Showing posts with label WORLD POLITICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WORLD POLITICS. Show all posts

Monday, 8 September 2008

AU LEADER VISITS US

Tanzania: President Bush Meets with President Kikwete


Email This Page

Print This Page

Comment on this article

View comments

Visit The Publisher's Site

Washington, DC

PRESIDENT BUSH: It is such an honor to welcome a man I've come to admire a lot to the Oval Office, President Kikwete of Tanzania. He comes representing a great country. He also comes representing the African Union. And therefore, we've had a wide-ranging discussion about our bilateral relations, as well as the President has kindly given me a briefing on how he sees the different situations and opportunities on the continent of Africa.

Laura and I will never forget our trip to your country. First of all, it's a beautiful country. The people were so gracious and so friendly. And I came back to America telling our fellow citizens how proud they would have been to have seen the outpouring of affection for the American people, as a result of the American people's generosity in such matters as education, or HIV/AIDS, or the President's Malaria Initiative.

I am confident in saying to the American people that your money is being spent wisely and compassionately in Tanzania. And a lot of it has to do with the leadership of the President. He stood up and said, we've got a problem and I'm going to take the lead. And his government has been responsive to the needs of the people.

And, Mr. President, I can't thank you enough on behalf of the American people for your compassion and your leadership.

I also am looking forward to continuing our discussions on issues like Zimbabwe or Darfur. These are issues that the President is most familiar with. It's the President -- issues in which he has got good judgment about how to proceed on these matters.

And so, Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I welcome you here to the Oval Office.

PRESIDENT KIKWETE: Thank you. Well, thank you, President. First I thank you for the invitation. It's an honor for me; it's an honor for Tanzania; it's an honor for Africa. Well, I came here to say thank you on behalf of the people of Africa, on behalf of the people of Tanzania. You've done so much for Africa, so much for Tanzania. When you compare, no U.S. President has done so much for Africa and for Tanzania as you have done.

Our goal has been extended; it extends the horizons of the possibilities of economic growth in Africa. PEPFAR is helping us tackle HIV/AIDS scourge. Many lives -- many, many children now who were -- who would have been orphaned are no longer orphaned because of that. PMI has helped us so much in the fight against malaria. Many innocent lives of children -- women and children -- are being saved. And Tanzania is one of those examples of the great successes of PMI.

Malaria in Zanzibar has almost been -- is being eliminated now. In the past there used to be 50 percent cases being reported in hospital; now it's only 1 percent that's been reported in hospital, thanks to PMI.

There are a number of -- of course, our biggest challenge now in Zanzibar is how to sustain that success, because only 20 miles on the mainland, in Dar es Salaam, malaria is still there. So if people go to Zanzibar with malaria, then the problem is -- so our biggest challenge is how to sustain it. And we are working together with the PMI and CDC on how to respond to this kind of situations.

Of course, with the MCA again, the support you've given us to infrastructure development in the country, it's again -- it helps us build the capacity, to tackle poverty and economic development in the country.

So all that I can say really -- I came here to say thank you so much for the support. But of course, you saw it yourself when you came home, how the people came in huge numbers --

PRESIDENT BUSH: They were.

PRESIDENT KIKWETE: -- huge numbers. I was even amazed when they poured in the streets. There the issue was really to express their appreciation to the people of the United States for, again, the support you have been extending to our country.

Of course, we discussed the issues on the continent. We again, we thank you for your leadership. We'll continue to work together. Zimbabwe is a common problem. Darfur is a common problem. We are the front line; but of course, those of us who are on the front line always look toward -- look to the rear -- (laughter) -- to what you do to support us. And there has been such extraordinary support for us in the continent.

We continue to work together. I thank you, President.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you, sir.

Relevant Links

Thank you all.

Tuesday, 27 November 2007

Brown threat to boycott EU-Africa summit

By John O’Doherty

Published: September 19 2007 23:28 | Last updated: September 19 2007 23:28

Tensions over Europe’s policy on Africa have come to a head after Gordon Brown said he would not attend a crucial EU-Africa summit in Lisbon in December, to protest the attendance of Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe.

“President Mugabe is the only African leader to face an EU travel ban,” the prime minister said in an article in Thursday’s Independent newspaper in the UK. “There is a reason for this – the abuse of his own people. There is no freedom in Zimbabwe: no freedom of association; no freedom of the press. And there is widespread torture and mass intimidation of the political opposition.”

EDITOR’S CHOICE
Labour moves to curb UK poll spending - Oct-31Cameron steps up pressure over EU treaty - Oct-15Westminster blog: Lib Dems axe Sir Menzies - Sep-24Matthew Engel: Storm tears limb from oak - Oct-10Brown seeks to learn from past disasters - Sep-28Bolton wonders whether poll is imminent - Sep-28Mr Brown said he believed that Mr Mugabe’s presence would undermine the summit, diverting attention from the important issues that needed to be resolved. “In those circumstances, my attendance would not be appropriate.”

European diplomats had been quietly hoping that Mr Mugabe would not attend the summit.

However, several months ago the 53 members of the African Union made clear to José Socrates, Portugal’s prime minister, that they would boycott the summit if the EU did not allow Zimbabwe to attend.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is believed to have told a meeting of EU foreign ministers earlier this month that Mr Brown would not attend the summit if Mr Mugabe was invited.

The announcement that Mr Brown is to boycott the summit will come as a blow to Portugal, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU and has made the success of the summit a priority.

The EU is keen to increase co-operation with Africa on issues of immigration and development as China steps up its investment in the continent.

The Lisbon summit is to be the first of its kind since an EU-Africa meeting in Cairo in 2000. Attempts to hold another summit in 2003 were derailed by the possibility of Mr Mugabe attending.

This latest setback presents the hosts with an excruciating choice – either blacklist Mr Mugabe and risk a boycott by other African countries, or allow Mr Mugabe to attend and risk the absence of Britain and perhaps other European countries.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Those who exploit human beings to serve their own self-interests do not want socio-economic freedom to be granted to people. That is why they continue their psycho-economic exploitation in such a way that people do not clamour for socio-economic freedom. They do not directly exploit the people in the social or economic sphere, but in the psycho-economic sphere, and they do it so intelligently that people are totally unaware of it, and hence are unable to develop their outlook properly.

Moreover, the exploited masses are also unable to develop economically because the exploiters control the economy in a subtle way. However, a day comes when some intelligent people emerge from the exploited masses having detected the exploiters’ techniques to dupe the people, even though the media is controlled.

At this stage the exploiters become active intellectually to prevent the germination of the seed of liberation. They take control of the education system, the printing presses and the propaganda agencies in a last and desperate attempt to raise high embankments to contain the surging tide of public discontent.

But soon after comes the day of change when the disgruntled masses rise up in revolt and the high sand embankments get washed away by the floods of revolution. After this the masses make an independent appraisal of the type of socio-psycho-economic exploitation they were subjected to. Before the revolution they may have discussed social injustice in private amongst themselves, but if they had tried to propagate their discontent publicly their tongues would have been cut.
-
Shrii Prabhat R Sarkar

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

Let’s first discuss the US African Command proposal

THE PROPOSED military engagement of the US in Africa through its Africa Command is a strategic move that cannot just be left to the US alone.

The initiative may have good intentions but there are those who say it will increase the possibility of war in Africa. Still others believe the US is spreading its brand of imperialism after Europe, China, Turkey and the rest showed new interest in African resources.

Currently, Africa is divided into three regional combatant commands. The US Central Command covers the Horn of Africa, the European Command covers sub-Saharan Africa while the Pacific Command covers the islands in the Indian Ocean.

It is not the first time the US is embarking on a large-scale programme in Africa. We have had the Africa Growth Opportunity Acts, the Millennium Challenge Account, the African Contingency Operation for Training and Assistance, and the Global Peace Operation.

Why would the US want to impress upon Africans the need to form a strategic Africa command when there are already so many US engagements in Africa?

Several reasons are advanced, such as the botched operation in Somalia in 1993, the devastating effect of 9/11, the inability of African countries to counter terrorism adequatelly, general lack of proper infrastructure and the persistent ongoing conflicts in Africa.

All the same, Africans should find out if creating the Africa Command is viable and beneficial to the continent.

The Africa Command will definitely consolidate US interests in Africa. However, Africa should think out the African Command and still be involved in US initiatives in Africa.

Eugene Jernigan

How Britain lost the plot in Kenya

Written by John Kamau


Nairobi State houseOctober 22, 2007: Bogged by a fading influence on local politics and business alike and unlike his predecessors, British High Commissioner Adam Wood gets little Press coverage and courts little controversy opting for the quiet life of a diplomat.

Mr Wood, who was posted to Kenya from neighbouring Uganda in 2005--and for the second tour of duty in the country--is less controversial and might never match in the public arena his two predecessors: the verbose Edward Clay of ‘they-are-vomiting-on-our-shoes’ fame and Sir Jeffrey James, who came to Kenya in 1997 at the height of tribal clashes and a looming general-election.

Sir Jeffrey --who later became Tony Blair’s special envoy to chaotic Nepal-- left a mark and as he departed after four years he was given a tongue-lashing by former President Moi who openly called him a “meddler” as he, as required by protocol, went to bid the then head of state goodbye.

