Introduction
This paper
explores the full ramification of the intensified struggle for access to the
vital oil and gas resources in West and Central Africa or what in global energy
strategic terms is referred to as the Gulf of Guinea. Its point of departure is
a critical interrogation of the notion of a “new scramble” or “oil rush”,
particularly as it relates to its post-Cold war geopolitical and global energy
security dimensions as well as the implication of the intensified extraction of
hydrocarbons for medium to long-term stability and sustainable development in
the sub-region.
This involves a discussion of the role of the various actors
involved in the struggle for West Africa’s oil: Oil Multinationals,
National/State Oil Corporations, Independents, Indigenous oil companies,
“petro-elites” and oil producing communities. The impression is often given
that the “scramble” is basically a “new” competition between an oil
import-dependent United States, European Union and Japan versus the
energy-hungry emergent Chinese industrial power that has since 2003 become the
world’s second largest oil consumer (Pan 2006; Pham, 2006: 251; Alden 2005:
148; Klare and Volman 2006a: 609). But the analysis in this paper will
demonstrate that the situation is more complex and multi-layered, with far
reaching implications for oil-rich, but poor Africa states.
There is an attempt to capture the nexus between
increasing energy dependency in the advanced market economy countries and
emerging industrial powers, a tight global oil market and the representation of
West Africa as an “oil gulf” (and alternative to the volatile Middle East),
that is critical to global energy security in a post-9/11 world. It is however
appropriate to note that the “scramble” for finite hydro-carbon resources is
not limited to West Africa, but rather spans the entire world. Every drop of
oil on land or at the bottom of the ocean everywhere in the world is being
sought to fire the engines of globalised capitalist production, accumulation
and power.
The focus on West and Central Africa in this paper is
impelled by several considerations. The first has to do with its rising strategic
profile in the strategic global energy security calculations of the United
States (Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, 2001; African
Oil Policy Initiative Group 2002; Klare and Volman 2004: 226-231, 2006a:
609-628; Klare and Volman 2006b: 297-309; Obi 2006: 93-95; Forster 2006; Watts
2006; Council of Foreign Relations, 2005: xii, 8; Ghazvinian 2007). The second
relates to the reality that West Africa’s deeper incorporation into globalised
oil relations provides a very good case for the exploring the possibilities for
/economic growth/development of its oil producing countries as the result of a
new “oil boom”. The third point relates to the emerging conditions of the
globalisation of the sub-region: the designation of its resources for global
markets, transnationalisation of its elites, and the capacity of its states to
mediate the pressures on it, from within and without. It also relates to the
impact of the struggles between global industrial powers in West Africa and the
theoretical leverage that this bestows upon the oil state, but also includes
the rising stakes of global access to, and control its oil reserves,
particularly the energy security interests of the world’s dominant power in a
post-9/11 global order (Obi 2005b, 2006b). Another critical consideration in
the choice of West Africa is the need to interrogate the assumptions of
protagonists of the “resource curse” thesis that the most recent oil boom will
inevitably feed into the spiral of the paradox of plenty: state corruption,
violent conflict and poverty.
A logical question that flows from the foregoing is:
can “post-adjustment” West and Central African countries currently poised to
enjoy the providential dividends from rising oil prices “trade their way out of
poverty” (Schulze and Edinger 2007: 6-7)? What interests, dynamics and new
opportunities are embedded in, or represented in the increased competition for
oil in Africa beyond the obvious growth potential of increased oil rents? Does
the “new scramble” offer any prospects for changing the unequal trade patterns
between Africa and the world’s industrial powers that has resulted in the
plunder of the resources of the former over the centuries? What social
contradictions are the processes of global extraction and pollution spawning in
the sub-region and how can these be resolved? It is to these questions and
related issues that this paper addresses itself.
In setting about its task, this paper is divided into
four broad sections. The introduction outlines the critical issues and
questions that underpin the paper. A conceptual section that deals with the
“new” scramble for Africa as a basis for locating West Africa in the globalised
political economy of oil and one of the sites of an “oil rush” follows it. Part
of the conceptual discussion addresses the oil-development linkage,
particularly as it relates to the “oil-curse” thesis. The third section is the
analytical fulcrum of the paper. It examines the various dimensions of what has
been described as the “new scramble for Africa”, particularly the dynamics,
actors and contending transnational interests involved in the intense struggle
for oil and gas in West and Central Africa. The fourth and concluding section
sums up the patterns coming out of the on-going struggles and the prospects for
the sub-region.
Framing the “New Scramble” in Critical Perspective
The notion of the “new scramble for Africa” has been
attributed to an article in The Economist magazine on China’s Business
links with Africa (The Economist 2006, Frynas and Paulo 2007: 230) or to
represent the perceived threat posed to Western and US interests in Africa, by
growing Chinese penetration and competition for natural resources, oil, markets
and strategic influence (Lyman 2005). The notion of the “new scramble” has been
also described by Marks (2007: 4) as “China’s race for Africa” which is
“certainly due in large part to the same causes as Europe’s 19th
century scramble – the need for raw materials to fuel industrialisation”. In
supporting the notion of a “new scramble”, it appears that the literature
focuses on what Melber (2007: 6-9), identifies as “The (Not So) New Kid on the
Block: China”.
The analysis of China’s rapid penetration of Africa is
framed on its growing trade, energy, aid and strategic interests in the
continent. However, the discussion here will concentrate more on its energy
ties with Africa. China’s quest for oil in Africa is the logical outcome of its
rapid economic expansion in the past decade and its transition from oil
exporting to an oil-importing nation from 1993, leading to a situation in which
an estimated 30% of its energy demands are met through imports. As a rising
global power, China perceives that a critical part of its energy security lies
in increasing its access to stable oil supplies around the world, including
Africa. Part of the concern is diversify its dependence on the volatile Middle
East and Asia that both account for most of its oil supplies and also expand
its access to larger volumes of oil. As the Chinese ambassador Guijin put it,
“China is diversifying to secure its supply, and now imports energy from
countries in Africa such as Angola, Nigeria and Sudan” (cited, IRIN news
2006a).
Chinese state oil companies have in the last decade
increasing entered into the highly competitive African oil sector, long the
exclusive preserve of Western Oil Multinationals, State Corporations and
Independents. Its multi-pronged strategy for winning oil in Africa includes
investing in countries western companies have lost grounds, or have been forced
to withdraw as a result of the policies of their home governments towards
host-states, as in the case of Sudan, where the withdrawal of Chevron in 1992,
followed by other western companies such as Concorp, Arakis, Talisman, and Lundin
(Patey 2006: 13-32), paved the way for the China National Petroleum Corporation
(CNPC) to buy (40%) into the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPC),
which commenced oil exports in 1999 and is the largest oil company in the
country. Sudan (Africa’s third largest oil producer) exports between 50-60% of
its oil and accounts for an estimated 7% of China’s oil imports. On the whole,
it is reported that China “presently imports 30% of its oil from Africa,
compared to 47% from the Middle East”(Chen 2006).
Other strategies include “financial assistance,
prestige construction projects and arms sales” (Alden 2005: 148). Chinese
companies have also purchased equity shares in oil fields, invested in energy
and infrastructural developments, and acquired oil concessions across the
continent. In 2005, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) bought “a
45% stake in a Nigerian oil-for-gas field for US$2.27 billion and also
purchased 35% of an oil exploration licence in the Niger Delta for US$60
million” (Jiang cited in IRIN news 2006a). The CNOOC acquisition in Nigeria was
its largest in the world. This is apart from Nigeria’s sale of four oil blocks
(2 in the Chad Basin and 2 in the Niger Delta) to the China National Petroleum
Corporation (CNPC) in May 2006 following a visit by the China’s President Hu
Jintao.
