Skip to main content

Shell pays off the Ogoni, but must still settle with history

Jeff Sparrow [of Overland] writing on Crikey on Shell's settlement with the Ogoni people of Africa:

“If you call off the campaign, maybe we can do something for your brother.”

That was what Brian Anderson, the then managing director of Shell, was said to have told Ken Saro-Wiwa’s relatives, shortly before the Ogoni activist was executed by the Nigerian dictatorship in November 1995.

The claims of complicity by the oil company in the deaths of Saro-Wiwa and his companions were to be tested in a New York court. Instead, Shell has offered a settlement of $US15.5 million: “a humanitarian gesture”, it says.

Now, you do not often hear “multinational oil company” and “humantarianism” in the same sentence, and in that respect the payout represents a triumph for Saro-Wiwa’s family. His son, Ken Wiwa, explained: “It will provide some kind of psychological relief to have those who they feel were responsible for the violations of human rights, being held accountable for their roles in those human rights violations.”

Of course, the settlement, which explicitly avoids any acknowledgment of guilt, means that the allegations against Shell won’t be ventilated. The lawsuit claimed that company officials provided Nigerian police with weapons, boats and other equipment, took part in their operations and even encouraged them to shoot at protestors demonstrating at pipeline constructions. None of that will be investigated.

Further, the payout goes only to the families of the executed men, not to the Ogoni people more generally. The sum involved is, in any case, a pittance, especially given the huge revenues generated by the Nigerian oil fields and the gross devastation Shell’s operations have caused."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...