Ever since the UK had been losing its foothold on Kenyan politics and business too - especially after “new” Labour took power.

Moi, was close to the Tories especially the now 82-year-old Margaret Thatcher. It was a political closeness that saw a library named after Thatcher at the Moi University at the height of Anglo-Kenya relations and Kenya get close to three percent of the entire DFID bilateral funding.

Like Thatcher - both are separated by a one year gap- Moi was a conservative and the two had a special bonding after the later became the first head of state to meet Thatcher when she was elected Prime Minister in 1979 - two greenhorns, heading separate governments.

Thatcher, who had defeated Labour’s James Callaghan nine months after Kenyatta’s death allowing Moi to take over, turned a blind eye on Kenya’s human rights record while Moi reciprocated on Thatcher’s stand on apartheid South Africa and twice invited her to Kenya for a State-visit. It was a scratch-my-back-I-scratch-your-back arrangement that was ended by the defeat of the Tories by Tony Blair’s New Labour in 1997.

The exit of the Tories saw the arrival of Sir Jeffrey James as Blair’s Kenya envoy which explains the enmity between the envoy and Moi. As he left the UK withdrew its direct Budget support of £15 million opting to fund civil societies or to channel its funding via locally-based British financial management firms such as KPMG and PWC.

But still Britain has remained the second largest bilateral donor to Kenya after US whose total Overall development assistance to Kenya totals about $700 million per year.

There is reason for that: “Britain needs Kenya and Kenya still needs Britain,” argues Dr Adams Oloo, a University of Nairobi political science lecturer.

Although, since 2001-2002 the UK government has spent a total of £170 million in Kenya statistics show that since 1997 – when Tories lost power- the UK expenditure in Kenya has been cut by more than 50 per cent from a high of 2.8 per cent of the entire UK DFID bilateral programme to a low of 1.3 per cent by 2004-04 financial year.

In 2005/06 DFID spent over £60 million in Kenya with over 80 per cent of that spent on health, education and humanitarian assistance- but still no penny for budgetary support.

And as the cash dries up so has been the British influence and diplomatic contacts. Kibaki finishes his first-term without making any formal state visit to UK.

“I wouldn’t read too much into that. I think the level of diplomatic contact between the two countries has been excellent,” says Dr Ludeki Chweya, a University of Nairobi political scientist. “When you see friction then the level of contact must be very close.”

At an old Victorian house on 2 Tchui Road in the reclusive Muthaiga suburb, the Union Jack still flies high. For ages, it has been the residence of past British High Commissioners where a well kept garden, bamboo trees and an undulating ground hide the fading influence.

Down the street is President Kibaki’s private residence where he shaped the first bits of his government after he defeated the Kanu candidate, Uhuru Kenyatta in the 2002 general elections and before he was driven to State House on the morning of January 2, 2003 in an old family Mercedez Benz car.

While the British had hoped that the new government would restore the wavering relationship damaged in the last years of Moi regime, Kibaki opted to work with the US, for security purposes, and moved east for economic support and where he could get unconditional aid.
Britain had pegged their aid to democracy and fighting graft.

While Liberal democrats in the UK were hoping that Kibaki would be accommodated – or would play ball the Labour counterparts appeared to be more concerned with “unfinished business”

It was one of the first questions tabled by Labour Mps in UK parliament on January 21, 2003 asking Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs the fate of “unfinished business” with the previous Kenyan regime.

Peter Bradley, then Labour MP for The Wrekin asked: “Is the minister aware however that many British citizens, including constituents of mine, have unfinished business with the previous Kenyan regime. I am thinking of those whose assets, property and land have been withheld…”

Bill Rammell told parliament that he would organize a meeting with the Kenyan High Commission “to see how we can press the new Kenyan government on the issue.”

While those significant happenings were hardly reported in Kenyan press he admitted one thing: “We [the UK government] are at a critical juncture.”

The next on stage were the Liberal Democrats.

Fifty-six days after he was sworn in as President, Lord Steel, a liberal democrat who was brought up in Kenya (as David Steel) and attended Nairobi School (Then Prince of Wales School) asked Baroness Valerie Amos, the minister for Africa, whether UK would resume bilateral budget support to Kenya as a result of the peaceful transition.

By this time it was still hoped that the UK would automatically resume aid.

“If they pursue the right policies, we will return to giving a limited amount of budget support,” said Amos adding. “…[but] we are very concerned about corruption in Kenya.”


No. 10 Downing StreetAmos had been sent to Kenya a month after the Kibaki election and had on January 28, 2003 met a wheel-chaired President Kibaki at State House as a follow up to another visit by Clare Short – the maverick Secretary of State for International Development who quit four months later over the Iraq crisis.

When Clare visited Kenya, Kibaki was in a Nairobi hospital bed after a nagging clot was discovered. But in London the future of Kenya was getting raised in Westminister with Conservatives heaping praise on Kibaki.

On January 22, 2003 Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle), a Tory, said he had “known and admired” President Kibaki “for more than 30 years and that he is undoubtedly the personality best equipped to grapple with Kenya’s very serious problems.”

Sir Peter- who as a soldier and student roamed Kenya and Tanzania in 1950s- wanted to know whether Clare Short would “use all her influence to make sure that Britain and the international community give every possible help to Kenya, where we could change the situation, whereas we are not likely to have much influence on Zimbabwe?”

Britain no doubt wanted to influence the political and economic stage in Kenya after failing in Zimbabwe. In her answer, Clare Short was tactical: “The new President is a great hope for the country. Unfortunately, he is in hospital because of a deep vein thrombosis, but I gather that the prognosis is good”.

Clare wanted to move fast to court Kibaki. She had meetings with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the EU and others, “and we are going to try to mobilise an enormous international effort to help the country forward, deliver to its people and deliver the reform that Kenya needs,” she told parliament.

A week after that issue was raised UK minister for Africa Baroness Valerie Amos took off to Nairobi on the day Kibaki left Nairobi Hospital and announced that the British government was ready to resume full aid to Kenya once discussions between Kenya and international financial institutions are finalized. Amos said Britain was waiting for a report on the new reform programmes before it resumes donor funding.

But if the British had hoped to cultivate some close rapport with Kibaki what followed shocked them.


Two weeks after that State House meeting between Amos and the President - and from behind the scenes - Kibaki on March 14 pulled a trigger on British interests by ordering his long time ally and Finance minister, David Mwiraria and the newly-appointed Governor of Central Bank Dr Andrew Mullei to cancel a ten-year multi-billion shilling currency printing tender that had been awarded to British company De la Rue by former Governor Nahashon Nyaga without tendering.

De la Rue, the largest British investment in Kenya since independence was to lose its key client.
Dr Chris Murungaru, Kibaki’s first minister of State for Provincial Administration and National Security – and now banned from setting foot in UK because of his “conduct, character and association– has always claimed that he was sacrificed for this fall-out.

“I think the former High Commissioner Edward Clay was to hard on Kibaki and they (Kibaki’s handlers) decided to hit back,” argues Dr Adams Oloo, a university of Nairobi political scientist.


It was during Murungaru’s tenure also that Southampton-based Ship Builder, Vosper Thornycroft, faced new competition in its supply of ships to Kenya.

Although it clinched its first deal in 1966 when it delivered three fast patrol craft and had been doing business with Kenya’s military ever since.

The Kibaki government opened the supply to tendering and so was the supply of police and government vehicles which saw the arrival of Toyota Land Cruisers in place of the British Land Rovers.
While these were treated as side-shows in the storm that became Anglo-leasing saga they remained important business issues.

While the British were privately arguing over business deals US moved faster than expected and invited Kibaki for a State Visit in October 2003 where an “alliance on war on terror” was born with a promise of $100 million to train security apparatus.

In diplomatic circles, the US kept off the anglo-leasing debates or casually followed it leaving Edward Clay to lead the choir.

As the row hit top notch Kenya pulled a political trigger on UK and legalized the Mau Mau movement, which fought the British establishment in colonial Kenya. The ban for the first time legalized Kenya’s war on liberation and according to BBC it ended “the stigma that has hung over the movement, even after independence in 1963.”

Kibaki upped the game by unveiling a statue on freedom hero Dedan Kimathi (still regarded as a terrorist in British books) in Nairobi and on the 50th Anniversary of his hanging by British authorities and secret interment in an unmarked grave.

“The unveiling is of historical significance because it shows a sense of diplomatic maturity. Kenya decided to honour its heroes and revisit the Mau Mau issue without harming the Anglo-Kenya relationship. Again, countries do not normally agree on who is a hero and it appears that Kenya and UK have decided to forge forward by finally putting the issue into history,” says Dr Mutuma Ruteere, the Dean of Kenya Human Rights Institute.

Interestingly, UK papers did not pick the Kimathi statue story. But the Anglo-leasing saga has been played out in both BBC, The Guardian and The Times.




Parliament BuildingsWhile it was true that De la Rue’s tender was cancelled because it was single-sourced its French international rival in currency and security printing Francois-Charles Oberthur Fiduciaire (FCOF) was on the verge of getting into Kenya’s lucrative printing scene with a Sh2.7 billion passport and visa project without open tendering. It was the first scandal that hit the Kibaki government.