China has thus made in-roads into the oil sectors in
Nigeria (Africa’s largest oil producer) and Angola (Africa’s second largest
producer), which accounts for “13 per cent of China’s crude oil imports”. In
Angola, Sinopec acquired two oil blocs following a “soft oil-backed credit
facility” of $2 billion to support post-war reconstruction projects in the
country (Frynas and Paulo 2007: 239; IRIN news 2006a), after the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and Western creditors citing widespread corruption and the
need to keep to the path of “macro-economic discipline” had turned down a
similar request. Other African countries with Chinese oil interests include,
Gabon, Mauritania, Niger, Equatorial Guinea, Algeria and Chad.
China’s forays into Africa’s oil fields have been
viewed with increasing concern by Western strategic thinkers, energy analysts
and policy makers. Its bid to secure stable oil supplies has increasingly come
up against the bid of the US and other western countries to also secure stable
oil supplies in a very tight global oil market. Of note, is the centrality of
West and Central Africa to US national and global energy security interests.
Drawing on Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group or the Cheney
report, Klare (2004), notes, “West Africa is expected to be one of the fastest
growing sources of oil and gas for the American market”. The case is
underscored by the fact that the region accounts for over 10 per cent of all US
oil imports; it is projected that this will increase to 25 per cent by 2020
(Klare, 2004). Leading US policy makers and analysts have emphasized the
centrality of oil from West and Central Africa, to US efforts to diversify oil
supplies from the volatile Middle East, respond to competition arising from a
sharply rising demand for oil and secure stable supplies of oil and gas. The
reasons for this lie in the proximity of Africa to US oil markets, the fact
that most of the oil is of the light variety, with low sulphur content and
favoured by US refineries. Also, more oil is being discovered and produced in
the Gulf of Guinea, and US oil companies have vast investments in the region
that guarantee stable supplies of oil to the expanding US domestic market, American
jobs and profits to shareholders. Thus, the control of West African oil is
critical to American oil security and global power (Klare and Volman 2006a,
2006b; Perry 2007 23-25; Turshen 2004). US oil interests are locked into major
oil producers such as Nigeria, Angola, Algeria, Gabon, and the “new oil boom
states” Chad, Equatorial Guinea, and Sao Tome and Principe. Since most of the
oil being discovered is off-shore, it also has the added advantage of being
beyond the reach of protesting oil communities on land that are capable of
disrupting the oil flow, as had been the case in the restive Nigerian oil-rich
Niger Delta since the 1990’s (Obi 2006a: 93-94).
Several pressure groups have also been pushing the
case of Africa’s Oil as a way of shifting from a total dependence on the
volatile Middle East that is partly seen as a seething hotbed of militant
political Islam and anti-Americanism. Thus, the AOPIG Report (2002) quotes the
US Assistant Secretary of State, Walter Kanstenier III, “African oil is critical
to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward.” US
growing dependence on West Africa’s oil provides a strategic and concrete basis
for securing supplies and also keeping competitors out. Beyond energy and
security considerations, the “partnership” also gives the US the leeway to
promote its neo-liberal values of free markets, regional economic growth, good
governance and democracy, which would influence regional stability and peace in
ways that broadly favour US hegemonic interests and security.
In the light of the foregoing, United States oil
corporations have been at the vanguard of the “new scramble” for West Africa’s
oil, having been disadvantaged in the first oil rush of the early to
mid-twentieth century, and recognize the need to compete more against their
European counterparts, such as Shell, Elf, BP, Statoil and ENI-Agip. The US is
also particularly keen on containing the perceived threat posed by Asian
National Oil Companies (ANOC’s), but particularly, Chinese oil companies: CNPC,
CNOOC and Sinopec, that are aggressively making inroads into the region to the
consternation of western strategists who are worried about the ramifications of
the entry of the “Chinese dragon” into the “new” scramble for Africa’s oil
(Zweig and Jianhai 2005: 25-38; Hennock 2005).
Illustrating the deep involvement of US oil companies
in Africa, Gary and Karl (2003: 12), note that “Chevron Texaco announced in
2002 that it had invested $5 billion in the past five years in African oil and
would spend $20 billion more in the next five years” and “Exxon Mobil signified
its intention to spend $15 billion in Angola in the next four years, and $25
billion across Africa in the next decade.” In addition both Exxon Mobil and
Chevron Texaco were investing billions of dollars in Nigeria the fifth largest
exporter of oil to the United States, accounting in 2002 for 600,000 barrels
per day of US oil imports (Valle, 2004:52). Chevron Texaco has also been
involved in developing the oil and gas fields in Equatorial Guinea, while Exxon
Mobil had cornered the Sao Tome and Principe oil and gas fields (Obi 2006b:
94-95; McCullum 2006). US interest is also represented in the 1,070 Kilometre
Chad-Cameroon Oil pipeline, carrying oil from the Doba oilfields in Chad for export
through the Cameroon port of Kribi, that is reportedly the “largest single US
private investment in Africa by Exxon Mobil valued at $3.7 billion” (Valle,
2004:53).
Other US oil interests include the West African Gas
Pipeline Project (WAGP) valued at $500 million to transport an estimated 120
Mmcf/d of gas to Ghana, Benin and Togo from Nigeria’s Niger Delta by 2005, a
distance of 1,033 Kilometres (EIA, 2003). According to the EIA the Oil
Consortium that has invested in the WAGP is led by Chevron Texaco (36.7%), and
includes Shell (18%) and the national oil corporations of Nigeria (NNPC) (25%),
Ghana (GNPC&VRA)(16.3%), Benin (SoBeGaz)(2%) and Togo (SoToGaz)(2%). The
WAGP is central to plans for power generation and industrialization along the
West African coastal corridor, and there are plans to extend it further as far
as possibly Senegal given the right security and economic conditions. Oil
companies from the US, other western countries, China, India, Korea and Brazil,
are also competing over potential oil interests in Senegal, Ghana, Cote
d’Ivoire, Togo and Cameroon.
A core consideration underpinning United States quest
for the stability of oil supplies in West Africa is its concern for the
security of US energy interests: uninterrupted supplies, safety of
international sea-lanes for oil tanker movement, protection of oil investments
and the protection of American citizens from possible terrorist attacks. This,
brings to the fore the close connection between West African oil and the US-led Global War on Terror. Evidence to support
such concerns have been found in the escalating violence in Nigeria’s oil-rich
Niger Delta region where the abduction of expatriate oil workers and attacks on
oil pipelines by youth militias seeking a greater say over the distribution of
oil rents for local development have disrupted the flow of oil and contributed
to sharp spikes in global oil prices (Junger 2007: 22-30; Marquardt 2006; Ukeje
2001; Obi, 2007, 2006c, 2005a).
Oil is thus writ large in West Africa’s place in the
post-9/11 global security architecture (Obi 2005: 38-41; 2007, Lubeck, Watts
and Lipschutz 2007: 3). Through a series of strategic partnerships and military
assistance programmes, the most recent being the Trans-Sahara Counter Terrorism
Initiative (TSTI) and Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI), the US has
integrated African states into its global counter-terrorist agenda (Obi 2007:
91). This year the US President inaugurated a US African Command – AFRICOM
expected to become fully operational in 2008. As the US assistant-secretary of
state for African Affairs recently put it, “achieving coastal security in the
Gulf of Guinea is key to America’s trade and investments in Africa, to our
energy security and to stem transnational threats like narcotics and arms
trafficking, piracy and illegal fishing” (Crawley 2006; Sieber 2007).
