Gabon: Perceptions vs Reality

Brian wore khakis and a button down shirt. His shirt sleeves were rolled up with the top two buttons remaining unbuttoned, revealing tufts of chest hair. A set of golf clubs sat in the corner and a filled swimming pool could be seen beyond the sliding glass doors. “Wildlife has to pay its own way,” he exclaimed while seated in the spacious house that served as both the residence and working space for the employees of his international mining concern. Brian is a miner by trade, but a conservationist at heart. His firm was in the exploration phase of operations in Gabon, a francophone country in equatorial Africa. While Gabon has a land mass comparable to that of Oregon, with only approximately 1.5 million inhabitants nationwide and a tropical climate, it enjoys the distinction of being one of the most heavily forested countries on the planet. As was the fate for many countries around the world, the discovery of oil in Gabon shortly before independence in 1960 served as both a blessing and a curse. Due to the political aptitude of its long-serving president, Omar Bongo, Gabon has managed to sidestep the violent struggles for control of oil revenues that have plagued so many other African states in its position. However, the economy’s focus on petroleum has crowded out most other domestic industries. The extraction of materials – such as timber, minerals and precious metals – by mostly foreign companies is all that remains. Fortunately, President Bongo, in concert with conservationist such as the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), had the insight in 2002 to set aside 11% of his country for a system of national parks. Lacking critical investment in infrastructure and development on the part of the national government, however, this impressive system of parks has yet to become self-sustaining. It has, in effect, failed to pay its own way.

Gabon is located in a rough neighborhood. With the Republic of Congo to the east and south, and Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon to the north, its western border with the Atlantic Ocean is the country’s only consistently peaceful frontier. In a region that is often enthralled in civil war, it comes as no surprise that comparatively stable Gabon has one of the most developed environmental codes in Central Africa. However, as the World Bank asserts, it is the enforcement of these laws that has proven to be Gabon’s biggest weakness. Nowhere is this weakness more apparent than with the country’s relationship with the Chinese. In the emerging superpower’s relentless pursuit to acquire the raw materials to feed its impressive growth, University of Pennsylvania professor John Ghazvinian notes that “the scale and ferocity of China’s entry into Africa has been breathtaking.”[1] With its large, albeit waning, petroleum reserves and high quality timber, the Chinese have taken special note of Gabon. So much so, in fact, that President Hu of China paid President Bongo a personal visit in 2004. The close relationship between the two men has recently resulted in two large and controversial extraction projects in the country: the Sinopec oil concession in Loango National Park and the more recent Belinga mine and accompanying hydroelectric dam currently underway in Ivindo National Park.

The Chinese presence in Gabon is sore subject for many here in the country. There is the impression that the Chinese operate here with impunity. They take what they want, when they want it, without regard to the needs and interests of the local population. These are views expressed by locals and expatriates alike. This subject was even highlighted in an editorial cartoon in a recent issue of the country’s only national daily newspaper, L’Union. Everyone from the World Bank to the private sector to the average Joe (or perhaps Jacques) on the street sees a neo-imperialist agenda on the horizon. Interestingly, however, the conservationists operating in the country seem to be singing a different tune.

Back in 2004, the Chinese state-owned oil exploration company, Sinopec, was granted a license to drill for oil in Loango National Park. This license was the direct result of meeting between Presidents Hu and Bongo, and was therefore fast-tracked to approval without many of the environmental safeguards laid forth in Gabonese law. The firm was essentially given free reign to explore for oil in whatever fashion they chose. Unlike the large, western energy companies that operate in the region, as a state-owned entity, Sinopec was not constrained by notions of shareholder interests and corporate social responsibility. And without the enforcement of restraints encoded in Gabonese law, it was in Sinopec’s best interests to explore for oil in the fastest and cheapest way it knew how. I spoke with a researcher with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in downtown Libreville. Choosing a surprisingly dispassionate tone, he maintained that the Sinopec episode was not the fault of the Chinese, for they “simply weren’t informed by the government.”Given this failure of communication, the firm unsurprisingly employed dynamite and other methods that, while effective, have proven to have deleterious effects on the surrounding environment. These practices resulted in an outcry from the media and the international community. When the government’s promises to shield the firm from international pressure proved ineffectual, it was the management of Sinopec itself that initiated meetings with the Ministry of the Environment and conservationists to develop a course of action that would be in keeping with the established environmental standards of the country. The Chinese made such an abrupt about-face in terms of environmental controls that, according to the Wildlife Conservation Society, “within a couple of months, Sinopec was outperforming even [the multinational oil companies] Total and Shell.”