At the international arena the geo-politics of security printing came to fore while locally key Kibaki allies were deeply ensconced into the scandal.

Inside Kibaki’s State House two groups had emerged taking advantage of the ailing President. It was in this fight that saw John Githongo, the Ethics Permanent Secretary who had been fished from Transparency International to add credence to war on corruption, sandwiched between two warring groups promoting different interests.

His attempt to investigate the Anglo Leasing scandal saw him dubbed as “British spy” and his self-exile into UK and release of confidential documents later only compounded the rumour.

For his part, Murungaru filed a case against Githongo saying the dossier “consist of a pack of falsehoods, rumours, gossip, inconclusive inferences, suspicion, hearsay (that) are the product of the defendant’s fertile, creative and artistic imagination.”



Professor Paul Collier is currently riding high with his book The Bottom Billion. A respected Oxford University economist, Prof Collier is the man who “sheltered” John Githongo when he quit his job while on a UK trip.

Prof Collier is well connected in the echelons of the British system. When a House of Commons Select Committee on International Development held a session last year, he was one of those invited to give evidence.

Some of the examples he gave were on how he sheltered Githongo: “because I believed that his grievances were right and we had better support him. I passionately believe in the redress of grievances.”

The Anglo-Leasing row, Mr Githongo’s self-exile — and the diplomatic furore the leakages triggered — made the gap between UK and Kenya widen at a time when there was hope that a meeting between President Kibaki and Prime Minister Tony Blair would heal the wounds.

Kibaki visited UK in October 2003, on his way back from Washington, and in October 2005 — none of which were State visits and stayed at the Intercontinental Hotel, London.

When he met Mr Blair, there was no significant shift in the war of words that was taking place in Nairobi where Edward Clay had to be summoned by the Foreign Affairs ministry to explain his public utterances. A summon in diplomacy denotes the lowest mark in diplomatic relations. The next is expulsion.

For many months, Kibaki did not appoint a high commissioner to UK and Daniel Koikai acted as commissioner before the appointment of Joseph Muchemi and presentation of his credentials in February 2004, two years after Kibaki was elected.

Back at Oxford, where Prof Collier found Mr Githongo a place to work, he finished the Anglo- Leasing dossier and gave it to the UK Press and later posted it on the Internet.

While the dossier damaged the Kibaki government’s credibility in fighting corruption, it also saw the relations between the two countries dip to an all time low.

While Kibaki purged his government — and later reinstated the ministers accused of the scandal apart from Mr Murungaru—the thawing relations did not improve.

In January 2006, Hillary Benn, the UK Secretary of State for International Development, was driven to State House to meet President Kibaki. Part of the talks centred on the Githongo Report as he was to later inform parliament.Internally, Kibaki’s government improved the collection of revenue, which rose from Sh200 billion to Sh400 billion and the Kenya Revenue Authority coined the slogan Kulipa Ushuru ni Kujitegemea.

In most of his public addresses, Kibaki suavely told off donors who had kept off budgetary support insisting that Kenyans were able to finance 95 per cent of their budgetary requirement. While the corruption allegations failed to have a global impact, Benn was to make an admission in parliament that there was little they could do on Kenya.

“I do not foresee the corruption allegations making a significant impact on international assistance in the short term. Most of the development agencies, including DFID, believe that just because poor people live in a country where corruption is a major problem, it does not mean that they do not deserve our assistance,” he told parliament in June last year.

Six months later he quipped: “The Government of Kenya is clearly not tackling corruption as effectively as they could and we need to adopt a co-ordinated and common response across the donor community. Direct budget support is not appropriate for Kenya …”

But by opting to engage with “other agencies”, the former colonial power appears to have lost its place over the years and its fortunes dwindled.

While the level of diplomatic contacts may not have deteriorated, Kibaki’s handlers have had little rapport with their British counterparts.

In the world of geo-politics, the recent events may look like backwater, but unlike the Margaret Thatcher years, the relations between UK and Kenya may be at the coldest level.

Sunday, 14 October 2007

G8 firm on Africa development aid

By Hugh Williamson in Addis Ababa

Published: October 4 2007 02:37 | Last updated: October 4 2007 02:37

German chancellor Angela Merkel will tell the African Union in Ethiopia on Thursday that the G8 group of rich nations is committed to meeting its aid pledges to the continent. This will include an increase in development assistance by $25bn by 2010, German officials said.

Speaking on the first leg of a five-day trip to Africa that also includes South Africa and Liberia, the German chancellor will try to counter scepticism among some African governments that the G8 has in the past too frequently broken such promises.


ADVERTISEMENT
Germany has promoted Africa’s development as part of its G8 presidency this year but critics argue that promises at the summit in June in Heiligendamm, northern Germany, went little further than similar pledges – such as the $25bn aid goal – made at the Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005. Since then Western aid spending on Africa has stagnated.

In separate talks in Addis Ababa with Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian prime minister, the chancellor will raise human rights concerns over the violent crackdown on opposition supporters following elections in 2005.

The sensitivity of the issue was highlighted on Tuesday when the US House of Representatives backed a bill that would force Ethiopia to improve its record on democracy and human rights or risk losing substantial US aid.

Under Angela Merkel’s leadership, the G8 at Heiligendamm
• repeated a pledge from 2005 to increase aid to Africa by $25bn but refused to give a timetable, despite pressure from African countries

• offered to work towards giving $60bn for Aids and other diseases in Africa and elsewhere, without specifying deadlines or funding promises

• committed to “fostering investment and sustainable economic growth” in Africa via for instance micro-finance support and oil industry transparency initiative

• promoted “peace and security” in Africa via support for the African Union and conflict prevention.

• Pledges to be reviewed at G8 summit in Japan next year.

Sources: German government
Diplomats said Ms Merkel would use her visit to South Africa on Friday to urge president Thabo Mbeki to intervene in a dispute over Robert Mugabe’s possible participation at a European Union-Africa summit in December. Germany saw as unhelpful the comments last month by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, when he threatened to boycott the summit if Mr Mugabe attends.

An advisor said that Ms Merkel: “is convinced the summit must go ahead” in order to reinforce the EU’s relations with Africa at a time of major advances by China on the continent. The chancellor will ask Mr Mbeki, to work on a diplomatic solution to the dispute over the Zimbabwe president’s summit role.

The first major Africa visit by Ms Merkel’s predecessor Gerhard Schröder came after five years in office. Ms Merkel – who came to power in 2005 – wants to use the visit to add to her international reputation but also highlight Germany’s long-term and changing strategic interest in Africa.

Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, German development minister told the Financial Times: “The message [of the trip] is to make clear that Germany remains interested in Africa after Heiligendamm - we are interested in a sustainable partnership”.

Stefan Mair, Africa expert at Berlin’s SWP foreign affairs think-tank, says there is growing common ground between Germany’s approach to Africa, and those of Britain and France, countries with deeper historical and geo-political interests in the continent.

Berlin’s approach is still more based on an ethical commitment to supporting the world’s least developed continent via development projects, but the last five years have seen a “lessening of the differences”, he says.

External trends likely to be addressed by Ms Merkel – including concerns over terrorism, uncontrolled migration, energy security and climate change - have played a role in this shift, as has Berlin’s reach for more power on the world stage via a UN Security Council seat. “Germany cannot succeed without Africa’s political support in this process”, Mr Mair says.

A senior member of Ms Merkel’s government, who declined to be named, welcomed this change. “Africa has traditionally featured in Germany when catastrophes occur – unlike in Britain and France, where the continent is an ever-present [in foreign policy]”.

Despite differences over Zimbabwe, Ms Merkel has bonded quickly with Mr Brown on Africa - for instance working together on a new health aid initiative - but she is more circumspect towards Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, her aide argues, following the mixed messages emerging from his first few months in power.

The French president has promised to make Africa both a French foreign policy priority and an emblem of change from the era of his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analysts question whether things are that different, noting that Mr Sarkozy’s first stop in Africa as president was to see Omar Bongo, the autocratic ruler of Gabon for the last 40 years.

Business leaders travelling with the chancellor hope the trip will advance Germany’s economic interests, which lag those of Britain and France. German trade with Africa grew by 18 per cent last year to a record €33bn, but this still only represents about two per cent of German trade worldwide. Several German carmakers produce vehicles in South Africa, while Germany imports around 15 per cent of its oil needs from Africa, mostly from Libya.

Additional reporting by Ben Hall in Paris.

Nigeria blunts graft inquiry

By Matthew Green in Abuja

Published: October 9 2007 18:21 | Last updated: October 9 2007 18:21

Britain’s chief prosecutor has accused the Nigerian authorities of jeopardising attempts by UK police to recover funds they suspect were looted by powerful politicians under the previous government in Abuja.

The criticisms, contained in a letter seen by the Financial Times, appear to confirm fears that infighting in President Umaru Yar’Adua’s administration is undermining his pledges to crack down on graft.


The controversy centres on investigations into James Ibori, the former governor of Delta state, which has enjoyed soaring income from oil production. Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is investigating Mr Ibori on suspicion of stealing state funds during his eight-year tenure as governor, which ended in May. British police are investigating him under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Britain is a popular destination for wealthy Nigerians seeking to buy houses and open bank accounts. UK officials have worked closely with the EFCC on several investigations of former state governors.

