Row Over BPs
“Nigerian Journalists ought to start showing some understanding of the need to come out vigorously to support reasoned international position of the Nigerian government … by providing all the clarifying details.”
Ordinarily, the First World, that is the West, doesn’t regard the Third World, that is the so-called developing nations of Africa and Asia, as part of the world. In their view, the raw materials that are plentiful in the Third exist only to supply the needs of the First World. And when any Third World country acts to protects its interest, especially by taking action that affects supplies of any raw materials to the West, the First fumes that the Third World is acting in manners that will damage economy. For example, Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, fumed that Nigeria’s acquisition of British Petroleum interests in Nigeria had made worse the world economy. What’s even more unacceptable, Mrs. Thatcher has elevated the economy of the British Isles as that of the world. And forgetting that Nigeria freed itself from Britain long ago, Britain asked Nigeria to reconsider an action that many a British newspaper has said Nigeria wasn’t capable of taking. The most interesting thing in all of this is the response to the Nigerian action in British newspapers. Nigeria announced its action on a Tuesday, and all the papers in Britain carried the story on the front page or prominently in inside pages on Thursday.
The Daily Express in bold headlines says: HANDS OFF! Angry Carrington into Nigeria over iol. “The Express story described an encounter between General Henry Adefope, Nigeria’s External Affairs Commissioner, and Lord Carrington, the British Foreign Secretary, at a party in Lusaka where the Commonwealth conference took place. Lord Carrington was reported to have said to General Adefope that Nigeria’s action amounted to nothing more than a blackmail. He said further that the acquisition of the shares would “have a very serious effect on relations between Britain and Nigeria. “Lord Carrington knows what he means by the threat. Britain stand to lose in every regard because Nigeria can still hit Britain by acquiring the interests insuch firms as Leyland, the giant United Africa Company, Guinness, ICI (the chemical concern), Taylor Woodrow and others. Britain’s assets in Nigeria total more than N3.5 billion. And that’s quite a chunk. The Daily Sun of the same day carried a cartoon depicting a laughing black man wearing T-shirt emblazoned: “Nigeria’s Take-over of BP.” In the lower left corner of the cartoon was the floating head of Lord Carrington; and in the right corner was the grimacing face of Mrs. Tatcher. The tone of the Guardian editorial on the Nigerian action was not only condescending but annoying. At pains to dismiss the acquisition as juvenile, it called it “niggling diplomacy and crude bullying.”
“In short,” the editorial said illogically, “Nigeria’s nationalization of BP is unlikely to help Nigeria, unlikely physically to incommode Britain. It is difficult for any government to turn the cheek to crude threats; and perhaps doubly difficult for Mrs. Thatcher’s new government.”
All that abuse aside, The Guardian was wrong in its statement that Nigeria’s tough action would not persuade Mrs. Thatcher to be reasonable. Nigeria’s action persuaded Mrs. Thatcher to see the reality of the southern Africa question by agreeing with African countries at the Commonwealth conference that the constitution in place in Zimbabwe must be ratified and that an all-party conference must convened and that new elections, internationally supervised, must take place in Zimbabwe. And if she back tracks on the Lusaka agreements, Nigeria will simply have to show more fangs. Now the British newspapers seem to realise that Nigeria has a lot of sinew behind its warnings. One shouldn’t really blame the newspaper in Britain national interest. They are practicing what Tony Momoh, the editor of Daily Times, calls journalism of commitment. That’s what we really need here in Nigeria. Nigerian journalists ought to start showing some understanding of the need to come out vigorously to support reasoned international positions of the Nigerian government. Where to begin is by explaining to the Nigerian public significance of such actions as the forcible acquisition of firms like the BP.
The game in southern Africa has nothing to do with politics. The whole thing is economics. Zimbabwe has chrome and copper that the West wants. The territory is also a good buffer for South Africa that the west would like to control for a as long as possible. Thus, South Africa is the real jewel of western designs in that part of our continent. The diamonds, gold and uranium deposits in the area are vital to the economic interests of western countries like Britain. What’s more important, Britain’s yearly investment in South Africa is more than N2.5 billion. It’s all right for Britain to protect her interests. What is not all right is for Britain to kill two birds with one stone: oil its South African investment with Nigeria’s crude. Britain may want the world to think that its yearly trade with South Africa is higher than its trade with Nigeria. That’s a lie. Nigeria’s import of British manufactured goods in 1978 totalled more than N1.5 billion, while Britain only took in about N.3 billion of Nigeria’s raw materials. That represents Britain’s highest surplus with any other country, South Africa included. Thus, if Britain marches around the world saying that Nigeria can’t hurt it, it is not telling the truth. To a good extent, Nigeria maintains Britain. And that’s the reality that Mrs. Thatcher now knows since becoming the head of Britain’s government.
The trouble, though, is that Nigerian newspaper, radio and television stations have failed to include these facts in their reporting of the strong measures that the Nigerian government has taken in its foreign policies. More than a few Nigerians are asking questions about the significance of the Nigerian measures against the British Petroleum and are not finding the answers in their newspapers. This is no longer a time for merely announcing an action, it is a time for explaining the action and providing all the clarifying details. Our newspapers are not doing this.
©Daily Time, August 8, 1979
(Pp.32-34)
