|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Nigeria: The Price of Oil
Nigeria: The Price of Oil
Date distributed (ymd): 990226
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: West Africa
Issue Areas: +economy/development+ +political/rights+
+security/peace+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains a press summary and excerpts from the
summary of a new report by Human Rights Watch (Africa) on the
involvement of international oil companies in Nigeria.
For the full 200-page report, see the HRW web site
(www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/1999/nigeria).
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Links for Updates: With one day remaining before the Nigerian
presidential elections, election monitors are warning about
indications of irregularities, fraud and voter cynicism. As
the document below indicates, serious issues will remain to be
addressed even if the transition to civilian rule continues
on-track. For updates on election monitoring and other news,
see:
http://www.africanews.org/west/nigeria
http://members.xoom.com/NDmessenger
http://www.nigerianscholars.africanqueen.com/elections.htm
For additional background and links to more sites visit:
http://www.africapolicy.org/action/nigeria.htm
http://www.africapolicy.org/featdocs/west.htm
Human Rights Watch Press Release
For more information: In Lagos: Bronwen Manby (2341) 584-0288
(c/o Civil Liberties Organisation), In New York: Peter
Takirambudde (212) 216-1223; In New York: Arvind Ganesan (212)
216-1251; In London: Urmi Shah (44171) 713-1995; In Brussels:
Jean-Paul Marthoz (322) 736-7838
For further information, contact Human Rights Watch, 350 Fifth
Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10118-3299 USA. TEL:
1-212-290-4700, FAX: 1-212-736-1300 E-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org;
Web Site Address: http://www.hrw.org
Oil Companies Complicit In Nigerian Abuses
February 23, 1999
Lagos - The following document was released by Human Rights
Watch: On the eve of Nigeria's presidential elections,
multinational oil companies investing in the Niger Delta are
failing to respond adequately to serious human rights abuse in
that region, Human Rights Watch charged in a report released
today.
In its eight months in office, the government of Gen.
Abdulsalami Abubakar has released many political prisoners and
relaxed some restrictions on freedom of expression and
assembly. But the 200-page Human Rights Watch report documents
how Nigerian security forces are using brutal methods to
suppress dissent in the Niger Delta.
"The oil companies can't pretend they don't know what's
happening all around them," said Kenneth Roth, executive
director of Human Rights Watch, an international monitoring
group based in New York. "The Nigerian government obviously
has the primary responsibility to stop human rights abuse. But
the oil companies are directly benefiting from these crude
attempts to suppress dissent, and that means they have a duty
to try and stop it." Roth noted that recent events in the
Niger Delta, especially the crackdown on Ijaw communities over
the New Year's weekend, indicate that the Nigerian government
is continuing to use violence to protect the interests of
international oil companies.
In one particularly serious incident on January 4, soldiers
using a Chevron helicopter and Chevron boats attacked
villagers in two small communities in Delta State, Opia and
Ikenyan, killing at least four people and burning most of the
villages to the ground. More than fifty people are still
missing. Chevron has alleged to a committee of survivors of
the attack that this was a "counterattack" resulting from a
confrontation between local youths and soldiers posted to a
Chevron drilling rig. Community members deny that any such
confrontation took place. In any event, the soldiers' response
was clearly disproportionate and excessive.
"Whoever wins this presidential election will have to cope
with growing violence in the Niger Delta," said Roth. "The oil
companies and the new government should commit to taking a new
approach in the region, one that is based on zero tolerance
for human rights abuse by the police and military."
Roth noted that the presidential campaign has included little
serious debate over events in the Niger Delta and the role of
the oil companies in human rights abuse there.
In the report, Human Rights Watch describes numerous other
incidents in which the Nigerian security forces have beaten,
detained, or even killed people who were involved in protests
over oil company activities and individuals who have called
for compensation for environmental damage. Victims include
youths, women, children, and traditional leaders. In some
cases, the abuse occurs after oil companies have requested
that security forces intervene.
The report charges that multinational oil companies are
complicit in abuses committed by the Nigerian military and
police because they fail to condemn them publicly and to
intervene with the Nigerian government to help ensure that
they do not recur. In many cases, Human Rights Watch found
that the oil companies had made no effort to learn what was
done in their name by abusive local security forces seeking to
keep oil flowing in the face of local objections.