Sir Ken Macdonald QC, the UK’s director of public prosecutions, wrote to Michael Aondoakaa, Nigeria’s justice minister and attorney-general, to request evidence compiled by the EFCC against Mr Ibori. He said a failure by the Nigerian authorities to supply evidence had led to “major difficulties” with the case.

Activists see the investigation as a test of whether Mr Yar’Adua’s government will build on the limited progress made under his predecessor, Olusegun Obasanjo, in bringing senior figures before the courts. Mr Ibori’s case is being watched closely since he is widely regarded as having been instrumental in the campaign that brought Mr Yar’Adua to power in April’s general elections.

Mr Ibori declined to comment on the case while it was pending. He has not been charged in the UK or Nigeria.

Britain’s Metropolitan Police obtained a freeze on $35m (€25m, £17m) of Mr Ibori’s assets on August 2 while they pursued investigations. The investigation dates back several years and has been carried out in co-operation with the EFCC. But the police suffered an embarrassing setback last week when a judge lifted the freeze, citing the time the investigation had taken and the lack of progress on a decision on whether to charge Mr Ibori.

Mr Macdonald said a lack of co-operation by Nigerian authorities was endangering the Ibori case. The letter said investigations against other former governors were also pending.

“The difficulty and lack of progress in obtaining hard evidence from Nigeria is causing major difficulties in relation to the court proceedings in the United Kingdom and putting these other cases in jeopardy,” Mr Macdonald wrote in his letter, dated October 2.

The letter said officers from London were due to arrive in Nigeria on Wednesday to collect evidence from the EFCC. Mr Macdonald asked Mr Aondoakaa to assure him that the requested evidence would be made available, warning he would otherwise have to abandon an appeal against the judge’s lifting of the asset freeze. The High Court in London on Monday upheld the prosecutors’ right to appeal.

Mr Yar’Adua’s government raised hopes it would not shrink from confronting once untouchable politicians when the EFCC, an anti-graft agency, took the unprecedented step of charging five other ex-governors soon after they lost their immunity to prosecution after their tenures ended in May.

But activists say a growing power struggle between branches of the judicial system in Nigeria has undermined investigations in both that country and Britain. Campaigners have accused Mr Aondoakaa of attempting to undermine the independence of the EFCC since he took office in July by insisting he should take over prosecutions by the agency.

But the EFCC has also been accused of targeting opponents of Mr Obasanjo, whose government created it in 2003. Each side blamed the other for delays in providing evidence to British police in the Ibori case.

Sunday, 7 October 2007

Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack on Somalia


A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie.

What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn’t reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia.

While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia’s Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, 22 January 2007
By Wanjohi Kabukuru

01/22/07 "ICHBlog" -- -- Just why did the US attack Somalia two weeks ago? Of course, the answer given for the US military intervention and the generally accepted notion is the hunt for terrorists. But is it? Are terrorists the only bone of contention the US has with Somalia? When the US military devised “Operation Restore Hope” in 1993 which was short-lived after they were whipsawed by rag-tag militia in and around Mogadishu, were they fighting the ‘war on terror’?

They couldn’t have been because this war was to start much later, If anything it is a post-Sept 11 phenomenon. So then why did the US bomb ICU extremists in the name of Al Qaeda terrorists and not throughout last year when they occupied Mogadishu?

Just why is Somalia so important to the US, and by extension the big boys of Europe and some Gulf states? A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie.

What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn’t reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country. The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia.

While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia’s Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia.

The story of Somalia and oil goes back to the colonial period. British and Italian geologists first identified oil deposits during that period of imperialism. The first oil wells historically referred to as the Daga Shabell series were dug in the 1960s. Tiny gas discoveries adjacent to Socotra were also noted.

The race for these precious natural resources took a new turn in 1988, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, with the support of the governments of Britain, France and Canada and backed by several Western oil companies financed a regional hydrocarbon study of the countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden.

The countries were Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was later dropped, but not before it had been established that within the study area, massive deposits of oil and gas existed. The results of the findings were presented to a three-day American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Hemisphere group conference, in London in September, 1991. Is there oil in Somalia? Listen to the answer:

“It’s there. There’s no doubt there’s oil there,” said geologist Thomas E. O’Connor, the World Bank’s principal petroleum engineer, who steered the in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in Somalia’s Gulf of Eden in the northern coastal region.

The study was intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations. The conclusions of their findings are quite telling as the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.

While presenting their results during the conference, two geologists involved in the study (an American and an Egyptian) reported that the investigation of nine exploratory wells dug in Somalia pointed out that the region was “situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil.”

Geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, who was involved in the survey, noted that “the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas” were within the offshore sites. Soon after a race for lucrative deals kicked off in earnest.

Four US oil companies, namely Conoco, Chevron, Amoco and Philips have concessions in nearly two thirds of Somalia. This quartet of oil conglomerates was granted these contracts in the final days of Somalia’s deposed dictator, Siad Barre. The US first military engagement in Somalia was fully supported by Conoco.
___________________________
About the Author: Mr Kabukuru is a Nairobi-based freelance journalist.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last Updated January 23, 2007 12:27 PM

Thursday, 6 September 2007

joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping operation for Darfur is unprecedented

Hybrid force in for a tough call
By OSCAR KIMANUKA
The joint United Nations/African Union peacekeeping operation for Darfur is unprecedented — not just for the number involved or for the sheer complexity of the operation.

Never before have UN peacekeepers worked with another international organisation — the AU in this case — in a single integrated operation that is fully funded by the UN assessment mechanism and under the integrated command structure and rules, procedures, and processes of the UN.

The troop numbers have also swelled from 7,000 to about 26,000. Rwanda occupies a special position in the force: It contributed about 29 per cent of the troops while Maj-Gen Charles Karenzi Karake is the new deputy commander of the joint force.

While the hybrid mission by the UN/AU — that came to being at the 5,727th meeting of the Security Council of July 31, when Resolution 1769 (2007) was adopted to authorise its creation — is a novel idea, it is bound to swim in a river of difficulties.

ONE OF the challenges to be faced by the hybrid force in Darfur is its size. It takes time and effort to mobilise such a force besides the existing tripartite mechanism of the UN, the AU and the government of Sudan in as far as the administrative component of the mission is concerned.

Sadly, some of the expected 26,000 troops will not be deployed until 2008.

EQUALLY, IT is not easy to find and fund the troops with the necessary training, equipment and logistical support.

The Darfur mission demonstrates the daunting challenge to peacekeepers that Africa has become. It is estimated seven out of the UN’s 16 peacekeeping operations worlwide are in Africa.

The success of this mission will largely depend on adapting it to the unique circumstances in Sudan.

But the most important factor, may as well be the hardest to judge and the most difficult to foster: The political commitment of the protagonists to the ongoing peace process.

Also, the readiness of the parties involved to commit to peace and to make the political compromises that is inherent in any peace process, cannot be taken for granted.

Oscar Kimanuka is a commentator on social and economic issues based in Kigali. E-mail: oscar_kim2000@yahoo.co.uk

Care breaks ranks with NGOs, forgoes $45m in US food aid

By DAGI KIMANI
Special Correspondent
Care International — one of the largest humanitarian agencies in East Africa, with operations in all countries in the region — will not take direct US food aid grants from 2009 but will buy from the open market through funds from philanthropic organisations and other donors.

The decision in the outcome of an internal discussion that has been going on in the organisation for nearly half a decade about the impact of the grants on local agriculture and food markets. By turning down food aid, Care will essentially lose $45 million in aid a year.

Under the current system, the US government buys relief food from the American market and donates it to aid groups as an indirect form of financing. The groups are authorised to sell the food in the local markets and use the money for their programmes.

As a result of the system, it is not unusual to see adverts in the East African media by international NGOs advertising huge consignments of foodstuffs such as wheat, maize and oils for sale locally. The system is said to raise $180 million each year for relief agencies.

According to Care, the Kenyan market has seen major incidents of “dumping” by relief organisations in recent years. For example, in 2003, a private Kenyan company bought almost 9,000 metric tonnes of crude US soybean oil from an international NGO for use in its edible oil production facility, bypassing local sources.

The move by Care is significant because it has been the largest beneficiary of the system over the years followed by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which also has significant operations regionally. Both organisations say they recover just 70 to 80 per cent of the money used to buy the food by the US government from their sales in beneficiary countries.

A more efficient transfer of aid, critics say, would be a simple transfer of cash through the conventional banking systems to enable relief organisations to buy what they need locally, supporting local agriculture.

CRS and Save the Children, however say that they will not stop converting the American donations into money unless another system of accessing American aid is put in place.

Some NGO beneficiaries of the US system say that the move by Care was unwarranted, and that it did not take into cognisance all the variables in the matter.

World Vision and 14 organisations under the Alliance for Food Aid (AFA) oppose Care’s move, arguing that the aid system helps to prevent food demand spikes in affected countries due to donor buying. However, critics say that the system was crafted to favour America’s highly subsidised farming sector without due consideration to the recipient country’s agricultural sector.

