Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Nigeria: The Next Quagmire?

By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted March 14, 2006.


If U.S. troops go to Africa, it won't be for a humanitarian intervention; it will be to protect American oil interests in the troubled Niger Delta.
031406_story
Smoke and flames billow from a burning oil pipeline in Nigeria after a suspected dynamite attack. Credit: Austin Ekiende/Reuters

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by G. Pascal Zachary

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Africa's humanitarian needs -- today the pillage in Darfur, yesterday the famine in Niger -- dominate the headlines. Human suffering, from hunger to rape, also dominates the limited attention that Americans have for hearing about problems in the most troubled part of the world. Now that may be changing as an armed insurgency in oil-rich Nigeria threatens oil exports to the U.S. and raises the possibility that U.S. troops will dig into African soil in order to protect a resource deemed vital to American interests.

In short, Nigeria might be the next Iraq.

Putting American troops at risk in Africa would be a big change -- and speaks volumes about the new relationship between America and the sub-Saharan Africa. Ever since American troops were killed in Somalia early in the presidency of Bill Clinton, a firm rule of U.S. policy toward Africa has been to never put U.S. soldiers on African ground. For more than 10 years, American troops have studiously avoided intervening directly in African conflicts. This policy prevented the United States from trying to halt the genocide in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. More recently, this stance stopped the United States from using troops to restore order to Liberia. The policy may also stop the United States from sending troops to Nigeria.

But maybe not, because the purpose of an intervention in Nigeria would be to protect American oil -- not save lives in a humanitarian spirit. Oil drives American foreign policy as never before, and the Middle East isn't the only troubled oil-producing region. Nigeria is already one of the top-five largest exporters of oil to the United States, and the country's oil-producing region, the Niger Delta, is beset with insurgencies and criminality, some of which is directed by factions in Nigeria's own government. Two Nigerian rear admirals were court-martialed last year for their part in the attempted theft of thousands of tons of Nigerian oil by an international crime syndicate operating in Russia and eastern Europe.

Chevron and Shell, the two largest foreign oil companies operating in the Niger Delta, are targets of citizen rage, not the least because Nigeria's government has ignored social needs and political protest in the region for many years. Tensions are high, and disorder threatens to engulf the region. As the Council on Foreign Relations, a leading foreign policy group, observes in a new report, "The suppression of dissent in the [Niger] Delta, together with armed violence and the existence of armed militias, makes for a potentially explosive combination."

Kidnapping of American oil workers is common. So are protests by local residents who say their needs are neglected even as Chevron and Shell reap huge revenues from oil. Most local people lack electricity, running water, decent schools for their children and job opportunities. Tensions flare between families and between ethnic groups forced to scramble for crumbs tossed by the oil companies, which routinely try to undercut social unrest by making small donations to local communities and hiring men for make-work jobs "guarding" pipelines. Perhaps most galling to people living in the Niger Delta are the frequent gasoline shortages caused by the Nigerian government's failure to refine enough crude oil to meet its own domestic needs.

The simmering outrage felt by Delta Nigerians has deep roots. A decade ago, during a period of military dictatorship, protests against oil exploitation triggered a brutal government crackdown. The leaders of the protest were arrested and imprisoned. Some were executed, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, one of Nigeria's finest writers and a passionate advocate for social justice in the Niger Delta.

Raising the stakes

American dependence on Nigerian oil is anticipated to grow rapidly in the years ahead as new fields come online. In 2007, Nigeria expects to hold a presidential election. President Olusegun Obasanjo has not ruled out that he will run for office again, even though he has exhausted his two-term limit. U.S. officials have openly expressed dismay over the possibility of another Obansanjo election victory, saying he should abide by Nigeria's constitution and step down.


Digg!

G. Pascal Zachary writes regularly about Africa. He has visited Nigeria's oil-producing region for Amnesty International.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fill 'er up, Satan!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Mar 14, 2006 2:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of my little rant here, says it all. Anyone who does buisness with companies like Chevron is, knowingly or not, dealing with the devil. When I use the term "devil", I am not being facectious. I use it in the strictest theological definition of that word. These people are evil - no if, ands or buts about it. Whenever I have to fill up my van - which I do every day (I drive for a living) I go to CITGO. Their oil comes from Venezuala and that country's leader, Hugo Chavez, like him or not, is at least using the oil profits to better the conditions of the poor and working class of his people. Unlike Saudi Arabia where the cash goes to a relatively small number of members of the Royal Family while the rest of the country lives in poverty. I've started my own personal boycott. Now it's your turn.

