by Mark P. Fancher
Multinational corporations claim that the problem with Africa is corruption. But the most corrupting influence in Africa is the multinational corporation. Africa's mines have enriched everyone but Africans. Yet, “the people are never allowed to even consider the prospect of booting foreign corporations out of Africa altogether.”
Wanted: A New People’s Vision for Mining and Drilling in Africa
by Mark P. Fancher
“It is no accident that proposals for reform always maintain the status quo for foreign corporations.”
For several years when leaders of the world’s most powerful countries convened at annual G-8 meetings, there was another gathering many miles away in one humble dusty village or another in Mali. These meetings that were called “The Poor People’s Summit” were a forum where advocates could voice concerns about the seemingly endless list of problems that are the consequence of underdevelopment in Africa and other regions of the world that have been ravaged by imperialism.
Because 80 percent of Mali’s population lives below the poverty line, the country is highly appropriate as a location for a meeting of the poor. It is even more ideal as the place to highlight the tragic cruelty of imperialism given that in 2007 Oxfam America noted that Mali’s “gold exports have more than tripled in the last decade, yet its citizens have so far seen little benefit from mining revenues.”
This is an old and common story in Africa. It is a continent that is blessed (or cursed in the opinion of many) with an abundance of valuable natural resources that somehow never benefit the poor. It will remain that way as long as the original colonial design is preserved through use of puppet regimes, military intimidation directed by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), or bureaucratic devices like “structural adjustment programs” that the International Monetary Fund used for years to ensure that African countries that have received loans have made their countries ripe for exploitation by foreign corporations.
It is only natural that in recent years the call for Africa’s resources to benefit Africans has grown louder. Frequently these demands have been for reforms that would require foreign corporations to adhere to environmental standards, contribute to infrastructure development, create more employment opportunities for local populations, enter contracts with local entrepreneurs, etc.
Recently, when multinational mining corporations made a presentation to Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade, he responded: “I never said, ‘enrichissez-vous’ (enrich yourselves). I said enrichissons-nous (Let’s enrich one another).” Notwithstanding President Wade’s perspective, which is shared by a growing number of African leaders, when it comes to shifting more mining revenue to the poor, the World Bank and certain beneficiaries of imperialism have promoted measures that are aimed not at foreign corporations, but instead at those corrupt African leaders who pocket the tiny portion of revenue that remains in the country.
“In recent years the call for Africa’s resources to benefit Africans has grown louder.”
For example, in Chad, 75 percent of the population tries to survive on less than a dollar a day. When the oil industry took a special interest in expanding its operations there a few years ago, the World Bank’s conditions for support of a major project by Exxon resulted in the enactment of “Law 001.” Its purported purpose was to ensure that corrupt government officials would not pocket oil money and that it would instead be used for infrastructure development and to address the needs of Chad’s people. The provisions of this remarkable piece of legislation were dictated almost entirely by foreign interests, and in the end gave Chad’s government authority to use five percent of profits that came out of the country’s oil fields. (At least one observer reported that the actual amount available was less than two percent.) That relatively tiny percentage was to be overseen and managed by a civilian committee. In the opinion of some analysts, Law 001 has been a spectacular failure.
Efforts like Law 001 have not gone unnoticed by the United Nations. An issue brief drafted by UN policy analysts concludes that a “lack of information” by those involved with implementation was a substantial cause of problems in Chad. In reviewing comparable reform efforts throughout the underdeveloped world, these analysts also identified a lack of “transparency” in: the amount of revenues made available to governments; the specific ways in which the money will be used to benefit the public and the extent to which the funds will contribute to sustainable development.
The UN issue brief implies that foreign corporations also have a role to play – specifically by investing more heavily in projects that will meet the needs of local communities. UN analysts looked specifically at the Niger Delta and noted that multi-national oil companies have been involved in projects aimed at improving health care and education in the region. They went on to note, however, that these projects have been implemented at the same time that companies “refuse to comply with judicial decisions ordering financial compensation to populations affected by oil spills or gas flaring, often in amounts far in excess of what industry-led projects bring to the communities.”