Washington threatens to put Eritrea on ‘terror list’

By KEVIN J KELLEY
Special Correspondent
Relations between the United States and Eritrea are deteriorating rapidly, with Washington now threatening to add Asmara to a list of sponsors of terrorism.

The US also recently shut down Eritrea’s consulate in California.

Eritrean President Issayas Afewerki has reacted angrily to the Bush administration’s moves.

“Its strategy of monopoly and dominance through fomenting confrontation among peoples is leading the world to a dangerous path,” President Afewerki declared during a two-hour interview on state television last week.

Jendayi Frazer, the State Department’s top Africa policymaker, had told reporters two days earlier that the US might brand Eritrea a state sponsor of terrorism because it is allegedly arming insurgents in Somalia. The Bush administration has accused these Islamist forces of harbouring al Qaeda operatives who took part in the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

We cannot tolerate... their support for terror activity, particularly in Somalia,” Ms Frazer said in regard to Eritrean government officials.

If designated a sponsor of terrorism, Eritrea would join such US arch-enemies as Iran, Cuba and North Korea. Inclusion on that list results in a country being hit with a variety of financial sanctions as well as the loss of all non-emergency US aid. American delegates to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund are also obligated to oppose loans by the Bretton Woods institutions to the targeted countries.

Eritrea can still avoid these punishments by ending its support for the Islamist militants in Somalia, Ms Frazer noted.

She said information gathered by US intelligence is consistent with what United Nations experts reported last month. UN monitors charged that Eritrea has shipped “a huge quantity of arms” to the Somali insurgents. The weapons are said to include surface-to-air missiles and explosive devices.

But many observers believe Eritrea is helping the Somali guerrillas as a way of hurting its longstanding foe, Ethiopia, which invaded and occupied Somalia late last year. Eritrea and Ethiopia fought a bloody two-year border war that ended in a stalemate in 2000.

Ms Frazer said Washington had decided to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, California, in retaliation for Eritrea’s denial of visas to US diplomats and its insistence on inspecting diplomatic pouches containing secret documents.

The United States has also accused Eritrean officials of impeding relief workers and expropriating food aid shipments.

“We’ve watched them throw out USAid,” she said, referring to the United States Agency for International Development. “We’ve watched them take the food out of the warehouses of UN organisations.”

Washington has further complained about government repression of Eritrean dissidents.

But Ms Frazer also acknowledged that Eritrea’s behaviour is “not all bad.” She did not dispute a reporter’s suggestion that Eritrea has helped quell violence in eastern Sudan.

Eritrea is also supporting some of the rebel groups in Darfur that are fighting for greater autonomy from authorities in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum. And the United States holds the Sudan government primarily responsible for the carnage in Darfur.

But the Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs added at her recent press briefing that the Darfur rebels “are also attacking civilians and are a part of the problem in Darfur.”

She urged Eritrea to help bring the rebels to the bargaining table.

Relations between Washington and Asmara are complicated in other ways as well.

Eritrea was one of the few nations in Africa to support the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq. At the same time, President Afewerki noted in his interview last week that the United States had never supported Eritrea during the course of its 30-year war for independence from Ethiopia.

Keep Vision 2030 from blurring

Keep Vision 2030 from blurring
By L. MUTHONI WANYEKI
In 2008, Accra will be the site of the 2008 review of implementation of the Paris Declaration.

What Paris Declaration?

The Paris Declaration arguably marked a turning point in relations between suppliers and recipients of overseas development assistance. Initiated in 2005, it represents a consensus by 139 partners — almost all bilateral donors (excluding China), 26 multilaterals and 57 states from the underdeveloped South — on improving the effectiveness of ODA in order to realise sustainable “development.”

It is credited with attempting to address two roots causes of underdevelopment — the quality (if not the quantity) of aid as well as governance — by transforming the relationship between donors and recipients.

The so-called Paris principles are local ownership, alignment, harmonisation, measuring for results and mutual accountability. By local ownership is meant determination of development priorities by recipients of ODA. By alignment is meant prioritisation of ODA according to that determination. By harmonisation is meant co-operation and coordination among suppliers of ODA. By results is meant longer-term development outcomes by moving to programme- rather than project-based approaches—including budgetary support, sector-wide programme support and so on.

And by mutual accountability is meant shared responsibility by suppliers and recipients for the realisation (or not) of those outcomes.

Whether we realise it or not, the Paris principles are being operationalised in Kenya. Even though Kenya does not need budgetary support, sector-wide reform programme support is being jointly offered to the Kenyan government by suppliers of ODA already — the education and governance, justice, law and order sectors being two examples. And Kenyan civil society is drawing from basket funds such as those on civic education and gender and politics. So much for harmonisation.

AS FOR LOCAL OWNERSHIP AND alignment, the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS) was concluded in July. The national strategy on which it was pegged was the Economic Recovery Strategy — which the National Rainbow Coalition brought in to replace the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper. The ERS, however, expires at the end of the year. And there are many questions around what will replace it.

First, although the PRSP was the result of long consultations and enabled participation in its formulation, it was criticised for being imposed on Kenya by the international financial institutions and for not engaging with the Kenyan parliament.

The ERS, of course, was brought into being without any consultation and participation at all — but it was the vision of a NARC that then had unquestionable public support. What is being proposed now by the rump of the original NARC is Vision 2030. Which is problematic for several reasons.

First, Vision 2030, although it is supposed to be finalised through consultations countrywide, is actually being drawn up by a multinational consulting agency, McKinsey! Local ownership surely includes the reliance on local expertise to set up the basic parameters for debate and discussion.

Secondly, of course, the whole Vision 2030 process assumes that this government will, in fact, make it back into office following the general election. Even if it does, it will by no means command the kind of popular support that enabled the ERS to commence without question. Third, KJAS is already complete. Alignment surely would imply more than tweaking it a bit here and there following the elections.

Our overall development direction — and the external support given towards that — are clearly too important to leave in the hands of those who are more concerned about the acquisition of power than its use in the public interest.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is a political scientist based in Nairobi

Wednesday, 5 September 2007

U.S analysis of Africa's Oil and Gas Sector

July 13, 2007
Africa's Oil and Gas Sector: Implications for U.S. Policy
by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D. and Rafal Alasa
Backgrounder #2052

In his 2006 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said, "[W]e have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world."[1] Increasing political instability in the Middle East and growing U.S., Indian, and Chinese demand for oil have made energy security a paramount concern.

As the 2001 National Energy Policy Report notes, U.S. energy security depends on diversity of supply. African states, particularly West African producers, are an ideal source of U.S. oil imports because transport­ing oil from Africa is cheaper than shipping oil from the Middle East, and protecting Africa's onshore and offshore reserves is easier.

Increasing U.S. investment in Africa has numerous advantages. Geographically, the United States is much closer to West African oil states than it is to the Middle East. Most African oil reserves are offshore and there­fore largely secure from domestic and political ten­sions. Oil can be transported via open sea lanes rather than through shallow water canals or straits. As a result, African oil accounts for a growing share of the oil refined on the U.S. East Coast.[2] In addition, Africa offers the ideal climate for private investors to create an ethanol industry to supply the U.S. with an alterna­tive energy source and to diversify African economies.

Oil and gas are critical not only to U.S. security and economic health, but also to African nations. Properly managed oil and gas revenues would augment their economies, contribute to much-needed development, and improve their standards of living. Multinational oil companies have the investment resources and technical expertise to make African states wealthier and more competitive. Numerous U.S.-based oil companies—including ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, and Chevron—already have a strong presence on the African continent.

To help Africa to attract scarce global investment capital, to maximize Africa's energy potential, and to increase U.S. energy security, the U.S. should take the following steps:

The Department of State, Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Agency for International Development (USAID) should develop a comprehensive strategy to improve the investment climate in Africa, focus­ing on privatization of the oil and gas industry's assets and reserves.


The State Department, DOE, and International Energy Administration, with the full participation of energy companies, should create a coordinating forum of major energy-consumer countries.


The Department of Defense (DOD) should work with African governments through its Africa Command (AFRICOM) to determine security needs and improve the security environment in energy provinces and along the coasts of Africa.


The DOE, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and Department of the Treasury should work with Congress to remove tariffs and quotas on sugarcane ethanol before 2009.


The State Department and USAID should assist West African governments in creating national, independent, and professionally managed oil "generations" funds to address their long-term developmental needs.


The United States consumes 25 percent of the world's petroleum[3] and 22.5 percent of the world's natural gas.[4] The U.S. imports 13.5 million barrels per day (MMBD), which accounts for 63.5 percent of U.S. consumption (20.6 MMBD).[5] Since 1973, U.S. consumption of foreign oil has escalated as a percentage of total consumption.[6] The available data indicate that this trend will continue and that global oil consumption will increase by 76 percent over the next 30 years and natural gas consumption will increase by 153 percent.[7] (See Chart 1.)

With crude oil prices above $60 per barrel and demand steadily increasing, the prospect of more African oil production coming on line should make both consumers and policymakers optimistic. With the exception of Angola and Nigeria, West African oil producers are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and are therefore not subject to its dictates.

