In May 2001, the Bush
administration released its report for national energy policy. The
administration’s plan called for a major diversification of American
oil supplies away from the politically volatile Persian Gulf to
“friendlier” Sub-Saharan Africa - in particular the Gulf of Guinea
expanse. The arc from the Ivory Coast in the northwest to the western
coast of South Africa in the south contains proven deposits, mostly
offshore, amounting to 20-30 billion barrels. West Africa already
supplies about 12% of US crude oil imports, and America’s National
Intelligence Council predicts that this share will rise to 25% by
2015.
Interest in African oil has been
further heightened by the US-led war against Iraq; recent strikes by
Venezuelan oil workers; and by potential political instability in
Saudi Arabia - all of which underscore America's vulnerability as its
voracious appetite for oil grows. Oil development in West Africa
offers many attractions, experts say. Reserves are bountiful, the
quality is high and shipping routes to America are generally shorter
than from other regions.
The Institute for Advanced
Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), a conservative think-thank
based in Washington and Jerusalem, has been at the forefront of
research on the strategic importance of West African oil to America.
In January last year, the IASPS hosted a symposium in Houston, Texas,
which was attended by government and oil industry representatives. An
influential working group called the African Oil Policy Initiative
Group (AOPIG) co-chaired by IASPS researchers Barry Schutz and Paul
Michael Wihbey, which has been largely responsible for driving
American governmental policy concerning west African oil, emerged from
the symposium. According to the AOPIG white paper that was released
following the symposium: “African
oil is not an end, but a means to both greater US energy security and
more rapid African economic development”.
Whose
development?
While the AOPIG’s mission may sound
noble, its words ring hollow following America’s shameful performance
at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last
year, where Colin Powell spent a mere 24 hours! The sincerity of the
American government’s commitment to development on the continent must
be questioned in the light of this snub.
Oil projects, too, can hardly be
viewed as an example of positive development in Africa. Nigeria, the
largest producer and exporter of oil in Africa, exports millions of
dollars in oil per year: over $300 billion worth has been pumped from
the Niger Delta in the last four decades, yet the population lives in
terrible poverty. According to the United Nations, seventy percent of
Nigeria’s population lives on less than $1 dollar a day, and the
poorest fifth of the population received only four percent of the
nation’s wealth. The percentage of people living in poverty has more
than doubled since 1980, despite the government collecting an
estimated $14 billion a year in oil revenue, according to Catholic
Relief Services.
The impoverished oil-rich countries
of the Middle East and West Africa are a stark reminder that oil money
does not end up where it is needed most - something that proponents of
African development must bear in mind when they decided to hop in bed
with American oil executives. It is no coincidence that in country
after country, oil windfalls have been embezzled or mismanaged, public
spending has spiralled to unsustainable levels, industries have died
off, civil strife has grown and poverty has worsened. “We don't have
a single example of oil leading to long-term positive outcomes in
developing countries,” says Stanford University political scientist
Terry Lynn Karl. Africa has not proved to be the exception.
Africa’s largest development
project, a 1040km, $4,3-billion oil pipeline between Chad and
Cameroon, was criticised for damaging the interests of the poor.
The Chad-Cameroon project, which
will provide income of almost $4,6-billion for the United States oil
giant Exxon, has been criticised by human rights and environmental
groups. South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu, said: “The
Chad-Cameroon project is not the help we asked for or needed. In the
absence of the rule of law and respect for human rights and the
environment, financing of large-scale oil development is destroying
the environment and us.”
Some experts say the best way to
improve conditions is to force big oil companies to report publicly
how much money they pay host governments in the countries where they
operate. Without that information, it is nearly impossible for
citizens to hold their leaders accountable for oil payments that wind
up in offshore accounts. In the light of West Africa’s strategic
importance for Africa and for South Africa, as a tactical ally of
President Mbeki, especially in the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (Nepad) on which much of the continent’s prosperity
depends, such transparency becomes vital.
The possibility of increased
accountability by oil companies will remain an unattainable goal,
unfortunately. “The soft spot in the Bush administration’s African oil
policy is its reluctance to pressure US-based oil companies to report
the payments they make,” says American University economist George
Ayittey, a specialist in African development. “But the world's
political dynamics have changed so drastically that you can’t just
close your eyes to the deals going on between oil companies and
corrupt African regimes,” he added. Unfortunately, the American regime
has done just that, and oil companies have managed to undermine all
forms of empowerment and development in the countries in which they
operate.
The
oil companies: agents of development or destruction?