The question of enforcement is the common theme that links all discussion of the environment in Gabon. The foundation has been laid. A sound body of laws is already on the books. In theory, Gabon may have one of the most protected environments in all of Africa. In practice, however, its regulations are only adhered to when convenient. Even if there existed the will to carry out all aspects of the law, Gabon may still fall short. Decades of graft and mismanagement at all levels of government have resulted in a lack of investment in education, infrastructure and technology that permeates every aspect of the society. It’s not surprising that a country that is flush with petrodollars but yet still has inadequate roads in much of its capital city has also failed to develop the human capital necessary to regulate the increasingly technical operations of multi-national corporations doing business within its borders. But even in that regard, Gabon may still be performing better than its neighbors. Gabon’s chief concern as it relates to enforcement is a culture of awarding valuable concessions for the good of the few at the expense of the many. President Bongo was seen as a visionary when he first established the system of national parks, but has subsequently been charged with shortsightedness by allowing the sustainability of that system to be undermined by short-term economic and political interests. It appears that Gabon is on track to relive the Sinopec experience, but this time in a park of a different name.

A Chinese company is on the verge of opening a large iron ore mine in Ivindo National Park in northeastern Gabon. In order to provide the mine with power, the firm also intends to build a hydroelectric dam on Kongou Falls, which are touted as Central Africa’s “most beautiful waterfall.” Like Sinopec, Belinga is a personal project of President Bongo, who promised his Chinese counterpart that the mine would be operational before Bongo faces re-election in 2012, a timeline that he announced during his recent trip to Beijing. Much like the Sinopec project, Belinga has resulted in condemnation from the Gabonese citizenry and the international community directed toward the Chinese. There are claims that the Chinese have not performed an environmental impact study that meets the standards for operation in a national park. Furthermore, there are serious misgivings surrounding the proposed location of the hydroelectric dam. The Ministry of the Environment and conservationists have made it clear that they are not necessarily opposed to the building of the mine and the hydroelectric project, but are pushing for a more detailed environmental impact study and a potentially less-destructive site for the dam. At this point it is still unclear how the situation will unfold.

While the Belinga episodes slowly plays out, contempt for the Chinese here in Gabon continues to grow. The conservationists, however, argue that while the Chinese are not without fault, the ultimate responsibility for what has taken place here lies with the government’s failure to uphold its own standards and turning a blind eye to their destructive practices. Nevertheless, perception often becomes reality. The general perception that the Chinese are disregarding the law for their own economic benefit has tainted the relationship between the Gabonese and the Chinese who reside here, fueling tensions that are mirrored in other aspects of society and threaten to disrupt the delicate balance of power artfully maintained over the last four decades since independence.

---

[1] John Ghazvinian. Untapped: The Scramble for Africa’s Oil. 2007.