The other, less-obvious dimension of the
securitization of West Africa’s oil lies in the hegemonic project of promoting
“efficient” managerial states (under the rubric of democracy and good
governance) that are supportive of US capital and geo-political interests in
the region. The emphasis on promoting neo-liberal democracy: multi-partyism,
transparency, accountability and the rule of law are directed at ensuring that
the transnational neo-liberal global order does not collapse, by guaranteeing
the freedom of capital flows within, or across national borders. This brings
out in bold relief the links between the “new scramble” for oil and capitalist
globalisation, represented by the intensified struggles for resources, markets
and spheres of influence in Africa in what is gradually becoming a new
East-West race.
What the foregoing underscores is the fact that China
is the catalyst in the “new scramble” for West Africa’s oil, which is clearly
dominated by western oil multinationals. Roughneen (2006), sums up the Western
anxiety about China’s role in Africa as being twofold, “Beijing provides an
alternative to the supposed consensus built around governance and development
policies, giving China an unfair advantage in competing for the continents
resources”. Although some have argued that China is merely following the steps
of Western countries that have plundered Africa’s resources over the centuries
(a new imperialism), others claim that China’s policies in Africa provide
support (money and arms) for dictatorial and corrupt regimes in complete
disregard of the norms of good governance, accountability and respect for human
rights. Critics have pointed to China’s support for the regime in Sudan by
purchasing it oil, providing it with arms and diplomatic support against
sanctions at the United Nations Security Council, support for Zimbabwe through
investments in the energy and mining sectors and providing it with arms, while
providing aid to Angola accused of a lack of transparency in the management of
its oil revenues, as evidence that it is undermining Western interests and
efforts at ‘development and democracy-promotion in Africa.’ Lyman (2006) makes
the point that “China challenges areas where US political leverage was once
greatest. This is particularly true in the oil and gas sectors”, which
incidentally are largely concentrated in West and Central Africa.
The conceptual challenge that arises relates to the
space and opportunities that the notion of the “new scramble” for oil
represents for the region. Schulze and Edinger (2007: 8), identify development
assistance, trade and investments as the various ways in which African states
benefit from Chinese engagement. They are also of the view that it “gives African leaders more leverage
to act with increasing confidence towards western countries due to the Chinese
alternative. Second, the state of infrastructure, regarded as one of the major
obstacles for business and entrepreneurial opportunities in Africa, will
advance as Chinese companies increase investment in extractive and other
industries”. Yet, it is clear that even if there are some short-term benefits
and costs, the capacity of Africa to exploit the opportunities attendant to the
“new scramble”—Chinese “gifts” lies more in internal cohesiveness,
socio-political conditions and a strategic Pan African project of
socio-economic transformation.
The Scramble for Africa: Berlin and Bismarck’s Ghost?
The notion of the scramble for Africa has several
connotations: competition, greed, partition, plunder, imperialism, domination,
exoticism, and Africa’s subordination to an inequitable global division of
labour. Its origins lay in 19th century European “new” imperialism
(1880-1918) when Otto von Bismarck of Germany convened the Berlin colonial
conference (1884-1885) ‘to set the broad limits of expansion by the interested
powers—Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain, so they
would not quarrel in Africa during the race to carve up the continent among
themselves’ (Davidson 1991: 284).
Coming at towards the end of the heinous trans
Atlantic slave trade, it also represented the emerging changes in global
capitalism, where commodities—raw materials, natural resources and minerals,
and the search for markets, were replacing the trade in “human cargo” from
Africa for some of Europe’s excess finished products. The logical outcome was
the partition of Africa into fiefs of each European power, exploited for the
exclusive benefit of the occupying power. It was only logical that partition
led to occupation and colonial conquest, subordination and rule, as African
resisted the imposition from outside and the plunder of their resources and
labour. The logic that drove the scramble was clearly shaped by global
capitalist expansion beyond Europe. As it moved out, it also shaped the world
after its own image, and defined Africa within the new global division of
labour as a supplier of primary products for global industrial manufacturing and
market for finished products. This situation has largely remained unchanged
ever since.
The foregoing places oil in the context of the
scramble for Africa. As it assumed increasing significance as a more viable
source of energy (compared to coal) during and after the First World War, when
colonial attention was focussed on the search for oil in Africa. As far back as
the second decade of the 20th century, the search for oil had
commenced in Algeria, Egypt and Nigeria.
In Nigeria’s case, the Imperial power Britain had legislated its
exclusive monopoly over the oil in the country. As noted elsewhere, “as far
back as 1889, 1907 and 1914, the colonial administration in Nigeria passed a
series of legislations that gave the monopoly of oil concessions in the country
to ‘British or British-allied capital” (cited in Obi 2006c: 16). Under this
law, Shell-D’Arcy (later BP) was granted an oil concession in 1938 covering the
entire Nigerian mainland. Shell-BP struck oil in Oloibiri in 1956 and commenced
oil exports in 1958.
During the two decades in controlled it huge oil
concession, Shell-BP (later Royal Dutch Shell) identified the most-promising
potential oil-fields and established a clear head-start over the other western
oil companies (Mobil, Texaco, Agip—now ENI, Esso—now Exxon, and Safrap—now
Total) that later joined the “scramble” for Nigeria’s oil in 1959, when ‘its’
oil concession was opened up a year before Nigeria’s independence. Shell has
managed to retain its position as the largest producer of oil in Nigeria,
contributing almost half of the country’s daily output.
The same pattern replicated itself in the other
oil-rich colonies, where the Imperial power exercised exclusive control of the
oil fields and dominated them after independence. Thus, “French oil companies
dominated the oil industry at independence in Algeria and Gabon” (Frynas and
Paulo 2007: 235), as well as the Congo-Brazzaville, while the Italians held
sway in Libya, before the 1969 revolution. However, the broad picture across
the continent in the 1960’s up to the 1990’s showed the clear dominance of
Western oil companies, often operating in partnership with African state oil
corporations (after the OPEC revolution of the 1970’s) in the African oil
industry. Given the opaque nature of such ties, a lot of competition and
corruption was involved in such deals as each company (backed by their home
state) tried to outsmart the others in wringing juicy oil concessions and
profits from African petro-states as demand for oil grew rapidly over the decades.
The foregoing shows that a scramble for oil in Africa
was literally embedded in the scramble for Africa. While some commentators in media and policy
circles have interpreted the entry of China from the 1990’s into the race for
raw materials, energy and markets as the sign of a “new” scramble for Africa,
others have asserted that it is “a very different process” (Frynas and Paulo
2007: 233). Melber (2007: 6), argues that there is nothing new about “the
looting of Africa” (Bond 2006), noting that “Chinese penetration only presents
the ugly face of predatory capitalism”. But Frynas and Paulo (2007: 233-235),
aptly note that the “ key characteristics of the nineteenth century scramble
are missing from the current expansion of interests in Africa. For instance,
there are no clear spheres of interest or spheres of control today”. But then
they concede that a pattern clearly exists in relation to the scramble for
Africa’s oil, where US oil firms dominate the oil fields of the New Gulf States
of Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe, and French oil interests
dominate Gabon and Congo-Brazzaville. Also, Anglo-Dutch and US oil interests
have a formidable presence in Nigeria and China has established a firm foothold
in Sudan. The fundamental issue here is to evaluate the impact of the entry of
new actors from China, India, Malaysia, Korea, and Brazil on the nature of the
oil trade with Africa and the prospects for the continent’s development.
