According to the logic of the prevailing economic system, corporations must continuously strive to increase profits, expand their markets and outcompete their rivals. For this, their need for raw materials, energy and sinks (for their waste) knows no bounds.
Transnational corporations (TNCs) that dominate the global economy thus attempt to secure – and if possible, monopolize – access to resources, cheap labor and markets, relying on state backing whenever possible. Thus, securing the steady supply of raw materials from resource-rich but underdeveloped countries, at great social and ecological costs, underlies the geopolitical agenda of powerful countries then and now. This is best exemplified by the United States, as the leading champion of the dominant global economic and political order. US imperialism is in the forefront of the plunder of forests, mineral and energy resources that has intensified poverty and social unrest and left irreparable scars on the environment.
Oil is of particular interest to the US and TNCs, making ‘energy security’ in different regions of the world an oft-repeated justification for military offensives and wars. US interests in Gulf oil, for instance, motivated its involvement in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the Iraq-Kuwait war in the 1990s, and its invasion and continued occupation of Iraq since 2003.
The growing importance of Africa’s oil resources has brought the continent into the US spotlight. Despite the global financial and economic crisis, foreign investment inflows to Africa rose to a record high in 2008 at US$88 billion, with China and other emerging powers putting their stakes in the region. Investments have been mainly in natural resources extraction such as mining and oil industries and large-scale land acquisitions.
Nigeria is specifically of high strategic significance because it is Africa’s biggest oil producer, the fifth largest source of US oil
...the energy security
agenda whether
used in justifying the
plunder of oil resources
or the decimation of
forests and farms for
biofuels development in
underdeveloped countries
has enormous implications
for social justice, human
rights, environmental
preservation, and genuine
peace.
imports, and as noted by the State Department rationale for military aid to the country, “disruption of supply from Nigeria would represent a major blow to US oil security strategy.” Preserving energy security meant the dislocation of people, destruction of the environment and social upheaval in the gas and oil-rich Niger Delta.
The lands of the Ogoni and other indigenous people in the Niger Delta have been grabbed from them since the discovery of oil in the area near the end of British colonialism in the 1950s to give way to the oil explorations and oil fields development of Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Julius Berger and other oil corporations. Some 900 million barrels of oil reserves have been identified, with recent estimates putting recoverable crude oil reserves at 34 billion barrels, but the people of the Niger Delta live in extreme poverty and pollution. Nigeria’s economy was distorted by dependence on TNC-controlled oil extraction and abandonment of agricultural production. This bred corruption and caused displacement of communities as well as environmental degradation. The oil TNCs used private security forces and the military to crush opposition from communities, which has demanded just benefits from oil resources and reducing pollution.
It is in this milieu that the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) emerged in 2006. Shell and Chevron have lost some $4 billion annually due to attacks by the MEND and other armed groups. The growing insurgency in the Niger Delta has been used by the US to justify its military buildup in the region and support for counter-insurgency operations of the Nigerian military that displace thousands and kill hundreds of innocent people. But as the fundamental issues of inequity, foreign exploitation and lack of democracy remain, resistance is bound to escalate and US intervention only further inflames the conflict and jeopardizes any hope for peace.
Meanwhile, in Asia, the demand for biofuels is increasing pressure on access to large tracts of forest and farm lands. Oil crises and the drive for energy security are factors that have pushed biofuels into prominence and TNCs are quick to ride the bandwagon especially amid international concern on climate change. The US, Brazil, France, Germany and Sweden are the leaders in biofuel development and consumption. In Southeast Asia, foreign investments are pouring in from China, Japan, India, Brazil and South Korea. Oil and agribusiness TNCs such as Shell, Neste Oil, Greenergy International, BioX, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland are rushing to invest in palm oil for biofuels. Indigenous peoples and upland farmers, such as the Dayak in Indonesia and the Senoi in West Malaysia, who have struggled for decades to save their lands from intrusion of logging and mining companies, are once again under duress.
Malaysia, for example, has planned palm expansion into roughly one million hectares of land held under native customary rights in Sarawak. In Indonesia, the government is under pressure to make more land accessible for timber and palm oil production and sacrifice customary land rights. More than five million indigenous people in West Kalimantan alone are facing displacement due to palm oil expansion. From experience, people’s resistance to such projects is suppressed with violence by state forces. In Indonesia, plantation-related social conflicts reportedly account for over a third of land conflicts, which often involved military interference. Over 350 communities were reportedly engaged in conflicts in 2006 over land access for palm oil development.
A similar trend is happening in Colombia with the government’s bid to make the country the global leader in biodiesel production by growing palm in six million hectares by 2020. Forests are reportedly cleared to accommodate palm plantations, the product of which – biodiesel – is much more costly, local consumers lament. The most deplorable aspect of Colombia’s biodiesel production, however, is the alleged violent displacement of indigenous communities who rely on the forests for their subsistence.
Clearly, the energy security agenda whether used in justifying the plunder of oil resources or the decimation of forests and farms for biofuels development in underdeveloped countries has enormous implications for social justice, human rights, environmental preservation, and genuine peace. It is high time that the people of poor countries assert ‘energy sovereignty’ to counter the energy security mantra of powerful countries like the US.
A few hopeful experiences of people taking control of their energy resources can be seen in Latin America, such as Venezuela’s state control over their oil industry with the view of redistributing benefits to the country’s poor. This has earned the ire of US oil TNCs and of course the US government. Another is Bolivia, which has re-nationalized its oil and gas assets and increased royalties and taxes to the chagrin of foreign oil corporations. These policy changes occurred under Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia in response to demands of the people’s movements in their countries that propelled them to power.
Resisting foreign intrusion and exploitation of natural resources is the people’s right. After all, these resources should be theirs to harness and sustain for true development.