Postcard from Gabon

Here are a few shots from my recent trip to Gabon:



Children at Cap Isterias










Lopé Savanna












Sunset in Libreville










Setté Cama Beach









Lopé Roadway

Obama-mania Spreads to Africa

Over the last few months, it has become apparent that among certain groups and constituencies, Obama’s run has inspired many to reengage themselves in the electoral and governing process. As for us Americans swept away in the movement, I feel that it has become much larger than support for a single man for a single post in government. It has much larger implications for the future of America and the evolution of our society. On the one hand, Obama has certainly benefited from being at the right place at the right time. In a nation fed up with current Administration, we longed for the return to the Oval Office of someone that can chart a new course for this country, re-integrate us into the global community and use the might and power of the US to actually make this a world a better place to live, or at least not make it any worse than it already is. We needed a fresh face. We longed for a symbol. An embodiment of the American image and values. In many ways and for many of us, Obama has become that symbol. And for his African-American supporters, he also became for us a symbol of a different sort. He represents an America that is finally beginning to take significant strides in overcoming its racial inequities, and, in my opinion more importantly, he shows us that yes we too can attain the American dream. It is time that we finally let go of the vestiges of slavery and segregation that we ourselves hold onto and pass onto generation after generation. In a country in which a black man can be President, it is certainly possible that the rest of us can achieve success, in whatever way we choose to define it. There are clearly still external obstacles faced by Blacks everyday that we alone are powerless to fully remove from society, but there are also many obstacles that we place before ourselves and for me, he represents what is possible once those self-imposed barriers are removed.

Obama has, however, become more than just a symbol or representation. He actually has a very good chance of becoming our next President. While it may have been a fair amount of chance and fortunate timing that catapulted him onto the world’s stage, it was he who saw to it that he remained there. A year ago, not even I would have expected the nominating process to have played out the way that it did. I didn’t think that either Obama or McCain would win their party’s nomination. While many Americans have been swept away by the idea of Obama, one can no longer argue that he lacks substance, and at the end of the day, I believe that is what ultimately guides our votes. There are a great many problems facing Americans today and it will take much more than polished oratory skills and a fresh haircut to address the issues of the coming decade.

Abroad, however, it has become my impression that it is the theory of Obama that is of most importance, especially among black abroad. As reported in the New York Times, there has been a resurgence of the idea of négritude, which was championed by African leaders in France in the run up to the independence of African states in the 1960s, and mirrored by “Black is Beautiful” movements in the US in the decade that followed. Blacks in France, who have been battling with racial divisions in French society that have been bubbling to the surface in recent years, look to Obama to open the debate on the streets of Paris of what it means to be Black AND French. Unlike us Americans, they seem less concerned with Obama the man, as they are with Obama the image, which is understandable, considering that he would be our president and not theirs.

I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon here in central Africa, but on a much broader scale. During my few weeks here in Libreville, Gabon, I’ve spoken to several people about what they think of Obama and the race for president, and I feel that they see much wider implications for an Obama presidency than ever conceived by anyone I’ve talked to in the West. Whereas I see in him a stark departure from the Bush Administration and a catalyst for progress on many social issues that have plagued American society throughout our history, the central Africans that I’ve talked to see in him the potential to uplift the black race globally. Obama, to them, is Black first and American second. A win for Obama, is a win for black people everywhere. He is often the topic of conversation around lunch tables and in bars. When radio broadcasts a story on his campaign, the volume is always turned a little louder. Just this morning I was handed a flyer to attend a meeting of “Le Comité pour le soutien de Barack Obama”. I’m not exactly sure how they proposed to support him all the way from Libreville, but it simply goes to show the popularity that Obama has garnered in Africa. It’s a popularity that is not based on foreign policy or economic issues, but rather a struggle for equality felt by Blacks everywhere. A man told me that if a black man in America can be president, than Blacks around the world will finally start to get the respect they have so long been denied.

I don’t know if I subscribed to the grand ideals of Black transcendence through the Obama campaign that are espoused by many here in Gabon, but as a Black American in Africa, I do find it interesting that the people here feel that our destinies are in some ways inextricably linked and a victory for Obama is not just ours alone, but, at least in part, belongs to black people everywhere.

Farrakhan vs Mike Wallace

Ok, so I still haven't gotten around to posting my second installment on the Ahmadinejad speech from like a month ago, but my friend just showed me this and I felt that I had to share.