One point that is often left out in the discourse on
the “new scramble” relates to its connections with the place of Africa in
post-Cold war globalization, particularly as it relates to the
transnationalisation of capital. The transnationalization of oil capital has at
its primary objective the optimal exploitation of Africa by global oil capital,
irrespective of whether it is American, European, Indian or Chinese. It implies
among others the greater opening up of Africa’s oil reserves for exploitation
without any interference by African petro-states. Yet, given the strategic
importance of oil to global capitalism and the risk of demand outstripping
supply in the near future, African petro-states stand to reap more revenues
from the new oil boom, while African elites stand to a greater chance of being
integrated into the transnational capitalist elite by riding on the crest of
the latest oil waves which command unprecedented prices in the world market. In
this regard, outside industrial powers: states, oil companies and transnational
elites have to compete for access to Africa’s oil. Unlike, the days of old
scramble, African states rather than being exclusive fiefs, have considerable
leverage to determine who gets “their” oil, even if they lack the power to
determine the global price(s) of oil nor possess the technology for oil
production.
What flows from the foregoing is that the intensified
struggle for oil in Africa is not a re-play of the partition of the 19th
century, yet the continent is haunted by the ghost from the past, as the
continent’s natural resources are being increasingly exploited by competing
transnational actors, that simultaneously incorporate, and marginalise people
within the various African countries, and
Resource/Oil Curse
The discourse on the oil-development nexus in Africa
is often predicated on the view that oil breeds corruption, misgovernance,
human rights abuses and violent conflict (Gary and Karl, 2003; Human Rights
Watch, 2002; Coalition for International Justice, 2006; Obi, 2007a; Ross,
2001). This perception is clearly a spin-off of the “Dutch disease” and
“resource curse” theses, which is a mainstream explanation for (resource)
conflicts and insecurity in Africa. The “resource curse” thesis seeks
explanations for the causes of violent conflicts by demonstrating how huge
natural resource endowments rather than brighten the prospects for development,
paradoxically motivate people to struggle over resources, or act as an
incentive for armed groups to engage in conflict in order to exploit the
opportunity to loot. It is hinged upon the resource wealth-violent conflict
nexus, and provides explanations, why in spite of being relatively well endowed
resource-wise, African countries remain poor and conflict-ridden. Ross (2003) presents a concise description of
the resource curse based on findings, ‘that natural resources play a key role
in triggering, prolonging, and financing conflicts.’ In an earlier article, he
had observed that, “many of the poorest and most troubled states in the
developing world, have, paradoxically, high levels of natural resource wealth.
There is a growing body of evidence that resource wealth may harm a country’s
prospects for development” (Ross, 2001: 328). This echoes among others the
views of de Soysa (2001; Collier and Hoeffler, 2001), which seek to draw a
relationship or correlation between natural resources, greed and civil war.
In seeking to extend the borders of the connection
between resource dependency and conflict, Ross (2001: 325-361), using
regression models explored the oil – democracy nexus by examining the thesis
that “oil and mineral wealth tends to make states less democratic.” Focussing
on the “causal mechanisms,” identified as: the rentier effect, repression
effect and modernization effect, Ross attempts to analyze the “alleged link
between oil exports and authoritarianism” (2001: 332), and concludes that “oil
does greater damage to democracy in poor countries than in rich ones, and a
given rise in oil exports will do more harm in oil-poor states than in rich
ones” (2001: 356). However, it is not
clear how oil does this beyond an assumption of its “ineluctable” corruptive
influence.
The picture that
emerges is clearly one in which resource wealth is subversive of the
development process. Operating within this perspective, (Billon, 2001: 562),
asserts that, “beyond increasing the risk of armed conflict by financing and
motivating conflicts, natural resources also increase the vulnerability of
countries to armed conflict by weakening the ability of political institutions
to peacefully resolve conflicts.” Thus apart from the risk of subverting
development, natural resources increase the risk of war and insecurity.
The implications
of the foregoing diagnosis is that even if Africa experiences an increased net
inflow of oil revenues from the “new oil boom”, the “oil curse” and the
“rentier effect” will conspire to ensure that it feeds into corruption and
violent conflict, rather than the democratic development of society. Already
the argument is being made that the windfall from oil in countries like Chad, Nigeria,
Angola and Sudan have not benefited the ordinary people in those countries,
rather it is the elites and their foreign partners that have monopolised the
benefits from the oil trade. This supports the prognosis that African oil-rich
countries appear to be caught in the trap of the “paradox of plenty”, where
more oil wealth will serve to deepen the developmental crisis confronting the
continent.
Yet, in spite of
its attractions, the resource curse thesis does not capture the complex
dimensions of the politics and international linkages that underpin violent
conflicts in resource-rich African countries. Neither does it explain why wars
break out in resource-poor countries. Rather it exaggerates the role of a
single factor, out of many, as the predisposing factor to violence. A deeper
reflection shows that the reality is more complex and that the resource curse –
as seductive as it appears could be wrong-headed.
Even when the
emphasis is placed on intensified struggles over ”scarce” resources, the fundamental
questions about how such scarcities are produced, and the distributive
inequities that underpin such scarcities are usually glossed over (Obi, 2000:
47-62). The second issue relates to the question of who the actors in conflict
are. While most of the attention is often placed on local actors: the
state/political elites, militia groups/warlords, and weak and inept
bureaucracies, very little attention is paid to the role of external and
transnational actors and the lack of transparency that shrouds the extent of
their involvement in these conflicts.
Such external actors include private security organizations,
mercenaries, international traders and companies, arms suppliers, and
extra-African powers pursuing strategic and economic interests in the continent.
In a rapidly
globalising world, the international scramble for, and exploitation of Africa’s
resources has been intensified (Bond, 2006), resource-endowment may be a curse
for those that loose their land, homes and rights for oil extraction to take place,
but, it is a blessing for those extractive external forces and their local
allies, that control and sell the oil on the world market. Thus, oil alone does
not cause conflict. It is transformed and mediated through market, social and
power relations, so that by the time it features in the “circuits of conflict”,
it would have entered into other spheres as energy, profit, and power. The fundamental question then is who has the
power over these resources, how are the benefits shared in the context of state-society
relations? This is partly relevant in explaining why a resource-rich Norway is
not embroiled in “resource wars”, while a resource-rich Nigeria is confronted
by insurgent militia in the Niger Delta.
Rather than place the blame on an “oil curse”, it is
better to trace the roots of conflict in political and socio-economic
inequities and historical factors. The issue of whether China’s joining of the
oil-rush in Africa will worsen poverty, corruption, conflict and impunity in
the continent will ultimately depend on local, national and transnational
factors. The fundamental issue however is that the roots of Africa’s conflict
lie more in historical, social and distributive inequities and the
contradictions being spawned within the continent by globally-led extraction,
accumulation. China’s entry into the race—either for better or for worse, will
ultimately depend on how African states and governing elites interpret and use
the moment for transformatory or non-transformatory ends.
The “New” Dimensions of the Scramble for Africa’s oil
Rather than a “new” scramble for Africa, it may be
appropriate to identify new or emerging dimensions to the struggle to exploit
Africa’s resources and markets. One of the features of the scenario is the
entry of emerging industrial powers from Asia, particularly China in what has
been since the days of the “old” scramble, the “hunting preserve” of the
Western powers. Clearly linked to the most-recent phase of globalisation, this
has contributed to the intensification of the exploitation of the continent,
but has also altered the context of exploitation, by providing African state(s)
with an alternative choice in the global developmental context in what has
become a unipolar, post-Cold war order. While the West has tried to reinforce
its ties with Africa through the G8-Nepad initiative, the African Growth and
Opportunity Act (AGOA), GPOI, and Economic Partnership Agreements, there has
also been a growing closeness in Sino-African relations following the
establishment of the China-Africa cooperation Forum in 2000 (Wenping 2006: 39).
