The elections in Nigeria has drawn to a close, with no clear winner in sight. The country is, literally, a mess. It's democratic experiment is in danger due to the massive economic, political and social decay, and with corruption crippling the administration, the bureaucracy and the government itself. The situation resembles the Congo's current difficulties, where the election in 2006, by many hauled as a 'success', did not produce an unambiguous and uncontested winner. The international community - that is, the Western hemisphere - seem to think that the president of Congo, Laurent Kabila, is 'better than nothing'. At least concurrent actions support that notion. Kabila is no spring chicken, but responsible for much of the atrocitities that have taken place in the vast country. War is still raging in the eastern part, even though the UN has its largest African peacekeeping force stationed there, and despite the EU's (albeit small-scale)efforts to stem the violence.
The Western response to Nigeria's and the DRC's plights (the Democratic Republic of the Congo), along with a range of other countries, is one of ambiguity and vagueness. The root of the problem, arguably, lies in these countries often immense natural resources, which should be a source of wealth for them, but instead has always been a curse. After the wars in the DRC, which raged between 1996-1997, and 1998-2003, respectively, the UN established that exploitation of natural resources was a key factor in explaining the war. And the sad truth is that to a large extent, Western companies have been responsible for the exploitation and abuse, mostly big multinational corporations acting in an unscrupulous manner. Despite the UN's efforts at coming to terms with the situation, nothing has happened. In the UN Security Council, of which the USA, Great Britain and France are members, no actions have been directed at punishing the companies responsible for the exploitation.
A Congolese parliamentary report issued in 2003 found that the European and US companies had “breached international business norms in their operations in Congo”; what the parliament had established was uncomfortable for the UN Security Council, whose members were “reluctant to punish or even seriously investigate corporations based in their own countries”. The international community has acknowledged that exploitation of natural resources has been a major factor in the DRC conflict, but has done little or nothing about it.
How is the West going to cope with the problems, when they are, in fact, to a great extent, caused by its own actions? If one weigh the costs of the massive peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts to the profits generated by western companies, the balance is clearly twisted in the wrong direction. The operations conducted by the UN cost enormous sums annually, and many Western countries are growing increasingly reluctant to pay for efforts and contributions that have no happy ending in sight.
Therefore, the only wise thing to do is to impose stricter laws on companies conducting dubious businesses in the region, and to scrutinize the activities of these. In the long run, this could actually be beneficial to the Africans for them to help themselves in building the societies they want. If nothing is done, we will see yet another genocide, more atrocities and more violence taking place. And when the guns have silenced, guilty conscience will force the West (albeit reluctantly) to intervene yet again to stop a war which it is in part responsible for.
The Western response to Nigeria's and the DRC's plights (the Democratic Republic of the Congo), along with a range of other countries, is one of ambiguity and vagueness. The root of the problem, arguably, lies in these countries often immense natural resources, which should be a source of wealth for them, but instead has always been a curse. After the wars in the DRC, which raged between 1996-1997, and 1998-2003, respectively, the UN established that exploitation of natural resources was a key factor in explaining the war. And the sad truth is that to a large extent, Western companies have been responsible for the exploitation and abuse, mostly big multinational corporations acting in an unscrupulous manner. Despite the UN's efforts at coming to terms with the situation, nothing has happened. In the UN Security Council, of which the USA, Great Britain and France are members, no actions have been directed at punishing the companies responsible for the exploitation.
A Congolese parliamentary report issued in 2003 found that the European and US companies had “breached international business norms in their operations in Congo”; what the parliament had established was uncomfortable for the UN Security Council, whose members were “reluctant to punish or even seriously investigate corporations based in their own countries”. The international community has acknowledged that exploitation of natural resources has been a major factor in the DRC conflict, but has done little or nothing about it.
How is the West going to cope with the problems, when they are, in fact, to a great extent, caused by its own actions? If one weigh the costs of the massive peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts to the profits generated by western companies, the balance is clearly twisted in the wrong direction. The operations conducted by the UN cost enormous sums annually, and many Western countries are growing increasingly reluctant to pay for efforts and contributions that have no happy ending in sight.
Therefore, the only wise thing to do is to impose stricter laws on companies conducting dubious businesses in the region, and to scrutinize the activities of these. In the long run, this could actually be beneficial to the Africans for them to help themselves in building the societies they want. If nothing is done, we will see yet another genocide, more atrocities and more violence taking place. And when the guns have silenced, guilty conscience will force the West (albeit reluctantly) to intervene yet again to stop a war which it is in part responsible for.
2 comments:
Hey.
Liked your article but I believe that any threats to Nigeria and its political stability will be taken seriously. Nigeria is the eight-largest oil exporter in the world and therefore they cannot afford to neglect its internal turbulence. I agree that multinational companies are exploiting the country, especially Shell. How do you suggest that the Worldscene should act to decrease the exploiting, Who should in your opinion inflict it, EU, UN?
Hey. Thank you for your comment! The exploitation I wrote about mainly concerns the Congo,actually, and the situation which has arisen there due to the country's natural resources. Oil is something the DRC does not have, and probably very happy for.
Nigeria is a different matter, yes, but politically, both countries face similar problems. A lack of faith in democracy, corruption and a failure to provide riches to the people. The incomes and profits generated from the 'trade' in copper, diamonds, germanium etc., has not benefitted the DRC's or Nigeria's people. I believe regulations and stricter laws should be imposed in order to check the companies doing business there. In a way, its mostly wishful thinking however... Good English by the way!
Post a Comment