needs two to happen — the giver and the receiver. Unless the two acted together in harmony there will always be loopholes where kickbacks can find a way to mushroom.
The best way is to spend more time, resources and efforts to build on systems of checks and balances and monitoring that can eventually work for the benefit of all. Domestic audience need to be involved and see for itself that it will be benefiting such measures and that they are not just designed to stage a public relations sense of victory or feeling good back in Washington regardless of the actual impact on ground in targeted countries.
Earlier last decade, NGOs targeted Canadian oil company Talisman for working in Sudan because they said oil income helped in fueling the civil war then and the solution was for Talisman to get out, which it did, but its position was quickly taken by another company. The war stopped only when the warring factions opted to share oil income instead of fighting over it.