Wikileaks: Royal Dutch Shell Infiltrates Nigerian Government (guardian.co.uk)

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathnomalous
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government Shell
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around leaked diplomatic cables suggesting that Royal Dutch Shell has infiltrated the Nigerian government, raising questions about corporate influence in politics, the reliability of intelligence, and historical context regarding Shell's operations in Nigeria. Participants explore implications of these claims, the responses from Nigerian officials, and the broader issues of trust in information sources.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that Shell allegedly claimed to have inserted staff into Nigerian ministries, suggesting extensive access to government operations.
  • Others note the Nigerian government's strong denial of these claims, with officials asserting that Shell does not control the government.
  • One participant describes the situation as a "he said, she said" scenario, emphasizing the unreliability of unfiltered intelligence.
  • Another participant draws parallels to past controversies involving Shell, referencing a legal settlement related to human rights abuses in the Niger Delta.
  • Concerns are raised about the trustworthiness of information, with participants questioning the motives behind statements from both Shell and Nigerian officials.
  • Some argue that having access to information does not equate to control over the government, suggesting that similar dynamics may exist in other countries.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the validity of the claims regarding Shell's influence or the reliability of the information presented. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing perspectives on the implications of the leaked cables.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of the situation, including the potential for misinterpretation of intelligence and the historical context of Shell's operations in Nigeria. There are also concerns about the motivations behind public statements from both Shell and Nigerian officials.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in corporate ethics, political influence, international relations, and historical controversies surrounding multinational corporations may find this discussion relevant.

Mathnomalous
Messages
83
Reaction score
5
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying
The Guardian said:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

70% of Nigerians who live below the poverty line will be none too happy to read about this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It also goes on to say

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."
 
This is a classic "he said, she said" situation, would you not agree?

This is the one I liked the most:
The Guardian said:
The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Diplomatic justice? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Mathnomalous said:
This is a classic "he said, she said" situation, would you not agree?

I think it is a classic example of unfiltered intelligence, which is notoriously unreliable, but often inflammatory.

Note that we attacked Iraq, in the end, because of what Saddam wanted his neighbors to think. We couldn't tell the difference between his claims, and fact.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I think it is a classic example of unfiltered intelligence, which is notoriously unreliable, but often inflammatory.

You are correct here. But let us go back in time and revisit another RDS controversy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/business/global/09shell.html?ref=global

NY Times said:
Royal Dutch Shell, the big oil company, agreed to pay $15.5 million to settle a case accusing it of taking part in human rights abuses in the Niger Delta in the early 1990s, a striking sum given that the company has denied any wrongdoing.

The announcement caps a protracted legal battle that began shortly after the death of the Nigerian activist Ken Saro-Wiwa in 1995. Mr. Saro-Wiwa, Shell’s most prominent critic at the time in Nigeria, was hanged by that country’s military regime after protesting the company’s environmental practices in the oil-rich delta, especially in his native Ogoni region.

Ten plaintiffs, including the son of Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his brother, accused Shell of seeking the aid of the former Nigerian regime to silence the critic, as well as paying soldiers who had carried out human rights abuses in the impoverished region where it operated.

Go back to the comment by the RDS Nigeria top executive:

The Guardian said:
The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

Interesting. How can it be verified that Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, is not in Shell's payroll?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I think it is a classic example of unfiltered intelligence, which is notoriously unreliable, but often inflammatory.

Note that we attacked Iraq, in the end, because of what Saddam wanted his neighbors to think. We couldn't tell the difference between his claims, and fact.

Ivan, the Avatar change was good for you - I've been in agreement with you all day long.
 
Mathnomalous said:
Interesting. How can it be verified that Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, is not in Shell's payroll?

I think Greg covered that...
"It's becoming hard to trust anyone these days "
 
Ivan Seeking said:
It also goes on to say

having access to information, and having control of the government are two different things. i believe the same sort of thing goes on in our own government, it's just a question of extent.
 

Similar threads

News Wikileaks creates diplomatic crisis
  • · Replies 301 ·
11
Replies
301
Views
34K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K