The growing profile of China in Africa reached a
significant milestone on November 4-5, 2006, when 41 African Heads of State
were hosted by the Chinese leadership to a Forum for China-Africa Co-operation
(FOCAC) summit at Beijing. At the end of the summit, it was agreed that the
next meeting should take place in Egypt in 2009. According to Naidu and Corkin (2006: 4), the
Chinese leadership proposed a robust development assistance package for Africa,
based on, “US$3 billion in preferential loans and US$2 billion in preferential
buyers credits over the next three years; the doubling of its 2006 aid
assistance by 2009; initiating a China-Africa development fund that will reach
US5billion to encourage Chinese companies to invest in Africa”. Other aspects
related to the building of agricultural projects, hospitals, training
programmes, scholarships and debt forgiveness.
In response to Western charges of China’s support to
autocratic regimes and the use of investments and development assistance, it
has responded that it is guided by the principles of its foreign relations:
mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual
non-aggression, non interference in other’s internal affairs, equality and
mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence (Roughneen 2006). Yet, in most of the
discussions at FOCAC, China stressed its interest in assisting Africa in its
development efforts, while “African leaders spoke of investment in developing
oilfields and copper deposits and building airports and ports. No Chinese
speaker mentioned China’s appetite for African oil” (Orr 2006: 6). This also
makes it clear that China seeks to tap into the goodwill and support of African
states as it projects itself and builds up its influence globally.
As noted earlier, the implication of Chinese policy
towards Africa is that undercuts Western policies and domination. For instance,
in Sudan, the exit of Western oil companies was followed by the entry of
Chinese and Indian oil companies, while in Angola, the state’s rejection of
Western aid conditionalities, paved the way for the acceptance of Chinese aid,
and the takeover of an oil block hither-to allocated owned Total (upon its
expiration) to a Chinese oil company. In
other parts of Africa, Chinese companies are muscling their way into oil-rich
countries by “under-cutting” Western competition through its attractive “gifts”
of development aid and “non-interference”. China’s entry into the lucrative
Nigerian oil sector was attendant to visits to China and a reciprocal visit by
the Chinese premier, following which deals on Chinese investments and
development aid in the railways, agriculture and oil were sealed. China has
also taken advantage of the “nationalist” instincts of an African elite seeking
integration into a global elite on more equitable terms. But this should not
subtract from the immense benefits that Chinese is gaining from increased
access to Africa’s resources.
A related question that arises from the foregoing is
how the conflicts that may arise in the course of the entry of new external
players seeking oil in Africa. How can the West in the spirit of a “Bismarkian
congress” resolve the competing claims of the “Chinese dragon” in the context
of the expansionist logic of global(ised) capital? What prospects lie beneath
the growing competition between the “Western” and emerging “Eastern” factions
of globalised capital and how can the contradictions be resolved? To address
and other issues, it would be relevant further explore the roles of the
transnational actors operating in Africa.
Oil Multinationals (OMNC’s) and Asian National Oil
Corporations (ANOC’s)
Western Oil Multinationals play a key role in
globalised capitalist accumulation and power by their central role in the
commoditization of energy, particularly hydrocarbons. They collectively
represent some of the world’s most wealthy and powerful transnational actors.
According to the Forbes 2000 Global Report (2007), ExxonMobil and Shell, the
world’s 7th and 8th largest companies, but 1st
and 2nd largest OMNC’s, recorded profits of US$39.50 billion and US$25.55
billion respectively. Other OMNC’s in the top 20 companies in the world are BP,
Chevron and Total. Although most of global oil is theoretically controlled by
the national corporations of the Middle East States, the global reach and might
of OMNC’s is unmatched. This has been further reinforced by recent mergers
which has seen to the rise of “super” OMNC’s: ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell,
BP-Amoco-Arco, and ChevronTexaco (Davis 2006: 3). The implication of this is
that these companies with their immense wealth, global clout and support of
their home-governments, have considerable leverage over the petro-states with
which they do business. Thus, these companies operate in Nigeria, Angola,
Algeria, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe, and Chad.
In all these places they operate mostly in partnership with state oil
corporations—in Nigeria’s case, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, in
Angola’s case—Sociedad Nacional de Combustveis de Angola, Sonangol, and GNPC in
Sudan. They also operate in partnership with private indigenous and foreign oil
firms. An important consideration is the revolving-door relationship between
the state and oil sectors, which enables top indigenous OMNC executives to take
top government positions, or for retired government officials to assume
positions on the boards of local subsidiaries of OMNC’s. This trend can be
gleaned from the Nigerian case, particularly in relation to Shell (Rowell,
Marriot and Stockman 2005).
A related point that also echoes in the literature
suggests that the control of oil has shifted in favour of National/State Oil
Corporations. Citing the figures of the size of oil reserves/production
controlled by such National Oil Corporations (NOC’s) as Petroleos de Venezuela
(PDVSA) the National Iranian Oil Company, Brazil’s Petrobras, Saudi Aramco, the
Kuwaiti Petroleum Corporation, Algeria’s Sonatrach, Nigerian National Petroleum
Corporation and the Libyan National Oil Corporation, this perspective argues
that NOC’s not MNOC’s control the world’s oil. In the context of the struggle
for oil in Africa, two issues are relevant: the security threats posed by the
control of oil by “kleptocratic petro-states” or “failed petro-states” and the
ability of such states to play OMNC’s against each other, and against ANOC’s,
or even deny access to an oil-addicted world. Unfortunately, the ownership of
oil reserves and control of oil by African states are not altogether
synonymous. In spite of the “ownership” by African NOC’s, their non-ownership
of sophisticated oil technology, and limited knowledge about global oil markets
and the secrets of oil contracting, coupled with the support of the
home-governments of OMNC’s all combine to ensure that Oil Multinationals
control oil production, without owning the oil reserves. What has changed is
the increased bargaining power of petro-states to demand more in exchange for
allowing access to “their” oil reserves. Outside of that globalised arrangement
of global power and accumulation, African petro-states only stand to earn more,
which in terms of their place in global power relations does not amount to
control. Another point, is that by shifting the blame to NOC’s and petro-states,
the securitization of oil provides justification for intervention to save the
world from the depredations of the “ticking time bomb” of petro-states (and
NOC’s). Such interventionism often takes the form of promoting the global
neo-liberal agenda, often in the form of economic liberation, demands for
accountability, and in extreme cases, external intervention.
Under the regime of economic liberalisation with its
emphasis on the withdrawal of state intervention in the economy, many state oil
corporations in Africa have opened up their oil sectors to more foreign
investments and even divested from the downstream sectors. This has provided
opportunities both for OMNC’s to invest, or to enter into partnerships with
local actors. The overall global picture in the oil sector, is that demand is
virtually outstripping supply, and that in the face of diminishing returns on
oil investments, OMNC’s have to push into new frontiers and strike new big oil
discoveries to keep the rate of profit rising. When the factors of a post-9/11
world, increased global production and energy consumption are added, it becomes
all to clear why the West will continue to have the control of oil in Africa as
a top priority strategic goal for the foreseeable future.
OMNC’s clearly dominate the oil sector across Africa,
which although contains an estimated 9% of the world’s oil reserves is
nonetheless a very important factor, given its significance to the energy
security of the world’s powers and the view that the continent is the least
explored in the world and may hold a lot more oil than is presently known. The
entry of Chinese oil companies in the late 20th century, and their
tactics for getting a slice of the African oil pie, has led to the
intensification of the “oil rush” in Africa.
Asian National Oil Corporations (ANOC’s)
The discussion of ANOC’s is limited to the Chinese
state oil companies. This is due to their role in Africa, constrains of space
and the fact that they are presently the largest when the region is placed in a
global context. China operates in Africa through three companies: China
National Petroleum Company (CNPC), China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC)
and China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec). According to Fee
(2006), Chinese companies are “most active in Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Algeria
and Gabon, with pre-investment talks ongoing in Chad, Libya and the Central
African Republic”. All these companies are state-owned or publicly listed
companies making the transition from national to global conglomerates.
The CNPC operates in Sudan, Angola, Nigeria, Niger and
Chad, while the CNOOC, which primarily operates offshore, has interests in
Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea. Its attempt in 2005 to acquire Unocal Oil
Company in the US as part of its global outreach policy failed as Chevron beat
it to the tape. Sinopec was set up in 2000 as a publicly listed company.
According to its website, based on its turnover, it is the largest listed
company in China. It is quoted on the Shanghai, New York and Hong Kong Stock
Exchange(s), and was ranked 23rd in the 2006 Global Fortune. According to the
Forbes Global 2000, it is listed as the 41st in the ranking of
global companies with a profit of US$16.53 billion. Sinopec has invested in
Sudan, Angola, Gabon, Algeria, Congo-Brazzaville and Ethiopia.
The foregoing suggests that as far as the race goes,
the ANOC’s are presently far behind the OMNC’s both globally and in Africa.
Yet, their current foothold is significant not just for the challenge it poses
for the OMNC’s, but more so, for the opportunities that it provides African
states, and China itself as it continues to project itself on a global scale.
The Other Scramble: oil politics in Africa
So far, most of the attention has been focussed on the
struggles by external forces for Africa’s wealth. Yet, it is important to
critically examine the struggle for the control of oil in Africa, and the ways
in which these connect with the broader global structures, actors and
processes. This struggle has several dimensions, but it is often represented as
pitching centralised control or monopoly of oil revenues: by a centralized
state/dominant elite or group to the exclusion of other (marginalised)
groups/regions or elite fractions. This much is clear from the well-known Niger
Delta crisis where the struggle by the ethnic minorities for autonomy and
resource control has assumed insurgent proportions with frequent attacks on oil
and government interests by well-armed militias. Apart from the militias,
transnational networks trading in stolen crude oil (illegal bunkering) and
small arms are also involved in the struggles for oil in the Niger Delta. By
blending into the state-oil company-oil community nodes of power, authority and
conflict, these networks are responsible for the loss of almost 20% of
Nigeria’s oil production annually.
Starting from
the struggles of the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP) in the
early 1990’s, to the more recent attacks by the Movement for the Emancipation
of the Niger Delta (MEND) on Western and Chinese oil interests in the Niger
Delta, the quest for the redistribution of federally-controlled oil revenues
minorities, has been at the heart of the quest by the oil-producing parts of
Nigeria to wrest the control of oil from a central government, believed to be
largely dominated by elites from non-oil producing parts of the country (Obi
2001, 2007; Saro-Wiwa 1995; Human Rights Watch 2005; Omeje 2006: 141-146,
Timberg 2006).
In Sudan’s case, the struggle for oil, located in the
central and southern parts of the country lay at the heart of one of Africa’s
longest civil wars before the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
(CPA) in January 2005 between the Government of the Sudan and the Sudan Peoples
Liberation Movement (SPLM) representing Southern Sudan. Thus was a prominent
feature in the civil war between the central government and southern rebels.
The discovery of oil by Chevron after getting an oil concession in 1975 from
the central government in Khartoum made it a target of attacks by rebels of the
SPLM. The combination of this and pressures from international human rights
groups and the US government forced Chevron to withdraw in 1992. As noted
earlier other Western oil companies followed until the Sudanese state formed a
joint venture company — the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPC)
involving the state-owned Sudan National Petroleum Corporation (Sudapet),
Chinese National Petroleum Corporation—40%, Petronas of Malaysia—30%, and Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation of India—25% (that took over Talisman’s interests
in GNPC in 2003) (Pinaud 2006; The Times of India 2002). It was the GNPC that produced oil and
commenced exports for the first time in 1999.
Since oil accounts for 70% of Sudan’s export revenues
it has also influenced the struggles between the Khartoum-based political
elites that control the central government (and the oil in pre-CPA days, but
since the CPA, share it on a 50/50 basis), and other groups in the country.
Even though, the CPA has provided for an equal sharing of the oil revenues, its
implementation has been delayed with the consequence that the Southern Sudan
has not been able to get its full share.
The foregoing underscores the close intimacy between
state and oil power, and the nature of the fractional squabbles over oil
revenues on a national scale, which imposes a centralist logic on the control
and distribution of oil rents. The result of a centralist imposition of control
from above is both the intense horizontal struggles for access to, and control
of a larger share of oil rents, but more fundamentally, vertical struggles
between the marginalised and oppressed groups I society and the ruling “oil”
elite. These struggles also underpin the ruling class formation process mostly
through strategic locationing in the distributive circuits of the politics of
the petro-state often carried out through primitive accumulation activities. As
such the premium on controlling political (oil) power is very high, leaving
virtually no incentive or space for the democratisation of state-society
relations. Such features can be gleaned from politics in Nigeria, Angola,
Algeria, Sudan, Chad and Equatorial Guinea.
Another dimension of the struggles over oil is the
relationship between foreign oil companies and national capital in African
petro-states. While in the main, both are partners with OMNC’s and ANOC’s
operating joint oil ventures/contracts and having equity participation in
national oil companies in Africa, there are also competitors in those African
countries where a petro-bourgeoisie is emerging, and seeking incorporation into
a transnational capitalist class. This is most visible from the policies of the
Nigerian government since 2000, when it embarked on the liberalisation of the
oil industry. Its effort at building an indigenous petro-elite can be gleaned
from several policies: the decision of the NNPC to increase local content in
the Nigerian oil industry to 70% by 2007, divestment of state shares in
downstream sector oil companies which were sold to indigenous investors (Conoil
and Oando), and the reserving of a 10% quota for indigenous participation in
every Oil Mining License (OML) granted to foreign investors. There is no doubt
that the leverage given to the Nigerian State by the “new” scramble for its oil
has partly fed into a new kind of economic nationalism, driven by the quest for
more profit and the political patronage calculations of the national ruling
elite.
Thus, Nigerian oil companies are beginning to assert
themselves locally and also venturing outside the country. Oando, which was
formed in 1992, but acquired the National Oil and Chemical Marketing plc
(formerly the marketing arm of Shell), was listed on the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange in 2005; while other indigenous oil companies were allocated oil
blocks in the Joint Development Zone between Nigeria and Sao Tome and Principe
in 2005. These include: Energy and Equity Resources (EER), Water Smith
Petroman, and South Atlantic Petroleum (later revoked and now subject of a
court case) (Oduniyi 2005). In the same manner, on May 16, under two weeks
before handing over power, two of the federal government-owned refineries were
sold to a consortium of indigenous oil companies named Bluestar Oil Services:
Dangote 55%, Zenon Oil 25%, Rivers state government 15% and Transcorp 5%. It
bought the Kaduna Refinery and Petrochemical Company (KPRC) for US$160 million
(after the bid by CNPC was turned down for being too low), and the Port
Harcourt Refinery for US$561 million (Badejo 2007). The major equity holder in
Bluestar, Dangote has substantial interests in salt, sugar, cements and oil,
particularly in the EER, and together with the owner of Zenon Oil are known
donors to the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP).
What flows from the following is the complex
architecture of the scramble for oil and its enmeshment with trans-global
processes and actors. Given its place in the class struggles around in a
rapidly globalising world, oil is destined to be “the commodity of choice” for
power, influence and wealth. Whether the struggle with between OMNC’s, or
between them and ANOC’s, or between both and State/Indigenous private oil
capital, the contestations are framed within highly inequitable relations of
production and distribution, which deepen existing social contradictions within
Africa, and further complicate any prospects of social transformation, or the
democratisation of state-society relations.
Conclusion
The foregoing clearly shows that although the scramble
for Africa formally ended at the doorsteps of colonial rule, and independence,
its spirit continues to haunt the continent as the world most powerful states,
companies and trans-territorial actors continue to seek its resources for
power, influence and domination on a global scale. Africa is much sought after
for these reasons and more. And as the Council on Foreign Relations (2005) put,
it is more than humanitarianism. Indeed, it appears to be less about
humanitarianism and more about the pursuit of and attainment of strategic
interests in the continent. As has been shown in this paper oil in West and
Central Africa is one of the most highly priced strategic interests, not only
because of its rich energy deposits, but also because of its linkages to the
US-led war on terror, migration, environmental and epidemiological security and
the promotion of Western neo-liberal ideology in Africa. U.S. and Western
strategists have identified China (to a lesser extent, India, Malaysia and
Korea) as the next great competitor for resources and influence in Africa
(following the collapse of the Soviet Union). China, on the other hand has
refrained from any ideological position in its African diplomacy, insisting on
its policy of peaceful co-existence: non-interference, respect for the
sovereignty of Africa states, assistance cooperation to help Africa achieve
self-reliance and development. Yet, it may well be that China has a long-term
strategy behind its engagement, that may well be broadly similar to those of
the West, although, the road from Beijing is seemingly different, it only
serves China’s national and global interests
The question of coherent Africa’s agency for taking
advantage of the “Chinese moment” has preoccupied some scholars and
policymakers (Taylor 2006a: 937-959; 2006b: 3; Naidu and Davies 81). So far,
the entry of the Chinese dragon has elicited a mixture of approval, where it
has brought more national revenues from resource exports and cheap
manufactures, or disapproval or protest, where cheap Chinese products had
destroyed local industry, or Chinese investors are accused of indulging in
harsh/discriminatory labour practices or policies that destroy to environment
or support authoritarian governments in the continent.
There is some scepticism, that the present
resource-rich African states and political elite may not be able to use the
increased revenues to transform their economies or societies, and would more
likely enrich themselves and their patrimonial networks, and seek to entrench
themselves in power through forceful means, including the use of
made-in-China-arms. The picture that emerges is that while China appears to
have got its act together, Africa is still searching, with the West busy sizing
up the Chinese threat in Africa and exploring the options for neutralizing it.
This may either through an amicable agreement of “the limits of expansion” or
spheres of influence in Africa – a Bismarckian ghost, or a dialogue directed at
making China tow the Western line of engaging Africa, or as an unlikely worst
case scenario, more competition and a East-West clash over competing interests
in Africa.
In the final analysis, there can be no easy answers
outside of a critical reading of the processes of transnational capitalist
accumulation, in which oil plays a central role. The prospects of oil-rich
African states emerging from the present struggle for the continent’s resources
will ultimately depend of the ability of these states to transform themselves
through a developmental ethos to acts as catalysts both for social
transformation, but perhaps more fundamentally, for the re-organisation of
production in the continent in ways that lift it out of its marginal position
in the globalised division of labour which since the days of the “old
scramble”, has defined it as an object of domination and exploitation by forces
from “outside”.
References
African Oil
policy Initiative Group (AOPIG.) (2002.), African Oil: A Priority for
National Security and African Development, Washington DC: AOPIG.
Alden, C.
(2005.), “China in Africa”, Survival, vol. 47, no. 3.
Alden, C; and
M. Davies (2006.), A Profile of the Operations of Chinese Multinationals in
Africa”, South African Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 13, Issue
1, Summer/Autumn.
Alexander’s Gas
and Oil Connections (2002.), Company News: Africa, Vol. 7, issue no. 12,
June 13, www.gasandoil.com
Badejo, A
(2007.), “Dangote, Otedola buy Port Harcourt Refinery for N71.8bn”, Business
Day, May 17.
Billon, P. (2001,), “The Political Ecology of war: natural
resources and armed conflicts”, Political Geography, 20.
Bond, P.
(2006.), Looting Africa: The Economics of Exploitation, London and
Pietermatitzburg: Zed Books and University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.
Chen, S.
(2006.), “China’s Oil Safari”, Forbes Magazine, www.forbes.com/2006/10/06/energy.african-oil.biz-energy
Coalition for
International Justice (2006.), SOIL AND OIL: Dirty Business in Sudan,
Washington DC: CIJ
Council on
Foreign Relations (2006.), More than Humanitarianism: A Strategic US
Approach Toward Africa, Independent Task Force Report No. 56, New York:
Council on Foreign Relations.
Crawley, V.
(2006.) “United States Seeks to Help Improve Security in Gulf of Guinea”,
December 19; http://usinfo.state.gov/utils
Collier, P; and
A. Hoeffler (2001.), “Greed and Grievance in Civil War”, http://econ.world.org
Davidson, B.
(1991.), Africa in History, London: Phoenix press
Davis, J.
(2006.), ‘And then there were four…’ A Thumbnail History of Oil Industry
Restructuring 1971-2005”, in J. Davis (ed.), The Changing World of Oil: An
Analysis of Corporate Change and Adaptation, Hampshire: Ashgate.
De Soysa, D, (2001.), ”Paradise is a Bazaar? Greed,
Creed, Grievance and Governance”, Discussion Paper, WIDER, No. 42.
Fee, F.
(2006.), “Asian Oils in Africa: A challenge to the international community”,
Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, Company News: Africa, Vol. 11,
issue no. 9, May.
Forbes.com
(2007.), Special report: The Global 2000, www.forbes.com/lists/2007/18/biz_forbes2000_The-Global-2000_Rank
Forster, J.
(2006.), “A Warning to Africa: The New US Imperial Grand Strategy”, Monthly
Review, Vol. 58, no. 2.
Frynas, G; and
M. Paulo (2007.), “A New Scramble for African Oil? Historical, Political, and
Business Perspectives”, African Affairs, Vol. 106, no. 423.
Gary I; and T.
Karl (2003.), Bottom of the Barrel: Africa’s Oil Boom and the Poor,
Maryland: Catholic Relief Services.
Ghazvinian, J.
(2007.), Untapped: the Scramble for Africa’s Oil, Harcourt Books.
Held, D., A.
McGrew, D. Goldblatt and J. Perraton (1999.), Global Transformations:
Politics, Economics and Culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hennock, M.
(2005.), “China’s global hunt for oil”, BBC news, March 3, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/4191683.stm
Human Rights
Watch (2005.), Rivers and Blood: Guns, Oil and Power in Nigeria’s Rivers
State, A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, New York: Human Rights Watch,
February.
Human Rights
Watch (2002.), Niger Delta: No Democratic Dividend, New York: Human
Rights Watch.
IRIN news
(2006a.), “Africa: China’s great leap into the continent”, March 23, www.irinnews.org
IRIN news
(2006b.), “Nigeria: Militants threaten to cripple oil exports if demands not
met,” January 17, www.irinnews.org
Junger, S.
(2007.), “Crude awakening”, The Observer Magazine, April 15
Klare, M.
(2004.), “Bush-Cheney Energy Strategy: Procuring the Rest of the World’s Oil,” Foreign
Policy in Focus-PetroPolitics, Special Report, www.fpif.org/papers
Klare, M; and D.
Volman (2006a.), “The African ‘Oil Rush’ and US National Security”, Third
World Quarterly, Vol. 27, no. 4.
Klare, M; and D.
Volman (2006b.), “America, China and the Scramble for Africa’s Oil”, Review
of African Political Economy, No. 108.
Klare, M; and D.
Volman (2004.), “Africa’s Oil and American National Security”, Current
History, May
Krueger, J.
(2002.), “Oil Stakes in West Africa,” AFRICA NOTES, Washington DC:
Africa Programme, Center for Strategic and International Studies, No. 11,
December.
