Will slick propaganda be enough to stem the tide against Shell in
Nigeria? MARGARET VAUGHAN thinks not
SHELL insists it has no intention of pulling out of Nigeria, despite
threats of a consumer boycott and intensive protests on an international
scale.
The oil giant says it has a major commitment to the people of Nigeria
but it cannot become involved in the politics of countries in which it
operates. Odd, then, that it was discussing tactics for countering
protests over the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni people at a
meeting with senior Nigerian officials in London in March.
Documents of the meeting at the Shell Centre in London, which have
been passed to The Herald, disclose that Nigeria's High Commissioner,
Alhaji Abubakar Alhaji, asked Shell for help to counter ''false
allegations peddled against Nigeria and Shell over Ogoni and Ken
Saro-Wiwa''.
The notes show that the midday meeting on March 16 was attended by
four senior Shell executives, including the head of regional liaison,
the group public affairs co-ordinator, the regional co-ordinator of the
Western Hemisphere and African regional organisation, and the area
co-ordinator for Nigeria and Angola.
The Nigerian delegation included the High Commissioner; an army
colonel, D P Iketubosin; and a police, or political, counsellor, Mr S A
Ekpa. They record that the High Commissioner expressed dismay at the
apparent ''network of misinformation'' orchestrated by Gordon and Anita
Roddick of the Body Shop against Nigeria over the trial of Ken
Saro-Wiwa. He called on Shell to ''debunk'' the allegations.
Shell's head of regional liaison, Malcolm Williams, is noted as
explaining that Anita Roddick was said to be a very close friend of Ken
Saro-Wiwa. The Shell executives said that groups involved in a protest
campaign savoured publicity, were well co-ordinated, recruiting and
training activists to carry out their campaigns.
''At this point His Excellency the High Commissioner wanted to know
what could be done to counteract the poor media campaign.''
Williams was wary of any approach that ''will play into the hand of
the propagandists'', the notes state: ''He was of the view that a direct
attack on the groups concerned will bring the matter much more into the
public domain, which is what they want.''
Shell planned to embark on a film of its Nigerian operation which
aimed to ''balance facts''. The High Commissioner was ''very delighted''
and promised to assist Shell overcome any ''bureaucractic problems''
they might encounter in producing the film.
It seemed clear yesterday that Shell, involved in almost half of
Nigeria's oil production, is intent on resisting pressure from
protestors for an oil embargo against the military regime which executed
Saro-Wiwa and eight other campaigners for the rights of the
500,000-strong Ogoni minority.
Indeed, a spokesman explained that reports that it had delayed a
decision on signing a #2.5 billion gas deal with a company in which it
has a 24% stake, were wrong.
The Prime Minister had signalled that the Government might apply
pressure for the deal to be dropped, because of concern that the gas
plant would prop up the military regime. But Shell's spokesman said the
question of whether to go ahead with the investment would be on the
agenda of Wednesday's board meeting of Nigerian Liquified Natural Gas
Ltd:
''Anyway we must remember that with a project like this, you're
talking about something that will benefit the long-term future of
Nigeria. There will be no revenues to any of the shareholders, including
the Nigerian Government until the early part of the next century.''
Saro-Wiwa was quoted as saying before his death: ''Nigerian oil is
what sustains the Nigerian military dictators, enabling them to
survive.''
Observers agree that there are only two things that could have an
immediate impact on Nigeria's ruling despots. One would be freezing the
military clique's overseas bank accounts, probably an impossibly complex
option. The second would involve depriving them of the oil revenues that
they steal. John Major's fears that Nigeria's poor would be hurt by oil
sanctions seem misplaced in the light of a Nigerian Government
commission report which revealed that under a previous regime some $12
billion in oil revenues were unaccounted for.
The economy has been in a shambles for a long time with benefits from
oil revenues, which make up 90% of foreign exchange earnings, hardly
reaching beleaguered tribal communities. The loss of oil money would be
most felt in the generals' pockets.
There are, however, a number of simple but profound reasons why Shell
is likely to refuse to bow to international pressure and repugnance at
its dealing with Nigeria's military dictators, and they are all
commercial.
Shell is by far the biggest oil producer operating in Nigeria. Its
production at 900,000 barrels a day dwarves that of its competitors. It
has a 30% stake in the Nigerian state oil company, so its economic
interest is worth roughly 270,000 barrels a day. This amounts to 13.7%
of the oil giant's total worldwide production.
Secondly, despite international calls from protestors for Shell to
pull out, it hasn't been matched by pressure from politicians. The US,
Britain, and other Western European countries may be happy to ban arms
sales but are reluctant to halt oil exports.
Britain has #3.4 billion invested in Nigeria. The US is the biggest
importer of Nigerian oil, taking around half of its daily ouput. It may
be that an oil embargo would be a sanction too far for governments whose
economic interests lie in keeping the oil flowing.
Those amoral arbiters, oil analysts, were taking a sanguine view of
the call for sanctions yesterday. Traders and analysts said oil prices
hadn't reacted to the mounting international pressure for an oil ban.
Oil analyst Geoff Pyne, of the investment bank UBS, said Nigeria is
one of the largest producers in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries, and a major supplier of high-quality light sweet crude oil to
the US and Western Europe.
And while John Major was insisting oil sanctions would hurt ordinary
Nigerians, a White House official said Washington was not considering an
oil embargo. A ban by the United Nations similar to the one imposed on
Iraq was not possible, said Pyne since Nigeria's situation did not
''pose a threat to international peace and stability'' as is required by
the UN before it imposes sanctions.
Lastly, Shell is still smarting from the public relations fiasco
surrounding the Brent Spar. Mindful of the political drubbing it took
when consumer boycotts and Greenpeace activists forced it to drop plans
to dump the Brent Spar in the North Sea, it is likely to more chary of
caving in this time.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article