In the 1990s, the Nigerian
government executed Ken Saro-Wiwa, a leader of the Ogoni people, along
with seven others. Saro-Wiwa’s brother revealed that Shell Oil, which
controls 50 percent of oil operations in the Niger Delta, offered to
halt the executions if Ken Saro-Wiwa agreed to call off the Ogoni
people’s demonstrations against Shell. The accounts emanating from the
region are legions of oil companies, principally Shell and Chevron,
hiring mercenaries or soldiers to kill political opponents or local
activists.
Many of the protest actions in the
Niger Delta have been led by women, which have had some success in
wringing concessions from the oil companies. In July 2002, after a
series of occupations by Ijaw women, Chevron promised to build schools
and hire local people. A similar occupation in early August was held
to pressure Chevron to stop gas flaring (which has created massive air
pollution in the region). The protesters were attacked by police and
soldiers called in by Chevron, and some were killed.
George W. Bush’s background as an
oil executive, may, in part, explain his dismissive attitude about the
harmful effect that oil projects have on indigenous communities, the
environment, and development. Despite Bush’s vociferous criticism of
repressive regimes in the Middle East, his search for more secure
sources of oil is leading him to the doorsteps of some of the world’s
most troubled and repressive regimes - a fact which the American
government does not find problematic.
Back to the
future…
Oil analysts and activists fear the
Bush administration may be repeating mistakes of the past, when the US
tolerated questionable practices by oil-producing governments to
advance its Cold War and energy security interests.
Potential trouble spots include
Equatorial Guinea, the continent’s third largest producer behind
Nigeria and Angola. Following the discovery of oil reserves off the
tiny country’s coast in 1994, the U.S. re-opened its embassy there.
The Bush administration has been developing close relations with that
country’s dictator, Brigadier Genera Teodoro Obiang - a man that the
CIA fact book describes as a “ruthless leader”.
Another hot spot is Angola, where
oil financed three decades of civil war and where billions of petro-dollars
are deposited in offshore accounts. Other African oil producers with
documented records of government corruption; electoral fraud,
financial mismanagement or human rights abuses include Chad, Cameroon
and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The biggest player in West African
oil is Nigeria, which has been governed by military dictatorships for
most of its post-independence existence. In the 1990s, the brutal
dictator, Sani Abacha, presided over a regime of extreme brutality and
corruption. Needless to say, the advocates of oil investment had
little problem with military rule in Nigeria, as long as the oil kept
flowing.
The current government of President
Olusegun Obasanjo (whose recent re-election was fraught with
accusations of electoral rigging) has shown great willingness to
follow Washington’s direction in regional affairs. Although Obasanjo
is a civilian ruler, it must be remembered that he ruled the country
as a military dictator in the 1970s, with corruption and violence
characterizing his current regime. All of this seems almost comical
when one notes that Africa Subcommittee Chairman Edward Royce said
that “It is very difficult to imagine a Saddam Hussein in Africa,”
during the Houston symposium last year.
"Protecting" US
interests
Apart from supporting brutal West
African regimes, America’s military involvement is also set to
increase - ostensibly to “permit the U.S. Navy and armed forces to
more easily project power to defend American interests and allies in
West Africa”. After fuelling proxy wars throughout the region and
propping up murderous dictatorships for over 25 years, does Africa
really need more American military interference?
It seems, though, that Africans
have little choice in the matter. According to reports, the Bush
administration has already given the go-ahead to Military Professional
Resources, Inc.- a private firm led by former U.S. military top-dogs,
to train the Guinean security force that will be in charge of guarding
the off-shore oil installations.
In October 2002, a senior US
general, Carlton Fulford, visited Sao Tomé and Principe, the islands
halfway between Nigeria and Angola, to discuss the possibility of
establishing a military base there. Will the American military start
interfering in the internal politics and foreign policy of countries
that possess its oil supplies. Given that Washington has already said
it is “uneasy” about the close relationship that many West African
leaders share with Libya’s Muamar Gadaffi, this is very probable.
While the American government has
portrayed the oil trade in west Africa as a mutually beneficial
undertaking, experience in the Middle East and west Africa shows that
prosperity usually ends up in the hands of oil companies; and corrupt
regimes - not the people from whose land the oil is extracted from.
After centuries of colonial neglect and exploitation, the people of
Africa cannot afford its land to be raped and pillaged by a new
colonial power. South African president Thabo Mbeki has called for an
“African Renaissance”, but the type of development that the oil trade
brings will result in regression - not a renaissance.
Ms. Suraya Dadoo
is a researcher with the Media Review
Network, which is an advocacy group based in Pretoria, South Africa.
Source:
by courtesy & ©
200
3 Media Review Network & Suraya Dadoo
by the same author:
