so when will the 500 000 people of equitorial guinea be 'liberated'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

kobayashi

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Messages
5,142
Location
the ether
why isnt the coalition of the willing on the scene defending liberty and all thats good?
whereas iraq 'isn't about the oil', one would have to think the situation in equitorial guinea is about nothing but oil. screw democracy.
By Ken Silverstein
Angeles Times
January 20, 2003

Oil Boom Enriches African Ruler

By Ken Silverstein
Angeles Times
January 20, 2003

Most of the population lives on about a dollar a day, and a U.S. State Department report found "little evidence that the country's oil wealth is being devoted to the public good." So where has the money gone?

That has been declared a "state secret" by Equatorial Guinea's ruler, Brig. Gen. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. But the Guinean ambassador to the U.S. and other sources close to Obiang say the country's oil funds are held in an account at Riggs Bank in Washington.

According to several of those sources and others familiar with the account, more than $300 million of the country's energy earnings has been deposited in the account by international oil companies active in Equatorial Guinea, including ExxonMobil Corp. and Amerada Hess Corp. The money is under the direct control of Obiang, the sources say.

The arrangement has raised concerns at the International Monetary Fund, where officials have refused to provide assistance to Equatorial Guinea until Obiang accounts for his country's oil money and have urged him to transfer it to its home treasury. It has also complicated efforts by the Bush administration to improve ties with the country, which soon will become sub-Saharan Africa's third-largest oil producer after Nigeria and Angola. Critics say the administration should not embrace Obiang's regime until it improves its human rights record and implements anticorruption reforms.
...
Obiang has ruled Equatorial Guinea since 1979, when he took power in a coup against his uncle. On Dec. 15, Obiang won 97.1% of the votes in a presidential election that was widely viewed as fraudulent. Until the mid-1990s, Equatorial Guinea's economy seemed to be on the verge of collapse. Since then, foreign companies -- led by American firms such as ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil Corp., Amerada Hess and ChevronTexaco Corp. -- have discovered huge reserves in the country and invested about $5 billion in its oil sector.

Equatorial Guinea's oil production has jumped from just 17,000 barrels per day in 1996 to a current rate of more than 220,000 barrels per day. As a result, the Bush administration has initiated a political thaw with the Obiang regime. In late 2001, President Bush authorized the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Equatorial Guinea, which had been closed six years earlier, in large part due to the country's horrific human rights record.

There's been little if any improvement since then on that issue. A recent State Department report said the country's security forces "committed numerous, serious human rights abuses," including torture and beatings, and that citizens "do not have the ability to change their government peacefully." The World Bank has censured the regime for failing to account for oil revenue, which it says has had "no impact on Equatorial Guinea's dismal social indicators."


-
apologies if this has been discussed before. i did a quick search and didnt see anything.
 
CBC reported that the Energy Summit in Houston issued a statement saying they will have to work with people they dislike to reduce middle eastern oil dependancy. That's exactly like this situation.
 
Well, maybe Germany and France could help out since their doing nothing at the moment in regards to Persian Gulf Security.
 
Yeah, but Germany and France aren't the leaders of the free world are they? There job is to follow right? Besides, they are old Europe, Rumsfeld said so!
 
Germany and France are not leaders of the free world because they rarely do anything to justify having that title.

There job is to follow? I don't think so. If it was their job, we might be seeing the benefits of German and French military forces in the Iraq at the moment.

Germany and France are certainly closer to the term "old Europe" than they are to "leaders of the free world" based on their current actions.

They certainly do have the option to help out or take action, but they simply don't in many of these cases which helps define the meaning of "old Europe".
 
And what title should we give the US then for not helping out in this case, or in fact, most cases?
 
DrTeeth said:
And what title should we give the US then for not helping out in this case, or in fact, most cases?

Dr. Teeth are you sincere in your belief that the US does little or nothing to help out in the world?
 
Dreadsox said:


Dr. Teeth are you sincere in your belief that the US does little or nothing to help out in the world?
heres an intersting article-

To Hell With Sympathy
The goodwill America earned on 9/11 was illusory. Get over it

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Monday, Nov. 17, 2003
No one likes us. And the democrats know why: the world loved us just two years ago, and then this President, cowboy arrogant and rudely unilateral, blew it. "When America was savagely attacked by al-Qaeda terrorists on 9-11, virtually all the world was with us," writes Democratic elder statesman Theodore Sorensen. "But that moment of universal goodwill was squandered." He writes that in the current issue of The American Prospect, but he is speaking for just about every Democratic candidate, potentate, deep thinker and critic, and not a few foreign commentators as well. The formulation is near universal: "The president has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of Sept. 11" (Al Gore). "He has squandered the goodwill of the world after Sept. 11" (John Kerry).

The ur-text for this myth is the famous Le Monde editorial of Sept. 12, 2001, titled "We Are All Americans." But as Johns Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami points out, not only did that very editorial speak of America's paying for its cynicism, but also, within months, that same Le Monde publisher was back with a small book ("All Americans? The World After September 11, 2001"--note the question mark) filled with the usual belligerence toward and disapproval of America.

What happened in those intervening few months? Is not the core Democratic complaint that it was overreaching in Iraq that caused the world to turn against us? And yet barely had we buried our 9/11 dead ? long before we entered Baghdad ? when the French, and the rest of the world, decided that they were not really Americans after all and were back to vilifying American arrogance, unilateralism, hegemony and so on.

It is pure fiction that this pro-American sentiment was either squandered after Sept. 11 or lost under the Bush Administration. It never existed. Envy for America, resentment of our power, hatred of our success has been a staple for decades, but most particularly since victory in the cold war left us the only superpower.

Bill Clinton was the most accommodating, sensitive, multilateralist President one can imagine, and yet we know that al-Qaeda began the planning for Sept. 11 precisely during his presidency. Clinton made humility his vocation, apologizing variously for African slavery, for internment of Japanese Americans, for not saving Rwanda. He even decided that Britain should return the Elgin Marbles to Greece. A lot of good that did us. Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War on America in 1996--at the height of the Clinton Administration's hyperapologetic, good-citizen internationalism.

Moreover, it is unseemly, even pathetic, for the would-be leaders of a great power to pine for the pity gleaned on the day America lay bleeding and wounded. This is to carry into foreign policy a pathology of our domestic politics ? the glorification of victimhood and the lust for its privileges, such as they are. It is not surprising that having set up at home a spoils system that encourages every ethnic group to claim even greater victimization than the next, the Democrats should lament the fact that we did not seize and institutionalize our collective victimhood of Sept. 11.

The world apparently likes the U.S. when it is on its knees. From that the Democrats deduce a foreign policy ? remain on our knees, humble and supplicant, and enjoy the applause and "support" of the world.

This is not just degrading. It is a fool's bargain--3,000 dead for a day's worth of nice words and a few empty U.N. resolutions. The Democrats would forfeit American freedom of action and initiative in order to get back ? what? Another nice French editorial? To be retracted as soon as the U.S. stops playing victim?

Sympathy is fine. But if we "squander" it when we go to war to avenge our dead and prevent the next crop of dead, then to hell with sympathy. The fact is that the world hates us for our wealth, our success, our power. They hate us into incoherence. The Europeans, Ajami astutely observes, disdain us for our excessive religiosity (manifest, they imagine, by evolution being expelled from schools while prayer is ushered back in)--while the Arab world despises us as purveyors of secularism. We cannot win for losing. We are widely reviled as enemies of Islam, yet in the 1990s we engaged three times in combat ? in the Persian Gulf and in the Balkans ? to rescue Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo, Muslim peoples all. And in the last two cases, there was nothing in it for the U.S.; it was humanitarianism and good international citizenship of the highest order.

The search for logic in anti-Americanism is fruitless. It is in the air the world breathes. Its roots are envy and self-loathing ? by peoples who, yearning for modernity but having failed at it, find their one satisfaction in despising modernity's great exemplar.

On Sept. 11, they gave it a rest for a day. Big deal.
 
This line of debate I have always found extemely futile. It is handy to be able to label America as do-gooders when there is something to show for it, likewise also handy to be able to label America as 'unworthy' as it were as leaders of the free world when there is something they haven't done. The need which exists in our world is far greater than America can ever hope to overcome in total. America is neither the cure-all nor a slacker when looking at the larger picture. It's not one or the other, it's a bit of both. Instead of bickering about it, it needs to be the responsibility of all nations in helping out where it is needed.
 
This is not about my opinion, nor is it about Germany or France. There's nothing futile about taking a politician's words and comparing it with his actions. This is about the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, spreader of democracy, who has not said as much as a word on this (for as far as I know) and I want to know why.
 
Scarletwine said:
CBC reported that the Energy Summit in Houston issued a statement saying they will have to work with people they dislike to reduce middle eastern oil dependancy. That's exactly like this situation.

Exactly. There's been a lot of discussion about how much of the US' oil supplies are expected to be coming from Africa as opposed to the Middle East in the future. :down:
 
DrTeeth said:
This is not about my opinion

It is about your opinion when you make a blanket statement about the goodwill or lack of goodwill that the people of my country extend to others. It was a comment that you either want to stand by or not. You typed it.
 