Africa's Growing Importance
Many Americans do not recognize the impor­tance of Africa, particularly West African oil. Cur­rently, over 18 percent of U.S. crude oil imports comes from Africa, compared to 17 percent from the Persian Gulf. (See Table 1.) Nigeria accounts for 47 percent of African oil imports, and Algeria and Angola provide 19 percent each.[8] A discussion paper issued by the National Intelligence Council in 2004 predicts that the U.S. will import 25 percent of its oil from Africa by 2015.[9]

The main focus of this paper is to identify the for­midable barriers to investment in the African energy sector and how they can be reduced. For African nations to attract the investment capital required to develop their energy resources, they will need to create a more attractive investment climate. Creat­ing a hospitable investment climate should be a pri­ority for African governments, the U.S. government, the private sector, and market-oriented non-gov­ernmental organizations (NGOs).

Investment Barriers
Africa is one of the world's most difficult places to do business. In many African oil-producing coun­tries, investors face arbitrary or nonexistent law enforcement, selective and stifling taxation, conflict­ing legal codes, high transaction costs, shoddy infra­structure, and pervasive corruption. Key obstacles to foreign investment fall into three main categories.



Political Instability and Corruption. Doing business in Africa requires facing significant politi­cal risks, including coups, ethnic strife, resource battles, and unstable transfers of power. Investment in the energy sector incurs even greater risks because of large initial capital costs and longer time horizons. If a new regime takes power and expropri­ates a multibillion-dollar project without paying full and fair compensation, investors can lose their entire investment.

Political instability often arises when state bud­gets depend on petroleum revenues and various political factions compete for control of the cash flow. For any given five-year period, the chance of a civil war in an African country varies from less than 1 percent in countries without resource wealth to nearly 25 percent in countries with such resources.[10] Oil may be a curse rather than a bless­ing to countries without appropriate institutional mechanisms.

In addition to fighting over control of oil reve­nues, the presence of oil often leads to government neglect of other economic sectors, such as agricul­ture. The World Bank has documented numerous cases in which oil retards the economic growth of exporting countries.[11]

Corruption discourages investment because it acts like a tax, increasing the cost of doing business. Fur­thermore, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from engaging in corrupt transac­tions. Sadly, African oil-producing and gas-producing countries are among the most corrupt in the world. Of the 163 countries ranked in 2006 by Transparency International, a Berlin-based corruption watchdog, Algeria ranked 84th, Gabon ranked 90th, Nigeria and Angola tied for 142nd, and Chad ranked 156th, with the 163rd being the most corrupt.[12]

Oil by itself is not necessarily the problem. Pro­fessor Terry Karl, a prominent authority on the "Dutch disease" and "resource curse," explained: "Oil in itself means nothing. What matters is the social and political and economic institutions in which oil is inserted. Oil can be a force for develop­ment or it can be force for war."[13] If high budget revenues from oil are reinvested in African energy sectors, including biofuels, institutions will need to be strengthened to provide the necessary checks and balances and market incentives.

Lack of Property Rights. The first institution that should be strengthened is property rights. The 2007 Index of Economic Freedom, published by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, found that African countries generally perform poorly in protecting property rights.[14] Clearly writ­ten and well-enforced land and mineral rights laws form the bedrock for economic development and help to attract foreign investment. The more secure a country's property rights are, the greater the incen­tive for foreign firms to invest.

Secure property rights—including a low risk of license revocation or nationalization of assets— encourage foreign investment and boost economic growth. In China, improving property rights, start­ing with agriculture, has helped to raise millions out of poverty by attracting tremendous amounts of domestic and foreign investment.[15] Recent sur­veys from Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine illustrate that entrepreneurs who believe that their property rights are secure reinvest between 14 percent and 40 percent more of their profits in their businesses than do those who do not believe that their property rights are secure. Farmers in Ghana and Nicaragua reinvest up to 8 percent more when they believe that their property rights are secure.[16]

To attract foreign investment to the energy sector, countries need a pro-investment regulatory legal framework. Canada's federal energy policy reform in the 1980s is an example of the best practices. It improved the investment climate by making the energy sector more market-oriented and improving property rights. Competitive measures were intro­duced into the sector by loosening ownership restrictions on the upstream oil and gas industries and by removing key fuel subsidies. These provi­sions were then further strengthened when Canada ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement and eliminated foreign ownership restrictions on production in the frontier lands. These conditions and a traditionally strong commitment to the rule of law and democracy have made Canada a top desti­nation for U.S. firms, which bought over $35 billion in Canadian oil and gas assets in 2001.[17]

In contrast, Zimbabwe has demonstrated some of the worst practices. From 2000 to 2003, President Robert Mugabe authorized the seizure of 4,500 com­mercial farms, with predictable and devastating results. By 2001, foreign direct investment in Zimba­bwe had fallen to zero. Zimbabwe is an even more germane example considering the potential of future commercial farms to become biofuel producers.[18]

A modern, liberal mining code may be a key to attracting investment. A survey by the South Afri­can Chamber of Mines found that red tape and reg­ulatory uncertainty cost the mining sector 5 billion to 10 billion rand ($0.7 billion–$1.4 billion) per year in lost investment.[19] A recent survey by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian research body, ranked countries and U.S. states by their mining policies from an exploration manager's perspective. Nevada ranked the highest, while Papua New Guinea, the Congo, Venezuela, Russia, and Bolivia were near the bottom and Zimbabwe ranked the lowest in the sur­vey's history.[20]

Legal Regimes and Regulatory Certainty. A well-functioning, independent, speedy, and impar­tial court system or conflict dispute mechanism is necessary to improve the investment climate. In Africa, many judiciaries are corrupt and not inde­pendent. The Angolan judicial system, ranked 149th out of 157 countries by the Index of Economic Free­dom, suffers from political interference. In Chad (ranked 147th), magistrates, judges, and other members of the judiciary are appointed by presiden­tial decree, effectively eliminating any separation of powers. The Algerian judiciary (ranked 134) is strongly influenced by the Ministry of the Interior.[21]

Additionally, high court fees prevent many busi­nesses from adjudicating their disputes, and poorly educated judges and lawyers, low salaries, and cor­ruption plague legal regimes in Africa.

Case Studies

Chad, Nigeria, and Sudan illustrate some of the most salient challenges to foreign investment in the African energy sector. Nigeria needs much better security (onshore and offshore), stronger anti-cor­ruption measures, and a better wealth distribution mechanism. Surprisingly, in spite of security con­cerns and a terrible human rights record, Sudan has undertaken comprehensive reform to improve its investment climate and has attracted foreign inves­tors, including China. Chad provides insight into the international community's efforts to reduce the effects of the "resource curse."

All three countries illustrate the need to diversify away from the petro-state model.

Nigeria. Nigeria is of great strategic impor­tance to the United States. It is the largest oil pro­ducer (2.28 MMBD in 2006) in Africa and the 11th largest producer in the world.[22] Only Vene­zuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Canada export more oil to the United States. If currently shut-in oil were brought on line, Nigerian production could reach 3 MMBD.[23]



The Nigerian government is seeking to increase production capacity to 4 MMBD by 2010. In addi­tion, Nigeria has estimated natural gas reserves of 184 trillion cubic feet, and the government is plan­ning to generate as much revenue from gas as from oil by 2010. Over the next three years, Nigeria's oil and gas revenues are projected to reach $67 bil­lion.[24] Nigeria has also embarked on a multibil­lion-dollar alternative fuels initiative geared toward reinvesting oil revenues into biofuel plantations to produce ethanol from sugarcane.[25] However, in­vestment in Nigeria's energy sector is threatened by a number of formidable obstacles.

The fight over who controls oil revenues under­lies many of Nigeria's problems. This is not surpris­ing when one considers how few citizens currently benefit. Although petroleum revenues constitute 90 percent to 95 percent of Nigeria's total budget reve­nues, only 1 percent of the population receives the money.[26] A small group of foreign oil companies— including Royal Dutch Shell and Chevron U.S.A.— turn over nearly half of their profits to the Nigerian government. As a result, the government does not depend on revenues from the population and there­fore does not provide quality services.[27]

This phenomenon, common among oil states, insulates political leaders from popular opinion. Instead of serving the public, they concentrate on securing oil revenues. A Nigerian official involved in anti-corruption efforts has stated that more than $380 billion was stolen or wasted from Nigeria's treasury between 1960 and 1999. During that period, the country produced over $400 billion worth of oil.[28]

Crime and politics are intertwined in the Niger Delta. While most petrol-states have a paucity of jobs, Nigeria's delta region offers ready employ­ment, but only in crime. The region is home to the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), an organization of disenfranchised citi­zens who are demanding that more of the oil pro­ceeds be distributed to the population. Working for local elites, these rebels (mostly young men) steal oil directly from the pipeline and sell it offshore on the black market for guns and money. The local crime bosses then use the guns and money to consolidate control over land and local offices. This criminal network "bunkers" 40,000 barrels oil per day for an annual income of $1.5 billion.[29]

While operating offshore, MEND agents attack facilities and kidnap and sometimes kill foreign work­ers. In 2007 alone, there were 18 attacks against oil facilities, and about 70 foreigners were abducted. Thousands of foreign workers have fled, and at least three foreign companies have left, including a private drilling company and pipeline-laying company. As a result of this situation, Nigeria has lost an esti­mated $16 billion in export revenues since 2005, and Shell has shut down half of its production and has 500,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) shut in.[30]

Offshore workers are not safe either. Four Chev­ron oil workers were recently kidnapped from a barge off the Nigerian coast.[31] Clearly, security is one of the biggest challenges, but Nigeria's recovery will also depend on economic diversification.