Human Rights Watch strongly criticized the oil companies for
excessive secrecy, and called upon them to make public their
security agreements with state entities. It urged the
companies to insist on screening all security staff assigned
to protect company property, to investigate violent incidents,
and to publish the results of those investigations. The
companies were urged to take all necessary steps to ensure
that their legitimate need to safeguard their facilities and
personnel does not result in abuses against members of the
communities where they operate.
Much of the protest against oil companies' activity in Nigeria
has surrounded issues such as environmental pollution and
corruption, which lie outside the mandate of Human Rights
Watch. But the need to respect civil and political rights,
such as freedom of expression and association, fall squarely
within the international human rights treaties that Nigeria
has signed, such as the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa, pumping more
than two million barrels a day. This oil is produced by
multinational oil companies operating in joint ventures with
the Nigerian government. The Dutch-British corporation Royal
Dutch/Shell accounts for nearly half of this production and
has faced the strongest criticism of its corporate behavior.
Perhaps for that reason, Shell responded most fully to
questions from Human Rights Watch about its policies and
practices and about specific incidents of human rights abuses
connected with its operations. The U.S.-based oil corporations
Chevron and Mobil also answered some questions, while France's
Elf Aquitaine and Italy's Agip provided almost no information
at all. None of the oil companies responded to requests to
provide details of security arrangements with the Nigerian
government.
Excerpts from summary section of "The Price of Oil"
For the full 200-page report, see the HRW web site
(www.hrw.org/hrw/reports/1999/nigeria)
I. SUMMARY [Excerpts only]
This report is an exploration of human rights violations
related to oil exploration and production in the Niger Delta,
and of the role and responsibilities of the major
multinational oil companies in respect of those violations.
The Niger Delta has for some years been the site of major
confrontations between the people who live there and the
Nigerian government security forces, resulting in
extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detentions, and draconian
restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression,
association, and assembly. These violations of civil and
political rights have been committed principally in response
to protests about the activities of the multinational
companies that produce Nigeria's oil. Although the June 1998
death of former head of state Gen. Sani Abacha and his
succession by Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar has brought a
significant relaxation in the unprecedented repression General
Abacha inflicted on the Nigerian people, and General Abubakar
appears committed to ensuring the installation of an elected
civilian government in May 1999, human rights abuses in the
oil producing communities continue and the basic situation in
the delta remains unchanged. As this report went to press, the
fatal shooting by security forces of tens of youths
demonstrating for the oil companies to withdraw from Nigeria
was reported, and the deployment of large numbers of soldiers
and navy to the delta to suppress such protests.
Since the death of Abacha, there has been a surge in incidents
in which protesters have occupied flow stations and closed
production or taken oil workers hostage. In the context of
increasing threats to the safety of their workers and of
damage to their property, oil companies legitimately require
security for their personnel and property; but equally there
is an even greater need for companies to ensure that such
protection does not result in further human rights abuses. The
oil companies share a responsibility to oppose human rights
violations by government forces in the areas in which they
operate, in addition to preventing abuses by their own
employees or contractors. Companies have a duty to avoid both
complicity in and advantage from human rights abuses, and a
company that fails to speak out when authorities responding to
corporate requests for security protection commit human rights
abuses will be complicit in those abuses.
Human Rights Watch traveled to the Niger Delta in 1997 to
investigate human rights violations in connection with the
suppression of protest at oil company activities. We found
repeated incidents in which people were brutalized for
attempting to raise grievances with the companies; in some
cases security forces threatened, beat, and jailed members of
community delegations even before they presented their cases.
Such abuses often occurred on or adjacent to companyproperty,
or in the immediate aftermath of meetings between company
officials and individual claimants or community
representatives. Many local people seemed to be the object of
repression simply for putting forth an interpretation of a
compensation agreement, or for seeking effective compensation
for land ruined or livelihood lost.
We subsequently corresponded with the five multinationals with
the largest share of Nigerian production, asking them to
comment on our findings about particular incidents at their
facilities, as well as their approach to human rights and
community relations in general and their relationships with
the Nigerian authorities in respect of security and other
issues. This correspondence has continued during 1998. The
most ample responses were received from Shell, a Dutch-British
company, which has faced the most high profile international
focus on its responsibilities in Nigeria. Responses on several
cases were also received from Chevron and general information
was provided by Mobil: both companies have faced pressure in
the U.S., where they are based, concerning corporate
responsibility in Nigeria. Elf, headquartered in France,
answered most of our questions, though it avoided some,
without giving much detail or taking the opportunity to
provide background information on its operations; while Agip,
an Italian state-owned company, provided an uninformative two
page general response to our inquiries and failed to answer
many questions. The difficulty that Human Rights Watch, a well
known international organization with access to the press
worldwide, has had in getting several of the oil companies to
pay attention to its concerns appears to be representative of
their response to local communities. ...
