Aid Thoughts

Early last year, UNESCO created the Obiang Nguema Mbasogo International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences.  Unfortunately, the benefactor, the President of Equatorial Guinea, is a renowned for being a particularly repressive dictator and all-around bad person. Names associated with mass economic exclusion, theft of public funds, torture and (even) cannabilism don't make for highly-marketable awards, but it seems that they tried anyway.

As UNENSCO prepares to make its first award, the blogging communinity, which seems to retain the right to delay outrage for a considerable amount of time, have begun to speak out. Those voicing discontent include Texas In Africa, Vijaya Ramachandran at the CGD, and Te-Ping Chen at Change.org. The arguments roughly follow this line of thinking:

1. Obiang is a serious crook who is trying to improve his image with the award, and UNESCO is helping him do it. We should not legitimize him any further.
2. Obiang's wealth comes from the millions (or billions) of oil revenue he has pilfered, which should have been used for badly needed public goods in Equatorial Guinea.

The first argument is initially pretty compelling. I do believe that we should find ways to pressure Obiang into behaving better, but is denying him a name on a small prize really the most effective method of doing so? In a world where Equatorial Guinea was an embattled dictatorship, chastised and isolated by the international community for Obiang's sins, then UNESCO's move would be really pretty scandalous. However, the world we do live in is one where American presidents pose for smiling photoshoots with him, where diplomats occasionally grumble about human rights abuses or governance, but at the end of the day are happy to let the oil exports continue.

We legitimise Obiang's government in so many ways, for difficult, vexing reasons; attacking UNENSCO for putting his name on an otherwise unremarkable reward might be an easy attack route, but one of dubious efficacy.

The argument that the money rightful should go to the people of EG is also true, but it's not going to them, and cancelling the award is not make Obiang turn it around and give it to them. So we should ask ourselves: would we prefer to have the money remain in overseas bank accounts, earning interest for Obiang and his progeny, or we would prefer it be used for some small good?

If we want to get serious on Equatorial Guinea, let's get serious. If we're not ready to get serious, then we should smile, take the awful man's money, and channel it towards better things.