Lubeck, P; M.
Watts and R. Lipschutz (2007.), “Convergent Interests: US Energy Security and
the “Securing” of Nigeria’s Democracy”, International Policy Report,
Washington DC: Center for International Policy.
Lyman, P.
(20005.), “China’s Rising Role in Africa”, Council on Foreign Relations, July
21, www.cfr.org/publicationj/8436/chinas_rising_role_in_africa.html
Mark, S.
(2007.), Introduction”, in, F. Manji and S. Marks (eds.), African
Perspectives on China in Africa, Oxford: Fahamu
Marquardt, E.
(2006.), “The Niger Delta Insurgency and its Threat to Energy Security”, Terrorism
Monitor, Vol. IV, Issue 16, August 10, www.jamestown.org
McCullum, H.
(2006.), “Oil Grab in the Gulf of Guinea”, Africafiles, Vol. 3. Jan-May;
www.africafiles.org
Melber, H.
(2007.), “The (Not so) New Kid on the Block: China and the Scramble for
Africa’s Resources”, in H. Melber (compl.), China in Africa, Uppsala:
NAI Current African Issues no. 35.
Naido, S; and L.
Corkin (2006.), “Who was the Real Winner in China?”, The China Monitor,
Centre for Chinese Studies, University of Stellenbosch, issue 13.
Naido, S; and M.
Davies (2006.), “China Fuels its Future with Africa’s Riches”, South African
Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 13, Issue 2, Winter/Spring.
National Energy
Policy (2001.), Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group
(Cheney Report), Washington DC: US Government Printing House.
Obi, C.
(2007a.), “Oil and Development in Africa: Some Lessons from the Oil Factor in
Nigeria for the Sudan”, in L. Patey (ed.), OIL DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: Lessons
for Sudan after the Comprehensice Peace Agreement, Copenhagen: Danish Institute
for International Affairs, DIIS Report no. 8.
Obi, C.
(2007b.), ”The Struggle for Resource Control in a Petro-State: A Perspective
from Nigeria”, in P. Bowles, H. Veltmeyer, S. Cornelissen, N. Invernizzi and K.
Tang (eds.), National Perspectives on Globalization, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Obi, C.
(2006a.), “Foreign Interests and Environmental Degradation”, in, D. Rothchild
and E. Keller (eds.), Africa-US Relations: Strategic Encounters,
Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Obi, C.
(2006b.), ”Terrorism in West Africa: Real, emerging and imagined threats?”, African
Security Review, Vol. 15, no. 3.
Obi, C.
(2006c.), Youth and the Generational Dimensions to Struggles for Resource
Control in the Niger Delta, Dakar: CODESRIA Monograph Series.
Obi, C.
(2005a.), “Globalization and local resistance: the case of Shell versus the Ogoni,”
in L. Amoore, (ed.), The Global Resistance Reader, London and New York:
Routledge.
Obi, C.
(2005b.), ”Oil, US Global Security and the Challenge of Development in West
Africa”, CODESRIA Bulletin, Nos. 3 & 4.
Obi, C.
(2004.), The Oil Paradox: Reflections on the Violent Dynamics of Petro-Politics
and (Mis) Governance in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, Pretoria: Africa Institute
Occasional Paper No. 73.
Obi, C.
(2001.), “Global, state and local Intersections: power, authority and conflict
in the Niger Delta oil communities, in T. Callaghy, R. Kassimir and R. Latham
(ed.), Intervention and Transnationalism in Africa. Global-Local Networks,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Obi, C.
(2000.), “Globalised Images of Environmental Security in Africa”, Review of
African Political Economy, No. 83.
Oduniyi, M.
(2005.), “Nigeria is building a new crop of indigenous operators”, Alexander’s
Gas and Oil Connections Company news: Africa, Volume 10, issue no. 14,
July 20.
Omeje, K.
(2006.), High Stakes and Stakeholders: Oil Conflict and Security in Nigeria,
Hampshire: Ashgate.
Orr, T.
(2006.), “Letter from China: FOCAC 2006”, The China Monitor, Centre for
Chinese Studies, University of Stellenbosch, issue no. 13.
Pan, E.
(2006.), “China, Africa and Oil”, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/publication/9557/
Patey, L
(2006.), A Complex Reality: The Strategic Behaviour of Multinational Oil
Corporations and the New Wars in Sudan, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for
International Studies, DIIS Report no. 2.
Perry, A.
(2007.), “Africa’s Oil Dreams”, Time Magazine, June 11.
Pham, J.
(2006.), “China’s African Strategy and Its Implications for US Interests”, American
Foreign Policy Interests, Vol. 28.
Pinaud, C. (2006.), “Oil fact sheet on Sudan”, www.UnderstandingSudan.org
Ross, M. (2001.), “Does Oil Hinder Democracy?” World
Politics, 53, April.
Ross, M. (2003.), “Natural Resources and Civil war: An
Overview”, World Bank Research Observer.
Roughneen, S.
(2006.), “Influence Anxiety: China’s role in Africa”, ISN Security Watch, www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details
Rowell, A., J.
Marriott and L. Stockman (2005.), The Next Gulf: London, Washington and Oil
Conflict in Nigeria, London: Constable.
Saro-Wiwa, K.
(1995.), A Month and a Day: A Detention Dairy, London: Penguin Books.
Schulze, K; and
H. Edinger (2007.), China in Africa – Can Africa trade its way out of poverty?”,
The China Monitor, Centre for Chinese Studies, University of
Stellenbosch, issue 14.
Sieber, O.
(2007.), “Africa Command: Forecast for the Future”, Strategic Insights,
Vol. VI, Issue 1.
Sinopec website,
www.sinopec.com,
http:english.sinopec.com/en-ir/factsheet.pdf
Taylor, I.
(2006a.), “China’s oil diplomacy in Africa”, International Affairs, Vol.
82, no. 5.
Taylor, I.
(2006b.), “China’s African Policy in Historical Perspective: From Neglect to
Dynamic Interaction”, Inside AISA, Bimonthly Newsletter of the Africa
Institute of South Africa, Nos. 3 & 4.
The Times of
India (2002.), “ONGC to
acquire oil fields in Sudan, Oman”, March 21, http:
timesodindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5081744.cms
Timberg, C.
(2006.), “Militants Warn China Over Oil in Niger Delta”, Washington Post,
May 1, wwwwashingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR20060430010
Turshen, M.
(2004.), “The Politics of Oil in Africa”, The Scholar and Feminist Online,
Issue 2.2, Winter, www.barnard.edu/sfonline/reverb/
Ukeje, C.
(2001.), Oil communities and Political Violence: The Case of Ethnic Ijaws in
Nigeria’s Niger Delta,” Terrorism and Violence, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter).
Ukiwo, U. (2003.), “Politics, ethno-religious
conflicts and democratic consolidation in Nigeria,” Journal of Modern
African Studies, 41, 1.
Valle, V. (2004.), “US Policy Towards the Gulf of
Guinea”, in R. Traub-Merz and D. Yates (eds.), Oil Policy in the Gulf of Guinea:
Security and Conflict, Economic Growth and Social Development, Bonn:
Friedrich-Ebert-Stuftung.
Watts, M. (2006.), “Empire of Oil: Capitalist
Dispossession and the Scramble for Africa”, Monthly Review, Vol. 58,
no.4.
Wenping, H. (2006.), “China-Africa Relations Moving
into an Era of Rapid Development”, Inside AISA, Bimonthly Newsletter of the
Africa Institute of South Africa, Nos. 3 & 4.
Zweig, D; and B. Jianhai (2005.), “China’s Global Hunt
for Energy”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 84, Issue 5, September/October.