2006-02-21

Crude politics

Here's the Guardian on recent attacks by rebels on Royal Dutch Shell property in Nigeria, which included hostage-taking. Sounds like those guys intend to harm our national interest, doesn't it? Too bad the military is already stretched so thin...

The group of three Americans, two Thais, two Egyptians, a Filipino, and a Briton - John Hudspith - were seized by up to 40 gunmen who stormed a pipe-laying barge. In emails to news agencies, the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) said its goal was to punish oil corporations and the government for siphoning off the region's wealth without returning anything to its impoverished ethnic Ijaw communities; as well as saying the hostages' fate had yet to be decided, the movement also warned that they might end up being killed in crossfire with the army. Government officials say the militants are bandits whose real aim is to sow chaos so they can steal the oil, a practice known as bunkering.

The militants set a target last month of halting a third of Nigeria's 2.5m daily barrels, most of it sweet crude bound for refineries in the US and Europe. If yesterday's attacks are confirmed, that target could be reached soon. The Mend statement said that it overran an army houseboat and an oil pipeline switching station. "Both were destroyed with explosives," it said. No casualties were reported.

6 comments:

Paul Hue said...

Tom: You have erected another straw man, and demonstrated more of your misunderstanding of Bush's view on Iraq. Only you, Nadir, and your compatriots believe that he invaded Iraq to control oil fields. In order to make the Nigerian situation resemble that in Iraq, we would have to start seeing Nigerians contribute to international terrorism. It is Bush, not you peacenik liberals, who has declared that the US govt should stop excluding human rights / democracy from its list of official concerns where international relations are concerned. You, Nadir, Jimmy Carter, Dick Nixon, Bush I, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, etc. have embraced a policy of tolerating stable allies who oppress their citizens (with exceptions of South Africa for the leftists and Cuba for the righists).

Nadir said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Nadir said...

Nigeria has been a top oil producer for years, but since independence its people have suffered under one oppressive regime after another. With the government's assistance, the oil companies have siphoned the nation's resources, polluted the environment and left the people impoverished. It should be expected that the people would eventually pick up weapons after years of non-violent protest have resulted in constant repression.

There is no comparison to Iraq here. Though Iraq's state-run oil company wasn't the most adept at sharing its wealth with the populace, foreign oil merchants take Nigeria's money and run. The payments to the government are for access and security.

We shouldn't expect a state-sponsored intervention here - this is Africa after all - but I won't surprised to see and influx of "private security forces" (i.e. mercenaries). Of course a new round of attacks by the Nigerian military will lead the way.

Paul Hue said...

I share your views above, though I don't understand what you mean by, "We shouldn't expect a state-sponsored intervention here - this is Africa after all."

I'm sure we disagree on how Nigerians could transform their petro resources into best possible distribution of wealth: I would say by privitazation within the context of a liberal republican democracy governed by a constitution that guarantees free speach and rights for mintorities and individuals.

Tom Philpott said...

Nadir,
The mercenaries are already there, and Shell has been collaborating with the military to beat back the resistance. If the neocon obsession with "democracy" were serious, wouldn't they be clamoring for an intervention--on the side of the rebels?

Paul Hue said...

Tom: You persistently misunderstand the neocon position. They emphatically deny any interest in forcably erecting democracies in all tyranical states. Instead they limit such interactions to tyranical states that directly and indirectly promote terrorism within the territories of the US and its allies (including Isreal). You can logically fault the neocons for not invading Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, but not Nigeria.