Pray For Peace

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fill 'er up, Satan! Posted by: yogendra2
» RE: Fill 'er up, Satan! Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Fill 'er up, Satan! Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: Fill 'er up, Satan! Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Fill 'er up, Satan! Posted by: cold2touch
Been following this for three years now
Posted by: AlienSlave on Mar 14, 2006 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know people personally in Nigeria who have lost every thing they own. There is no government there at all. The worlds oil companies have full control of the nation the supposed government officials are just simple contract oil employees. The banks are just money laundering portals for oil. The best solution here is to just give the Nigerian people back their country or exterminate them all. The oil countries import foreign nationals to work on the rigs this is the point in Nigerians killing and kid napping them. There has been a low intensity war going on there between the Nigerian nationals and oil company mercenaries since last spring must be the Nigerians are winning their struggle for freedom.
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And your point is!
Posted by: bookwoman on Mar 14, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I read another article about the problems in Africa, I wish I could get people to read two books - "The Constant Gardener" and "Out of Africa". In Africa we, once more, have the situation which is making Iraq so difficult. These "countries" were never countries until the European colonial powers made them countries. We have seen the result of these groupings in the conflicts in Iraq, Africa, Afghanistan and even Yugoslavia. When the controlling powers leave, the old angers and grudges reappear and members of the individual groups and tribes dredge up those ancient angers as reasons to massacre each other. If all of these groups were equal, the anger would be held at bay by opposing power and defenses. However, many of these clans and tribes have become just democratized enough to believe that war and armaments aren't necessary. This puts them at a disadvantage as they stand on a line between their old ways and the new ways to which they have tried to adapt. Also, the AK47 and land mines have replaced the spear as weapons of choice.

Who is to protect these groups which are trying to live without defensive weapons. As we have seen, too many times, the United Nations is not set up to really protect these people. If the only way to protect them and stop these killing streaks is to send an army to protect foreign investments is that so bad. In the best of all possible worlds, it is not the answer. However, we do not live in the best of all possible worlds.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And your point is! Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Protection? Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: And your point is! Posted by: IanA
» RE: And your point is! Posted by: IanA
» Get out of Africa! Posted by: sparlinx
Paul Wolfowitz
Posted by: sln70 on Mar 14, 2006 9:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the January (i think) issue of the economist, Paul Wolfowitz wrote a piece about his hopes for the future as he started his gig as head of the World Bank (which I just can't beleive, but anyway...)

He mentioned one country in particular: Nigeria. He said that in 2006 millions in that country would be alleviated of poverty. Yeah. It's just that he didn't mention how: they'd be dead. You can't be poor AND deceased.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oil companies and Africa
Posted by: yellow on Mar 14, 2006 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big transnational oil corporations have always had a presence in Africa. One example is the Niger Pipeline build by Shell. Often there is the promise of big revenues (most of which accrue to the oil major and some corrupt dictator) and "development" niether of which benefits the locals. Big tax holidays to cheapen the unit costs of building facilitiies and piping the crude from the grouind to tankers mean less for the community. The few who get high paying jobs in the industry only raise prices for the other poorer locals while stimulating not development but crime by attracting prostitutes and assorted hustlers to the areas of economic activity. In the end, the companies make a bundle leaving social dislocation and underdevelopment behind as well as some not infrequent environmental damage. In addition, communal conflict often results if one group seems favored for jobs and other benefits over other groups. Direct Foreign Investment has a real role to play in Africa but only in conjunction with long term planning by government, business, community groups, and highly experienced and skilled members of relevant NGOs who can assist with various emerging social issues such as community policing and health care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Evangelical Vanguard.
Posted by: Phoenix777 on Mar 14, 2006 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First come the missionaries to pave the way for the military. They are already active in the States that border Nigeria. Not to bring aid to all, but just to the Christian villages. Muslim villages are ignored.

The British were past masters at this. Not only in Africa but also in all her former colonies. Where the missionary treads the Jackboot follows .. just ask the Maori.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oil...Wells, how we love ya, how we love ya, our good ol' oil wells...
Posted by: monkeywrench on Mar 14, 2006 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good argument – but there's another bonus to America's military involvement with Nigeria: it keeps our weapons factories humming. I mean, after the mess in Iraq inevitably simmers down and we leave, or explodes, and we are overwhelmed by world opinion and leave, where are we going to sacrifice all of those guns and planes and tanks and bombs, so we can build more to keep the military-industrial welfare state going? Why, Nigeria, of course! (And Iran, too – except they're the "junkyard dog" of the Middle East, so we'll watch our step there. Wouldn't be good to goad Iran into making Israel glow in the dark).

Yep – nothing like a war or two (or three) over oil to keep the good ol' western "free"-market economy on an even course!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as they...
Posted by: k_the_c on Mar 15, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
take dollars for their oil, the USA won't be invading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]