The Role and Responsibilities of the International Oil
Companies
The multinational oil companies operating in Nigeria face a
difficult political and economic environment, both nationally
and at the level of the oil producing communities where their
facilities are located. Successive governments have misspent
the oil wealth which the oil companies have helped to unlock,
salting it away in foreign bank accounts rather than investing
in education, health, and other social investment, and
mismanaging the national economy to the point of collapse. At
the same time, the government has in the past failed to fund
its share of the joint ventures operated by the
multinationals, and has played the different oil companies
against each other so that it has not been easy--even for
Shell, the industry giant--to insist that the government
contribute towards the investment needed to keep the industry
functioning. At the community level, the companies are faced
with increasing protests directed at oil company activities
and the lack of development in the delta; these have included
incidents of hostage-taking, closures of flow stations,
sabotage, and intimidation of staff. ...
Acknowledging the difficult context of oil operations in
Nigeria does not, however, absolve the oil companies from a
share of responsibility for the human rights abuses taking
place in the Niger Delta: whether by action or omission they
play a role.
In countries characterized by severe human rights violations,
like Nigeria, corporations often justify their presence by
arguing that their operations will enhance respect for rights,
but then adopt no substantive measures to achieve that end.
Corporations doing business in these states take on a special
obligation to implement proactive steps to promote respect for
rights and to ensure that they do not become complicit in
violations. The dominant position of the oil companies in
Nigeria brings with it a special responsibility in this regard
to monitor and promote respect for human rights. Given the
overwhelming role of oil in the Nigerian national economy, the
policies and practices of the oil companies are important
factors in the decision making of the Nigerian government.
Because the oil companies are operating joint ventures with
the government they have constant opportunities to influence
government policy, including with respect to the provision of
security for the oil facilities and other issues in the oil
producing regions. All the oil companies operating in Nigeria
share this responsibility to promote respect for human rights.
In addition to these general responsibilities, the oil
companies operating in Nigeria have specific responsibilities
in respect of the human rights violations that take place in
connection with their operations. These responsibilities must
be seen against the context of oil production in Nigeria and
the fact that the security provided to keep the oil flowing
benefits both the Nigerian government and the oil companies,
since disputes which threaten production affect the revenue of
both.
Many of the cases investigated by Human Rights Watch which
have led to security force abuses concern claims that oil
companies have not abided by environmental standards or
provided compensation in accordance with the law for damage
resulting from oil exploration and production. ...
Oil companies are legitimately concerned to prevent damage to
their facilities and to the environment and to protect their
personnel. Security arrangements between the oil companies and
the Nigerian government are inevitable, as are internal oil
company provisions for security responses in the event of
incidents of hostage taking, sabotage, or intimidation. At the
same time, the companies emphasize their commitment to avoid
violent confrontations between community members and security
forces, while underlining a legal obligation to inform the
Nigerian authorities when there is a threat to oil production.
However, Human Rights Watch is concerned at the level of
secrecy that surrounds the arrangements relating to security
for oil installations: not one of the oil companies with which
we corresponded responded to our requests to be given access
to the parts of the Memorandum of Understanding or Joint
Operations Agreement with the Nigerian government governing
security, nor to internal guidelines relating to protection of
their facilities. Given the abuses that have been committed by
the Nigerian security forces in protecting oil installations,
most notoriously in Ogoni, it is all the more important that
there be transparency in these arrangements and clear
commitments from the oil companies to monitor security force
performance related to their operations, take steps to prevent
abuses, andpublicly protest violations that do occur. ...
Often, based on Human Rights Watch's correspondence, the
companies claim to be unaware that arrests, detentions and
beatings have taken place in the vicinity of their facilities,
despite assertions that they are concerned to maintain good
relations with the communities where they operate.
Human Rights Watch believes that the oil companies have
responsibilities to monitor security force activity in the oil
producing region in detail and to take all possible steps to
ensure that human rights violations are not committed. These
responsibilities are reinforced when the company has itself
called for security force intervention, especially by the
military or by notoriously abusive forces such as the Mobile
Police, or if the company has made payments to the security
forces in return for protection.
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the
Africa Policy Information Center (APIC). APIC's primary
objective is to widen the policy debate in the United States
around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa, by
concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant
information and analysis usable by a wide range of groups and
individuals.
|