Africa is also a potential source of ethanol, which could help to meet President Bush's call for a 20 per­cent reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption by 2017. Africa offers the ideal tropical climate for pro­ducing ethanol from sugarcane. Expanding the bio­fuel industry in Africa promises to create thousands if not millions of jobs for the long term, diversifying away from petroleum-based economies that pro­duce few jobs. Increased ethanol production and trade with Africa would also send a strong signal to oil-producing countries, especially OPEC, to stop driving up prices by restricting production.

To tap Africa's potential and expand U.S.–Africa energy cooperation, real barriers will have to be overcome, especially the U.S. 54-cents-per-gallon tariff on ethanol. This tariff violates the principles of free trade and undermines U.S. energy security.

Nigeria has launched a multibillion-dollar alterna­tive fuels initiative, reinvesting oil revenues into bio­fuel plantations to produce ethanol from sugarcane. If implemented successfully using market mechanisms, this initiative promises to attract massive foreign investment and create tens of thousands of jobs in the biofuel industry. Nigeria could become a model for successful diversification of an oil economy.

Sudan. War-torn Sudan has emerged as a major African oil exporter. After completing a major oil-export pipeline that runs from central Sudan to Port Sudan in 1999, Sudan's oil-exporting revenues have grown rapidly with help from consumer countries, especially China. From 2005 to 2006 alone, Sudan's crude oil production rose from 363,000 bbl/d to 414,000 bbl/d.[32] With new fields coming on line, Sudan anticipates that its oil production will reach 600,000 bbl/d this year.[33] The Economist Intelli­gence Unit estimates that almost 90 percent of Sudan's export revenues come from oil.[34] The Oil and Gas Journal estimates that Sudan has 5 billion barrels in reserves, mostly in southern Sudan.[35]

With the exception of grave security concerns, Sudan has a good investment climate. Even while under U.S. sanctions, Sudan has received high praise from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for its comprehensive economic reforms and the govern­ment's management of the economy, specifically for managing inflation well and for robust economic growth.[36]

The government in Khartoum prefers develop­ment that is led by the private sector. To attract more foreign investment, Sudan has removed key price controls, liberalized its investment code and exchange regime, and reduced trade restrictions. These reforms and high oil prices have created an economic boom in Sudan. Sudan's growth rate has exceeded 5 percent for the past six years, and its gross domestic product is expected to double every five years.[37] Sudan has also been reinvesting in the energy sector.

While Sudan is reeling from what former Sec­retary of State Colin Powell has called the 21st century's genocide,[38] China continues to support Khartoum by buying half of its oil and supplying it with the arms that help to keep the government in power. In the past few years, Khartoum has dou­bled its defense budget, spending 60 percent to 80 percent of its estimated $500 million in oil reve­nues on weapons.[39] Some of these weapons have gone to the government-backed Janjaweed militia, which is accused of displacing over 2 million refu­gees—mostly into neighboring Chad—and killing more than 200,000 people in the four-year conflict in Darfur.[40]

A new report from Amnesty International cites 2005 trade figures to show that Sudan has imported $24 million in arms from China and $57 million of aircraft parts and equipment. Russia has exported to Sudan $21 million worth of aircraft and military equipment and $13.7 million of helicopters, such as the Russian Mi-24 helicopter gunship.[41] Ignoring international norms, Chinese Defense Minister Cao Gangchuan recently vowed to boost military exchanges and cooperation and stated that "military relations between China and Sudan have developed smoothly."[42] Unconditional support for the regime in Khartoum sets a negative precedent that the international community must continue to resist.

Despite today's positive investment climate, cur­rent and future battles will likely figure large in the run-up to southern Sudan's referendum on inde­pendence. Signed in 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) ended a 21-year civil war that killed 2.2 million people. The CPA stipulates that the people of southern Sudan can vote on inde­pendence in 2011. Because Khartoum depends on oil revenues, it will do everything within its power to keep its share of the oil from the south, where the majority of proven reserves exist.

Chad. Chad has a long history of civil war and exhibits many conditions associated with post-con­flict zones. Throughout Chad, running water, elec­tricity, paved roads, and health clinics are generally unavailable. Life expectancy is 46 years for men and 48 years for women.[43] Moreover, in 2005, Trans­parency International rated Chad the world's most corrupt country. In 2006, Chad fared only slightly better, ranking 156 out of 163.[44]

To overcome its geographic disadvantage of being landlocked, Chad needed a pipeline to make use of its over 1 billion barrels in proven oil reserves. In 1999, conditions inside Chad were so bad that no one in the private sector was willing to invest in a pipeline unless the World Bank was involved.[45] In the first project of its kind, the World Bank agreed to provide investment coupled with institutional oversight and transparency. The World Bank and a consortium of oil companies led by Exx­onMobil, ChevronTexaco, and Petronas set up a pipeline project in Chad. This was supposed to be the first international effort to overcome the resource curse.

Construction on the $3.5 billion Chad–Came­roon Petroleum Development and Pipeline Project began in 2000 and was completed in 2004. To increase transparency, Chad was required to adopt the Petroleum Revenues Management Law, which stipulated that Chad's 12.5 percent of the oil reve­nues would be deposited into a Citibank escrow account monitored by an independent "college" before the Chadian government received it. Another 10 percent was deposited in a "future generations" fund to provide Chad with revenues after the oil reserves are exhausted.[46]

However, in December 2005, Chad's National Assembly abolished the future generations fund and diverted money away from poverty-mitigation efforts to arms purchases. The World Bank responded by suspending $124 million in loans.[47] In July 2006, the two sides reached a compromise, which specified that the Chadian government would commit 70 percent of revenues to develop­ment programs and 30 percent to government expenditures.[48]

President Idriss Deby will continue to face major military threats from Sudan-supported rebel groups in east Chad and threats from within the Chadian military. Rebels and military personnel will con­tinue to be paid off with oil revenues. Corruption and investor uncertainty over potential civil war will continue to deter investment.[49] While some have called the Chad experiment a prima facie fail­ure, others say that after three years it is still too early to judge.

What the U.S. Should Do

To attract scarce global capital and bolster eco­nomic development, African leaders need to develop the political will to overcome investment barriers. While the onus is on African leaders, pol­icy coordination is crucial. Congress, the Adminis­tration, and energy companies can take a number of concrete steps to assist Africa.

The State Department, DOE, USDA, and USAID should develop a comprehensive strat­egy to improve the investment climate in Africa, focusing on privatization of the oil and gas industry's assets and reserves. Liberaliza­tion of the energy sector should be made an explicit part of the U.S. agenda for Africa. U.S. assistance should emphasize economic freedom and sound property rights. The U.S. should review assistance to countries that have state monopolies in their oil and gas sectors.

USAID should target technical assistance to help governments to privatize oil and gas sectors, estab­lish stable regulatory environments, craft stronger property rights laws, create transparent and fair tax regimes, reform their judiciaries, fight corruption, and train government officials who supervise eco­nomic policy and the oil and gas sectors. This should include establishing liberal currency ex­change control regimes and developing modern mining codes, especially subsoil legislation.


The State Department, DOE, and Interna­tional Energy Administration, with the full participation of energy companies, should create a coordinating forum of major energy-consumer countries. The forum should work with African governments and financial institu­tions to harmonize policy and to develop a more hospitable energy investment environment. The forum could provide a venue for consumer countries to share best practices for increasing investment, promoting transparency and good governance, and fighting corruption. It should review state-of-the-art techniques of oil privati­zation and revenue generation and distribute this knowledge in Africa. Many African officials, industry managers, and elites are unfamiliar with the best practices of privatizing and insti­tuting publicly accountable and transparent decision-making processes in oil production and revenue distribution.


The DOD should work with African govern­ments through Africa Command to determine security needs and improve security environ­ments in energy provinces and along the coasts of Africa. Greater cooperation with African gov­ernments will enhance the professionalism of Afri­can armed forces and improve the investment climate by increasing the security of energy resources and onshore and offshore platforms. This could help African militaries to develop doc­trines, tactics, techniques, and procedures to pro­tect energy resources. African countries can also apply to participate in the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program to obtain equipment, such as coastal patrol ships, aircraft, and other defense articles.


The DOE, USTR, and Treasury Department should work with Congress to remove tariffs and quotas on imported ethanol before 2009. Rescinding these market-distorting measures would encourage African governments to expand sugarcane ethanol production by ensur­ing a reliable U.S. market for their ethanol. Until lifted, these trade barriers will continue to hinder development of ethanol as a global, competitive energy commodity.


The State Department and USAID should assist African governments in creating national, inde­pendent, professionally managed oil "genera­tions" funds. Such funds would provide revenues after oil resources are exhausted. They should be modeled on Norway's Government Pension Fund and similar funds. Ideally, they would be man­aged by the private sector. Such measures would go a long way toward legitimizing governments, increasing transparency, and overcoming the resource curse.