This is the best thing I've seen all week, and generally speaking, I've never even been particularly impressed with Farrakhan. I think I've watched this about five times today. The video quality isn't that great, but the sound is good.

Chocolate Slaves

Much like the African diamond trade that has received a great deal of attention in recent years, there is yet another natural resource trade in parts of Africa that is chiefly consumed in the West, but is having devastating effects on the lives of normal Africans: chocolate cultivation in parts of West Africa.

By some estimates, 50% of the world's cocoa beans come from Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. This cocoa is shipped abroad to a central location, mixed together with cocoa beans from around the world and then sold and turned into chocolate. This is common knowledge and should not come as a surprise to anyone. However, what is not commonly known, but is very well documented by the cocoa industry is that given the very low world prices for cocoa, many plantations in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire find it necessary to use child slave labor to plant and harvest their crops. Which is often the case with forced child labor, the children are either sold to the plantation owners by poor families or simply kidnapped. These children work very long hours and receive little or no education or training outside of cocoa cultivation. Given the fact that cocoa beans are aggregated and then sent out for processing, there is no way to know whether the conventional chocolate bar you're eating came at least in part from beans harvested by workers in Latin America or child slavery in West Africa.

There have been some notable efforts on the part of the US Government to fight this problem, but progress has been painfully slow and, of course, the cocoa industry has been dragging its feet. US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and US Rep Eliot Engel (D-NY) sponsored the Harkin-Engel Protocol of 2001, which calls for voluntary industry-side standards with respect to child labor by July 2005, was signed by both the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), but over two years after the deadline, the standards still have yet to be implemented. Furthermore, Tulane University's Payson Center for International Development was tapped by US Secretary of Labor Elaine Choa to spearhead a project to oversee efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the West African cocoa industry.

Fortunately, despite widespread knowledge of this issue among your ordinary chocolate consumers, some progress is being made. However, there is still a lot more that needs to be done. I think that the most important and practical thing that we all can do would be to raise awareness of the issue. Most people just don't know. I personally only found out recently when I was having lunch with a group of high school students over the summer as part of my internship and one of the students brought it up. The more people that know about this, the more it becomes a public relations issue for the chocolate industry and the more likely they are to take steps to fix the problem.

Another practical step that we all can take is to only buy Fair Trade chocolate. It's the only way that you can be reasonably sure that the chocolate was harvested on farms and plantations that do not utilize slave labor. It's a little more expensive and often not as good, but it gets the job done and it gives you that wonderful feeling of moral superiority over all those consuming traditionally manufactured chocolates.

For more information:
Tulane University Public Health
Harkin-Engel Protocol
World Cocoa Foundation
Chocolate Manufacturers Association

Where Are We Headed?

“The question is whether France should stay in Algeria. If the answer is yes, then we must accept the necessary consequences”

I just finished watching the film The Battle of Algiers, which tells the story of one of the most influential years in the Algerian battle of independence from the French in the late 1950s, early 1960s. It was a very well done film, which, unfortunately, still in many ways parallels the state of the world today.

The above quote from the film comes from Colonel Mathieu, who was charged with leading the French military effort in squashing the Algerian resistance movement in the capital city of Algiers. A reporter asks the colonel whether it is true that French soldiers under his command use torture and whether torture was an acceptable means of accomplishing his mission. In his response the colonel implies that the French people themselves are complicit in the course of action that he deems necessary in Algiers. Given the overwhelming sentiment among the French populous that the French should remain in Algeria, French society had given its tacit approval to use every means necessary to maintain the French occupying presence, even if that extended to torture.

Could the same be said of us Americans?

I personally am appalled at the use of torture by the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror”, and I’ve become even more so incensed after reading the Washington Post series on the Cheney Vice Presidency, in which they lay out how this doctrine of torture became a part of the Administration. Now, however, I’m beginning to wonder whether the use of torture in Guantanamo, Baghdad and elsewhere is merely the fault of the US citizenry. It’s easy to place the blame on those at the top of the pyramid, but perhaps those of us making up the much larger base at the bottom have also played role.

