Remember Shell, Boycott Shell

Multinational Monitor, December 1997

Two years ago this past November, Nigeria executed Ken Saro-Wiwa, environmentalist, democrat and leader of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), along with eight other Ogonis-members of a small ethnic group from a southwest section of the country.

The execution riveted the world's attention and generated unmitigated condemnation. That condemnation was directed not only at the brutal military dictatorship that rules Nigeria, but at Shell Oil, the company that effectively bankrolls the dictatorship.

Shell deserved every bit of criticism it received, and more. There is little doubt that the ruling regime of General Sani Abacha would collapse without the income it receives from Shell and other oil multinationals. Shell's operations in Ogoniland were among the dirtiest in the world; the company's utter disregard for the land, air and water of oil-rich Ogoniland, or for the people who reside there, had in fact been a crucial spur for the founding of MOSOP. Shell would later be shown to have helped transport weapons to the Nigerian military forces that police and terrorize Ogoniland (where they have killed thousands in the 1990s). And, in a completely despicable act, Shell officials offered to intervene with the Nigerian government if he promised to refrain from future criticism of Shell. Saro-Wiwa refused to capitulate to Shell's demands, and was executed shortly thereafter.

Little has changed in Nigeria since Saro-Wiwa's execution. Meanwhile, Shell has cunningly sought to co-opt elements of the Nigerian democratic movement in an effort both to soften criticism of the company and to preserve a role for itself in a post-Abacha Nigeria. Shell has never apologized for it destruction of Ogoniland or for failing to intervene to prevent Saro-Wiwa's execution.

The oil giant has also immersed itself in projects around the world that pose serious risks of polluting pristine environments, endangering the livelihoods and lives of indigenous populations and even of inflaming civil wars. Among these projects: a Chad-Cameroon oil drilling and 600-mile pipeline project [see "Fueling Strife in Chad and Cameroon," Multinational Monitor, May 1997]; an Occidental Petroleum-led plan to drill on land considered sacred by the U'wa people in Colombia [see "The Ten Worst Corporations of 1997," this issue]; and the Camisea gas field in the Peruvian highlands [see "Peru Goes Beneath the Shell," Multinational Monitor, May 1997].

For all of the horror that Shell has wreaked in Nigeria and all of the threats it continues to pose around the globe, the company has suffered only a few bruises to its reputation and almost none to its bottom line.

In the wake of Saro-Wiwa's execution, even the New York Times editorialized against Shell. But U.S. citizen movements failed to rise to the challenge and opportunity of disciplining Shell.

Most groups simply let the moment pass by. Among the national environmental groups, only the Sierra Club maintained an ongoing anti-Shell campaign. Human rights groups, perhaps out of necessity, treated Saro-Wiwa's execution as just one among many atrocities which they had to confront (although Amnesty International has done stellar work in giving Nigeria human rights abuses a relatively high profile). A new organization, Project Underground, also focused on Shell and Nigeria, as did many African and Nigerian advocacy organizations.

Unfortunately, among those groups which did seek to promote democracy and environmental justice in Nigeria, many focused their effort primarily on lobbying for congressional sanctions against Nigeria. Thwarted by apologists for the Nigerian dictatorship such as Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, this has been a failed effort.

By way of contrast, the U.S. movement to promote democracy in Burma-a country with remarkable parallels to Nigeria, notably rule by a ruthless military junta that is dependent on oil income from multinational corporations- has focused almost entirely on state and local efforts. A burgeoning community and student movement has achieved passage in Massachusetts and many cities of selective purchasing laws that forbid governments from buying goods or services from companies that do business in Burma. These laws, plus direct economic pressure, have led numerous companies, including Texaco and Pepsi, to pull out of Burma- even as the movement keeps its eyes on the biggest corporate culprit in Burma, Unocal. Ironically, the local- and state-focused Burma movement has had far more success at the national level-with President Clinton imposing a ban on new investments in Burma-than the Washington, D.C. focuses Nigerian movement has had.

Shell's operations in Nigeria and around the world are too heinous to be forgotten or consigned to the history books. The Burma campaign shows how citizens do not need to wait for the lead of national groups to take on Shell. They need only harness their justifiable outrage and begin picketing their local Shell station.

Boycotts page