The Departments of State and Commerce and oil companies should also support the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), which seeks to set transparency standards for both investors and governments. Key elements of EITI are (1) public reporting of oil and gas payments by companies to governments and of the reve­nues received by governments from companies; (2) credible independent audits of payments and revenues; and (3) public release of the report and information on any discrepancies found.[50]
Conclusion
Development and transformation of Africa's energy sector presents a unique opportunity for cooperation between African countries and energy consumers, particularly since Africa is both geo­graphically closer to the U.S. and safer than the Middle East as a source of energy.

Lack of security, corruption, waste, and misman­agement are inexcusable to all stakeholders. Increasing transparency of oil and gas revenue is vital for Africa, especially as African countries have a great opportunity to use petrodollars to drive eco­nomic development. It is also crucial that U.S. oil companies have a level playing field in this harsh environment so that their government-owned com­petitors cannot simply bribe their way into the choicest projects. Finally, it is important for the U.S. and other principal energy consumers, such as China and India, to ensure that governments super­vising foreign investment in Africa maintain a modi­cum of transparency.

An attractive investment environment, especially in the lucrative energy sector, is the key to Africa's modernization. Developing sugarcane ethanol as an alternative energy sector is an important avenue in diversifying away from oil. The U.S. government and the private sector should strive to be the princi­pal partners of their African counterparts in devel­oping African energy resources for the benefit of Africans and Americans.

Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Cen­ter for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. Rafal Alasa is a graduate student at the Warsaw School of Economics and a former intern at The Heritage Foundation. Owen Graham, Research Assistant in the Allison Center, and Michael Belinsky, an intern in the Davis Institute, helped to produce this paper.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] George W. Bush, "State of the Union Address," January 31, 2006, at www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006 (March 5, 2006).
[2] Paul Michael Wihbey and Barry Schutz, eds., "African Oil: A Priority for U.S. National Security and African Development," Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Research Papers in Strategy No. 14, May 2002, pp. 2–5, at www.iasps.org/strategic/africatranscript.pdf (May 10, 2007).

[3] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2006, Table 11.10, June 27, 2007, www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/inter.html (April 19, 2007).

[4] Ibid., Table 11.12.

[5] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Weekly Petroleum Products Product Supplied," at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus2w.htm (March 31, 2006).

[6] Alan Greenspan, "Oil Dependence and Economic Risk," testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, June 7, 2006, at www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/
2006/hrg060607a.html (May 3, 2007).

[7] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "International Energy Outlook 2006," June 2006, at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/excel/ieoreftab_2.xls (April 17, 2007).

[8] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Imports by Country of Origin," updated April 19, 2007, at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2
_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm (April 19, 2007).

[9] National Intelligence Council, "External Relations and Africa," discussion paper, March 16, 2004, at www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_GIF_2020_Support/2004_03_16
_papers/external_relations.pdf (May 10, 2007).

[10] "The Paradox of Plenty," The Economist, December 20, 2005.

[11] Wihbey and Schutz, eds., "African Oil," pp. 16–17.

[12] Transparency International, "Corruption Perceptions Index 2006," 2006, at www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2006 (April 17, 2007).

[13] Ibid.

[14] For example, in terms of economic freedom, Algeria, Guinea–Bissau, and Angola were ranked 134th, 148th, and 149th, respectively, out of 157 countries. See Tim Kane, Kim R. Holmes, and Mary Anastasia O'Grady, 2007 Index of Economic Freedom (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 2007), at www.heritage.org/index.

[15] Commission for Africa, Our Common Interest: Report of the Commission for Africa, March 2005, p. 230, at www.commissionforafrica.org/english/report/thereport/
english/11-03-05_cr_report.pdf (May 7, 2007).

[16] The World Bank, World Development Report 2005 (Washington, D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and The World Bank, 2004), p. 79, at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2005/
Resources/complete_report.pdf (June 1, 2007).

[17] Council of the Americas, Energy Action Group, "Energy in the Americas: Building a Lasting Partnership for Security and Prosperity," October 2005, at www.americas-society.org/coa/publications/
Papers/FINAL%20-%20COA%20Energy%20Action%20
Group%20Report.pdf (May 20, 2007).

[18] For a vivid example of how detrimental the loss of property rights can be to a country, see Craig J. Richardson, "How the Loss of Property Rights Caused Zimbabwe's Collapse," Cato Institute Economic Development Bulletin No. 4, November 14, 2005, at www.cato.org/pubs/edb/edb4.pdf (May 6, 2007).

[19] "South Africa Industry: Undermined," Economist Intelligence Unit Country Briefing, November 17, 2006.

[20] News release, "Mining Executives Rate the Investment Climate of Jurisdictions Around the World," Fraser Institute, March 22, 2006, at www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?s
Nav=nr&id=718 (May 9, 2007).

[21] Kane et al., 2007 Index of Economic Freedom.

[22] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency, "Nigeria," Country Analysis Brief, April 2007, at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Nigeria/Background.html (May 1, 2007).

[23] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries," May 4, 2007.

[24] Abiola Morgan-Anyakwo and Craig Withers, "B2B Opportunities in Nigeria's Oil and Gas Industry," The Africa Journal, Winter 2006, p. 14, at www.africacncl.org/AfricaJournal/AJ_Winter_2006.pdf (May 9, 2007).

[25] Marianne Osterkorn, "Ethanol in Africa," EcoWorld, July 7, 2006, at www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=389 (May 20, 2007).

[26] New America Foundation, "The Petro Mirage: Conversation on Oil's Failed Promises in Developing Countries with Oil
on the Brain's Lisa Margonelli," May 16, 2007, at www.newamerica.net/events/2007/the_petro_mirage (May 29, 2007).

[27] David Adesnik, "Ignoring Nigeria," The Weekly Standard, May 14, 2007, at www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/
000/000/013/614ytnro.asp (May 9, 2007).

[28] Lydia Polgreen, "Africa's Crisis of Democracy," The New York Times, April 23, 2007, p. A1.

[29] Adesnik, "Ignoring Nigeria."

[30] Robin Knight, "Concerns Grow About Big Drop in Nigerian Oil Production," CNBC, May 9, 2007, at www.cnbc.com/id/ 18569318 (May 10, 2007), and U.S. Department of Energy, "Nigeria."

[31] Ibid.

[32] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Sudan," Country Analysis Brief, April 2007, at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Sudan/Background.html (May 1, 2007).

[33] Sapa–Agence France-Presse, "Sudan Oil Output to Reach 600,000 bpd," Business in Africa, April 3, 2007, at www.businessinafrica.net/news/north_africa/390808.htm (May 14, 2007).

[34] Economist Intelligence Unit, "Country Report: Sudan," April 2007.

[35] U.S. Department of Energy, "Sudan."

[36] David Christianson, "Sudan: Getting In at Ground Level," Business in Africa, September 6, 2006, at www.businessinafrica.net/energy_in_africa/997130.htm (May 14, 2007).

[37] Ibid.

[38] BBC News, "Powell Declares Genocide in Sudan," September 9, 2004, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3641820.stm (July 5, 2007).

[39] Peter Brookes, "Into Africa: China's Grab for Influence and Oil," Heritage Foundation Lecture No. 1006, March 27, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/Africa/hl1006.cfm.

[40] Marc Lacey and Lydia Polgreen, "The Tragedy of Darfur: Ethnic Conflict in Sudan Has Killed 200,000 Civilians and Created 2 Million Refugees," The New York Times Upfront, May 8, 2006, at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/
is_14_138/ai_n17212967 (May 29, 2007).

[41] Amnesty International, "Sudan: Arms Continuing to Fuel Serious Human Rights Violations in Darfur," May 5, 2007, at http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engafr540192007 (June 1, 2007).

[42] Ling Zhu, ed., "China, Sudan Vow to Boost Military Exchanges," Xinhua, April 2, 2007, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/02/
content_5926215.htm (May 14, 2007).

[43] Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, s.v. "Chad,"April 17, 2007, at www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/index.html (July 1, 2007).

[44] Transparency International, "Corruption Perceptions Index 2006."

[45] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Chad and Cameroon," Country Analysis Brief, January 2007, pp. 1–4, at www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Chad_Cameroon/
Background.html (April 24, 2007).

[46] Carin Zissis, "Chad's Oil Troubles," Council on Foreign Relations, updated April 27, 2007, at www.cfr.org/publication/10532/chads_oil_troubles.html (May 16, 2007).

[47] Raymond Thibodeaux, "Anger Rises in Oil-Rich Chad as Funds Don't Aid the Poor," The Boston Globe, April 30, 2007, at www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006
/04/30/anger_rises_in_oil_rich_chad_as_funds_
dont_aid_the_poor (April 30, 2007).

[48] U.S. Department of Energy, "Chad and Cameroon," p. 4.

[49] Economist Intelligence Unit, "Country Report: Chad," March 2007.

[50] For more information, see Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, "EITI Priniciples and Criteria," at www.eitransparency.org/section/abouteiti/principlescriteria (July 1, 2007).