John Locke taught us of the Social Contract, in which each of us relinquishes a bit of our independence and self-determination to the State for the purposes of promoting the common good. Following September 11th, we all renegotiated our contract and handed over a little bit more of our self-determination in an effort to “secure our borders” and keep America free from future terrorist attacks. While some may argue that we are less safe now than we were prior to September 11th, the fact remains that there have been no additional attacks on US soil in the last six years, but my question is, was it worth it? Are we willing to accept the possibility of less effective intelligence – and, by extension, increased vulnerability – in exchange for the maintenance of our shared values? While I’m sure that the Administration has gained valuable information by employing torture – information that may have saved American lives – I’m not certain that it was worth the price we pay in terms of the massive blow it has delivered to American ideals and values.

We torture people.

Robert Mugabe tortures people. Kim Jong Il tortures people. Saddam Hussein tortured people. We’re Americans. We don’t do that. We’re the good guys. Aren't we supposed to be better than that? We’ve lost the moral high ground on this issue and, in essence, every other issue as well. How can we act as the champions of freedom and human rights around the world when we unabashedly sanction inhumane treatment of foreigners?

We torture people.

I’m interested in seeing the US response when one of our diplomats abroad is captured and subjected to torture. What could we possibly say? “It’s ok for Americans to engage in torture, but you terrorists groups and other non-state actors, you’re not allowed to follow suit. We only use torture for noble purposes, whereas you all torture with nefarious intent.”

The question for us is whether the use of torture is truly in the long term interests of the US. Does the preservation of our security today warrant the use of torture and its deleterious effects on the American system of values for years to come? If the answer is yes, then we too must accept the necessary consequences. If not, then perhaps it is time for us to withdraw the tacit support we’ve extended to the Administration over recent years.

But how one goes about doing that, I haven’t quite figured out.

South Africa to the Rescue

The Guardian reported this morning that faced with worsening hyperinflation, Zimbabwe may be turning to big brother South Africa yet again for support. The central bank of South Africa may include Zimbabwe in the Rand monetary union, which already includes South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. By pegging the Zimbabwe Dollar to the South African Rand and thus relinquishing Zimbabwe’s monetary authority to the central bank of South Africa, there are hopes of bringing some stability to the country’s ever-weakening currency. In return for this, President Mugabe would have to agree to certain “political concessions” at the behest of South African President Mbeki. There was no word of what these concessions would be.

On the one hand, this sounds like good news for the citizens of Zimbabwe. With currency controls in place, ordinary citizens could save money without fear of it becoming essentially worthless the moment after they cash their paychecks. On the other hand, maybe the spiraling inflation would have proven to be the catalyst needed to incite the people to overthrow the oppressive Mugabe regime. Many African scholars were predicting a significant political shake-up in Zimbabwe in the near term as a result of the worsening hyper-inflation. If South Africa bails Mugabe out, yet again, there may be no real change in the country for some time to come. Mugabe’s already in his early 80s, but from what I understand, he’s in excellent health. Despite his age, he isn’t expected to be going anywhere anytime soon.

However, I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Stability along South Africa’s borders may be his most strategically important goal in this regard. An abrupt breakdown of the Mugabe administration could lead to great civil unrest in the country that could cause violence and refugees to spill over the border into South Africa. South Africa’s got enough problems to deal with. They don’t need to import new ones from Zimbabwe. In this world of global institutionalism, Realism is far from dead. The integrity and security of the state is still of paramount importance. It’s easy to advocate revolution remotely from the secure position of the US, but it’s quite a different story when that revolution may be taking place right next door.

Darfur: War Crimes Indictment

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has finally brought charges against what it sees as the primary perpetrators in the crisis in Darfur. It is still very much unclear as to whether this will make any difference on the ground in Darfur, but at this point, I'm happy to see at least some sign of progress in that conflict.

Here's a link to the article in the Economist.