Promoting democracy

Mother Jones has posted a lengthy excerpt of Peter Maass' eye-opening article on Teodoro Obiang, the dictator of Equatorial Guinea.

Obiang is probably the worst leader I'd never heard of — at least not in the kind of detail that Maass provides.

Equatorial Guinea is a tiny rectangle, about the size of Maryland, carved out of the coast of West Africa. If it weren't for the name, I'd have trouble finding it on the map.

Here's how the CIA World Factbook describes the Equatoguinean government:

Equatorial Guinea gained independence in 1968 after 190 years of Spanish rule. This tiny country, composed of a mainland portion plus five inhabited islands, is one of the smallest on the African continent. President Obiang Nguem Mbasogo has ruled the country for over two decades since seizing power from his uncle, then President Macias, in a 1979 coup. Although nominally a constitutional democracy since 1991, the 1996 and 2002 presidential elections – as well as the 1999 legislative elections – were widely seen as being flawed. The president controls most opposition parties through the judicious use of patronage. Despite the country's economic windfall from oil production resulting in a massive increase in government revenue in recent years, there have been few improvements in the country's living standards.

That's pretty much the same story Maass tells, but he provides quite a bit more detail — especially about "the country's economic windfall from oil production."

Here's Maass' summary of the same slice of Equatorial Guinea's recent history:

If America’s interest in foreign countries were predicated on human rights, Equatorial Guinea would have seized our attention long before its 1995 oil boom. Francisco Macias Nguema, whose self-bestowed titles included "Leader of Steel," "The Sole Miracle of Equatorial Guinea," and, of course, "President for Life," was a morph of Idi Amin and Pol Pot. He killed or forced into exile nearly a third of the population, decimating in particular the small educated class. Some of his victims were crucified on the road leading to the airport. It was one of the 20th century’s most brutal genocides, but no foreign power except for Equatorial Guinea’s former colonial ruler paid attention to it, and the fascist regime of Spain’s Francisco Franco was not overly troubled by human rights abuses. Obiang’s coup was a welcome event, and his rule has not been nearly as ruthless as his uncle’s. Of course,that’s not much of an achievement.

Recent State Department reports define Equatorial Guinea as a nominal democracy but note that "in practice power is exercised by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema." In the latest election, Obiang was reelected with 97 percent of the vote in an election "marred by extensive fraud and intimidation." "Corruption among officials is widespread," one report adds; the distribution of oil revenues, meanwhile, has "lacked transparency despite repeated calls from international financial institutions and citizens for greater financial openness." And finally, "There is little evidence that the country’s oil wealth is being devoted to the public good."

Human rights abuses continue unchecked. … If you happen to be a member of the opposition, or even a suspected member of the opposition, you live precariously.

Obiang's regime, Maass writes, is like a "tin-pot time warp," except for one thing: those oil revenues:

The country might have disappeared from our geopolitical radar had Mobil not struck oil in the waters off Malabo later that year. It quickly became clear that the Zafiro oil field was world-class. After a decade of development, oil production in Equatorial Guinea stands at more than 300,000 barrels a day, which at current prices translates to nearly $5.5 billion a year. A gas field owned by Marathon Oil has also become a major producer, and the ocean beds off Equatorial Guinea are being combed for additional deposits. …

U.S. corporations are now investing more in Equatorial Guinea than in any other African country except for Nigeria and South Africa. In 2003, the Bush administration reopened the embassy, a move sharply criticized by human rights groups as a favor to the oil companies and to Obiang. Frank Ruddy, U.S. ambassador to Equatorial Guinea in the mid-1980s, decries current U.S. policy, saying that Bush administration officials are "big cheerleaders for the government — and it’s an awful government." …

Aside from the Chinese, only the Bush administration seems to like Obiang. No senior administration official has issued a public word of criticism against his regime. Instead, in June 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham each met privately with Obiang in Washington.

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has dug deep into the corruption and human rights abuses of Obiang's regime — including an investigation into Washington-based Riggs Bank (where the president's brother, Jonathan Bush, is a director) and its passive complicity in Obiang's kleptocratic system.

Andrew Swiger, a vice president of Exxon Mobil, was called to testify before the committee. In part of the article not online, Maass recounts this exchange between Swiger and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.:

"The business arrangements we've entered into have been entirely commercial," Swiger said. "They are a function of completing the work that we are there to do, which is to develop the country's petroleum resources and, through that and our work in the community, make Equatorial Guinea a better place."

"Make it what?" Levin asked.

"A better place," Swiger replied.

"I know you're all in a competitive business," Levin said in closing. "But I've got to tell you, I don't see any fundamental difference between dealing with an Obiang and dealing with a Saddam Hussein."

There it is, then. This is the new landscape. This is the new context for any attempt to discuss human rights concerns, for any complaint about a tyrannical dictator — even one propped up by American oil companies and American consumers.

More on this new context later.