A few years ago there was a kerfuffle over UNESCO's plan to create a Life Sciences award named after (and funded by) Equatorial Guinean dictator and all-around-evil-person Teodoro Obiang. Many were worried that the award would undermine UNESCO's credibility make Obiang's position more legitimate. At the time, I felt that denying him an award like this was peanuts compared to the many other ways the world routinely legitimizes his never-ending grip on the country. It seems that UNESCO has finally decided to move forward with the award:
After almost two years of debate and hand-wringing, the executive board of Unesco approved a scientific award on Thursday sponsored by a repressive West African dictator, despite the pleadings of Western nations and a finding by the organization’s lawyers that the prize would violate internal bylaws.In the same NYT article, there are hints that the debate hasn't yet ended. I wish it would - if the Western world wants to show it doesn't much care for Obiang's rule, then we need to hit him where it hurts: his oil revenue.But there was one notable change. While the prize originally bore the name of the sponsor, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has ruled over oil-rich Equatorial Guinea since 1979, the award will now be called the Unesco-Equatorial Guinea International Prize for Research in the Life Sciences.
3 Comments
"then we should hit him where it hurts: his oil revenue"
The implication in that statement is that "the Western world" could change things in Equatorial Guinea by refusing to purchase its oil. On the surface, that sounds great. But it is not realistic, and even if it happened, it still wouldn't work. For two reasons:
1) Doing so would be political suicide for any US president. Even a "green" president like Obama is under intense pressure to "drill, baby, drill" and ends up caving to oil interests. Currently, the biggest producers of Equatorial Guinea's oil are American oil companies (ExxonMobil, Marathon, Hess). Even if, by some alignment of the stars, the US were to pull out of Equatorial Guinea, it still wouldn't cut off Obiang's access to oil money because... 2) China wants it. Brazil wants it. India wants it. Russia, Spain, South Korea want it. And companies from those countries are already present in Equatorial Guinea. China doesn't care about a government's human rights or democracy record. China has stated, and demonstrated, as much. It would welcome the opportunity to take over for the US companies if they pulled out.
So... what can be done? Place pressure on the government of Equatorial Guinea to do better for its people. The US Department of Justice has moved to seize more than $70 million in luxury goods belonging to President Obiang's son and potential successor, believing they were purchased using the proceeds of corruption. The French government has taken similar actions. A lawsuit against members of Obiang's family and government is pending in Spain.
Ultimately, was the UNESCO prize the end of the world? No, of course not. But Obiang is intent on convincing the world that he is a benevolent leader trying to do right by his people, while he and his government live extravagant lives of luxury around the world, using money that could and should be used to improve the lives of ordinary Equatoguineans. Having a UNESCO prize with his name on it would have legitimized his presidency in the eyes of some. The fact that 33 UNESCO delegates approved the prize (with his name removed) suggests that his public relations effort is already realizing some success. The people of Equatorial Guinea are the losers.
But cutting off the West's consumption of the country's oil won't help them either, even if doing so were possible.
Hi Joe, nnThanks for the comment. You're absolutely right - it's not a realistic option. I didn't make the comment with any expectation that it would be the course that oil-hungry countries would ever make, but instead to illustrate just how minor the UNESCO conflict really was relative to the sort of (drastic) action that would be required to put a dent in this guy. nnYes, the DoJ and others have been making some efforts to curb some of the misdeeds of Obiang's family, but I fail to see how this is ever going to convince Obiang to start spending money on his own people - he didn't really do it before the oil came in, and has little incentive to do it now. Denying him the ability to spend the money extravagantly doesn't mean his next best alternative for him is to start developing his country. We can make life more uncomfortable for Obiang and his crew this way, but never to the point where he will A) Start doing nice things or B) step down or be overthrown. nnConcerning legitimacy, I think it's highly, highly unlikely that an UN award is going to make a lick of difference here - preferences are already firmly set. The countries which supported the award were overwhelmingly African, oil-rich or BRIC, and so are (reasonably) quite keen on thwarting a heavy-handed attempt by developed Western democracies to deliver a symbolic slap to one of their own.nnEither way, the people of the EG will lose - I fail to see how they lose more when some of that money goes into a research award.
I would like to disagree : in general dictators and their opposition do care about the legitimacy and respect the tyrant gets from the "legitimate leader community". Otherwise they would not bother to create this kind of prices. It is not a shot at the heart of dictatorship (what cutting off revenue should be), but it really does hit where it hurts.
Dictators do crave respectability, even often bother organizing mock elections to this purpose. They should only get respectability AFTER they transferred power (not a promise of power). While an oil boycott is difficult to organize, not giving them respect does not cost anything. Just hold on ad visit Myanmar AFTER the power transfer instead of before helps.