The fact that the oil industry’s flagrant violation of environmental requirements was noted by the UN analysts a few years ago makes all the more surprising the recent release of a draft of a UN report that asserts that only 10 percent of oil spills in the Ogoniland region of the Niger Delta were caused by the oil companies. The report blames the other 90 percent on local people who are accused of sabotaging pipelines and stealing oil. Many vigorously contend that the oil companies are to blame for the overwhelming majority of oil spills, and that the scale of oil-related environmental damage in parts of the Niger Delta makes the BP oil disaster in the U.S. pale by comparison. It is not surprising then that the report, which was financed by Royal Dutch Shell, has generated global outrage, and the investigators have hinted that the conclusions of their final draft may differ from the preliminary findings.
“The World Bank and certain beneficiaries of imperialism have promoted measures that are aimed not at foreign corporations, but instead at those corrupt African leaders who pocket the tiny portion of revenue that remains in the country.”
A growing number of observers have concluded that the UN’s focus on increasing transparency and accountability by African governments along with the need for more benevolence and philanthropy by foreign corporations is useful in some ways, but ultimately it misses the mark. They urge instead that Africans take matters – specifically Africa’s natural resources – into their own hands. Some African government officials have considered establishing an OPEC-style cartel that would give Africa considerable influence, if not control, over the price of metals needed by China and other consumers of Africa’s resources. In a recent issue of Africawatch Magazine, analyst Phillip Crowson of Scotland was quoted as saying the idea is “crazy” because past attempts to take that course with phosphates, iron ore, bauxite and copper failed when significant numbers of African countries declined to join the cartel.
The cartel idea is not “crazy,” but it is likely to fail unless and until Africa finally and at long last answers Kwame Nkrumah’s call for continental unity – all African countries standing firm and united against non-African attempts to exploit Africa’s natural wealth. The unity that Ghana’s first president called for was not simply an agreement among African heads of state. Such would only facilitate a continuing flow of national treasuries into the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt leaders. Nkrumah contemplated instead a continent-wide socialist government that would ensure mass control of major natural resources and mass, equitable distribution of revenue.
Before Africans at the grass roots will make purposeful movement toward reclamation of their natural wealth, they must first have a vision of what is possible. It is no accident that proposals for reform always maintain the status quo for foreign corporations. The people are never allowed to even consider the prospect of booting foreign corporations out of Africa altogether. Several years ago, the U.S.-based National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) had that in mind when it published the Model Code for the Reclamation, Protection and Preservation of African Land, Traditional Knowledge and Mineral Resources. (The full text of the document can be viewed at www.ncbl.org.)
The Model Code is designed as a template for African countries that wish to take full control of their natural wealth. This law, if enacted, would make all natural resources the exclusive property of the government. It would then establish a publicly-owned resource corporation to be managed by a board made up of everyday citizens selected at random and by lottery. This board would be assisted by a full-time, fully compensated staff of experts that would provide advice about the board’s decisions concerning: exploration, drilling and mining, refining, marketing, sales, and accounting. All revenue from sales of resources would become part of the national treasury to be used solely for the health, education and infrastructure needs of impoverished regions in the country.
“The law gives the government the authority to seize the operations of uncooperative businesses.”
The Model Code contemplates the challenges connected with seizing resources from foreign business interests. It establishes a five-year timetable for these enterprises to wind down their operations and hand them over to the government. The law gives the government the authority to seize the operations of uncooperative businesses. Foreign corporations are given the opportunity to petition for compensation for their losses, but such petitions are automatically denied if it is established during a hearing that the corporation’s inherited or derived quantifiable financial benefits from colonialism or the slave trade equal or exceed the amount of their claim. Claims are also denied to corporations with a history of abusive or discriminatory business practices.
NCBL has never believed that sitting African government officials will make even the smallest attempts to adopt the Model Code as the law for their own countries. But there is the hope that in the marketplaces, university classrooms and other places where the everyday people of Africa discuss the challenges of the continent, the document will spark a new way of thinking about what Africa’s ultimate objective should be.
A Zimbabwean expert on land reclamation who reviewed the Model Code described it approvingly as “very radical.” Against the backdrop of centuries of exploitation, it is likely that millions of Africans whose poverty-stricken villages are in the shadows of foreign-owned mining operations believe a “very radical” alternative is a very good thing indeed.
Mark P. Fancher coordinates the National Conference of Black Lawyers’ AFRICOM Task Force, and he is the author of the newly published book: “I Ain’t Got Tired Yet: The Spiritual Battles of Enslaved African Christians and their Descendants.” He can be contacted at [email protected].