The African drill

Where Money Talks

President Bush's tour raises more oil-related questions

Petrodollars are commonplace but I had not heard of a "petro-state" until George W. Bush's tour of five African countries, the first by an American president since Bill Clinton's in 1998.

Suggesting that oil motivated the journey, the Baltimore-based Catholic Relief Services urged the United States to demand "respect for human rights, the promotion of good governance and democracy, and the transparent, fair and accountable management of oil revenues" in dealing with petro-states.

But Bush was outraged when an African journalist also asked if he was making the trip to reduce US dependence on Saudi oil. "Well, (there are) conspiracy theorists about everywhere, I guess," he exclaimed. "That's one of the most amazing conspiracies I've heard!"

As an oilman himself, and the son of another president who became an oil millionaire, Bush should not have been so surprised. His vice-president, Dick Cheney, is also an oilman whose former company is involved in Iraq's reconstruction.

Obviously, too, the president should heed what the State Department's Africa expert says. "We are looking at a 2005 estimate that 20 per cent of our oil imports will be coming from Africa, and that's also going to grow rapidly and markedly in the years after 2005" according to Walter Kansteiner, assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

He added, "Our children and our grandchildren are much more likely to have serious business, financial, political, commercial links to Africa."

Why then this coyness? Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's defence secretary, claimed only the other day that the US had "no vital interests" in Africa.

Actually, Bush has demonstrated considerable sensitivity to Africa from the start, meeting no fewer than 22 African heads of state in the White House during his first two years in office. Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo had the honour of being received twice.

Nigeria is sub-Saharan Africa's biggest petro-state, and a major supplier to American refineries of premium crude that is high in gasoline content. Nigeria, Angola, Libya, Algeria and Egypt account for 85 per cent of the continent's output.

No one could blame Bush for seeking to strengthen this connection. The US needs 17 million barrels of oil every day. Domestic sources provide only 2 per cent of the oil and 3 per cent of the gas that Americans consume.

"Oil is our civilisation," James Baker, then secretary of state, told Inder Gujral in 1991. "We will never permit any demon to sit on it!" Admiral William Crowe, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, bluntly declared during the first Iraq war that the US would not have bothered defending Kuwait if it had exported only bananas.

Saudi Arabia, which accounts for 25 per cent of US imports, is regarded less favourably nowadays. Some Nine-Eleven hijackers were Saudi. Many highly placed Saudis are suspected of financing al-Qaeda. The autocratic Wahabi kingdom is thought to be sitting on a time bomb. It is therefore natural that America's chief executive should look for alternative sources of oil.

Africa, with proven reserves of 75.4 billion barrels, or 7 per cent of the global stock, and an oil belt stretching from Angola to the island republic of Sao Tome and Principe, is the obvious choice. Shipment time to the US would be halved.

But Africa is also plagued with problems that must be resolved if it is to emerge as a safe and steady supplier. Hence the emphasis on tackling social and political challenges, and Bush's passionately evangelical humanitarian agenda.

The AIDS pandemic must be controlled. Africa's "failed states" must be saved from the clutches of terrorist outfits. Ethnic cleansing must end. Ruthless dictators like Liberia's Charles Taylor must be removed. Education, health, housing, trade and investment must be improved to create economic stability that, in turn, will nourish strong and stable political regimes.

Above all, sub-Saharan Africa's oil industry must be protected from unscrupulous exploitation, so that earnings of more than $200 billion can serve public welfare. In Angola, these funds have financed civil wars for three decades.

In Nigeria they have sustained one military dictator after another. The Niger Delta is a hotbed of warring factions, rife with sabotage and kidnappings, because of the massive oil finds there. About 25 per cent of oil revenues simply disappear.

Corrupt African regimes are not only to blame. The fault also lies with global consortiums, which pay huge under-the-table subsidies to crooked politicians. The CRS is not alone in demanding ethical oil operations. The Association of Episcopal Conference of the Region of Central Africa blames "high illiteracy, mortality and malnutrition rates" on "complicity" between oil giants and venal rulers.

Organisations like Global Witness and Transparency International want more transparency in dealings between multinationals and African governments. They are asking corporations to publish how much they pay and to whom. The millions of dollars that impoverished landlocked Chad hopes to earn from its recent contract with Exxo Mobil, for instance, could make all the difference to the human condition.

So far, the US has been indifferent to the demand for transparency. Bush now has a chance of changing that and helping millions of people. But he cannot do so if he persists in denying an interest in African oil.

The generous funds he has promised to fight AIDS, combat terrorism and promote development in general would enjoy a much better chance of success if he comes clean and acknowledges that furthering America's basic and perfectly legitimate interest in African oil would also help millions of suffering Africans.