I'm sorry but I do believe that the lack of support, interaction, or interference in the problems of Africa by both the US and Europe is hindered by racism. It may not even be overt racism but more subtle. A sort of 'over there attitude' or 'it's just them'. I mean really look how recently we put pressure on SA for apartied.

I do agree with Angela that the US always seems to be doing too much or not enough (until recently anyway) and we must all work together to create a better world. Violence isn't the way to achieve POSITIVE change however.

Just my .02
 
"Violence isn't the way to achieve POSITIVE change however."

Defending ones country and others is a positive thing. The Revolutionary War was a positive change just as the current Iraq war has been.
 
STING2 said:
Well, maybe Germany and France could help out since their doing nothing at the moment in regards to Persian Gulf Security.
Well, if they have the same succes as the USA have,...no thanks. Maybe we could produce some prove for WMD or is there already a Oil contract between this dictator and the Bush goverment ?
 
diamond said:
"self proclaimed leader of the free world"..
:eyebrow:
You are right that this was the case in the past. But now a lot of people do not want the USA as a world leader anymore, we hear a lot of "if you not with us, you are against us".
 
Angela Harlem,


"Is violence the only way of achieving this? America has many sucesses without violence."

It depends on the situation. The only way to unseat Saddam was through large scale military operations. Other ways were tried for 12 years and they all failed.

Policeman where you live carry weapons because they are necessary in defending your community in certain situations. America does have many success without violence because those particular senerio's could be solved without the need for any type of "military force". Other situations are not suceptible to other forms of action and in those cases, military force is necessary.


RONO,

"Well, if they have the same succes as the USA have,...no thanks."

The USA has been very successful in rebuilding Iraq although there remains a mountain of work to do. That of course makes it easy for critics to say that something is a failure because there is still so much work to do, but that reasoning ignores the realities involved in nation building with a country that has been dominated by dictator for 30 years.


"Maybe we could produce some prove for WMD or is there already a Oil contract between this dictator and the Bush goverment ?"

The USA and other members of the UN were never required to prove that Iraq still had this WMD or that WMD. It was SADDAM's responsiblity to prove to the world that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD and he failed to do that. One may not like that fact, but it was the written agreement that Saddam signed on to with the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement.

Oil Contracts with Saddam were a hobby of the Russians and the French, contracts they maintained even as Saddam was being overthrown.
 
nbcrusader said:
If Equatorial Guinea was truely a concern, maybe there would be a big protest about it. Or are the protestors too busy bashing Bush?

do you contend that its not a concern?
based on what is presented in the article, id say its very much a concern for the people of the nation: dictatorial leader, diverted money going to all the wrong purposes, human rights abuses, american embassy being reopened after no change in rights of citizens.

sounds troublesome to me.

i think you're smart enough to know protesting against bush has become a popular yet frivolous act. i wouldnt judge numbers at protests as directly indicative of the trouble inherent in the subject.
 
I saw this last sunday on 60 Minutes and was appalled when I saw Obiang walking around these desperately poor people handing out whatever he had in his hands. and the son walks into a mens shop in the US or south of france where he loves to hang out, and buys nearly 200 of the most expensive suits in the shop. It showed pictures of the mansions he's building, again, in the US and France. It's disgusting. Exxon Mobil Corp. and Amerada Hess should be held accountable for the human rights violations as well as the US and other countries who are benefiting from this oil. Will they never learn from the mistakes of the past. This is Saddam/Iraq all over again. When Obiang has enough money there will be weapons of some kind of destruction on these islands as well. Right now it's just the weapon of keeping the people enslaved. Almost makes me wish I used Exxon gas so I could quit using it. Hell, I probably do use it and don't know it.
 
Equatorial Guinea is sitting on enough oil to have a major impact on the people who live there, but not on the rest of the world or even South West Africa.
 
Equiterial Guinea has proven oil reserves of .56 Billion barrels. By comparison this is what the top 10 countries have when looking at oil reserves:

Saudi Arabia 261.7 Billion barrels
Iraq 115 Billion barrels
Iran 99.1 Billion barrels
Kuwait 98.9 Billion barrels
United Arab Emirates 62.8 Billion barrels
Russia 53.9 Billion barrels
Venezuela 50.2 Billion barrels
Libya 30 Billion barrels
Nigeria 30 Billion barrels
China 29.5 Billion barrels


I got this information from these two websites:

http://216.239.37.104/search?hl=en&....com/ipa/A0872964.html+"Oil+Reserves"+Country

http://216.239.41.104/search?hl=en&...ea%20+What+are+Equitorial+Guinea+Oil+Reserves
 
Back
Top Bottom