Rivers Under Siege: Global Emergency and Coordinated Conspiracy

In 1933, Herman Josef Abs, who served as a bank manager under the Nazis, suggested reshaping global political dynamics. Prior to this era, academics generally held the view that a monarch possessed supreme power over their subjects and were often called sovereigns. However, following the Enlightenment during the Renaissance, thinkers started contesting this notion and argued for state sovereignty instead. As debates raged about whether sovereignty belonged with the monarchy or the state, tensions escalated, resulting in mistrust, disputes, and aggression. The situation demanded emergency measures; both sides adopted aggressive tactics aimed at intimidating and subduing rivals into submission and allegiance.

During the subsequent power struggle, those who were once merely subjects of the monarchy and state became more resilient and began to be acknowledged as the ultimate rulers. According to modern political thought, these individuals hold sovereignty and possess the ability to decide upon and ratify legitimate leadership.

Notably, Hermann Abs served as the financier for both Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. The Abs proposal posits that within this framework, sovereignty does not lie with the monarchy, the state, or the populace, but rather with corporations—organized commercial entities motivated by profit. Progress here became a term synonymous with exploitation and resource management.

In 1886, the United African Company was granted a Royal Charter, providing legal support to George Taubman Goldie from the British monarchy. This occurred two years after Otto von Bismarck of Germany organized a conference among European countries during their race for control over Africa. Notably, no representatives from African nations were present at this meeting, which focused on forcefully acquiring territories and resources across the continent.

In 1958, Mr. Abs took the position of Chairman at Deutsche Bank with the aim of asserting corporate authority over both governmental and public interests—a kind of charter designed specifically for private enterprise akin to the Magna Carta but for businesses instead. He contended that such an instrument would be essential for specialized international tribunals capable of safeguarding investments and enterprises from political interference as well as actions taken by domestic bodies within various countries. This business-oriented Magna Carta intended to elevate private financial ventures above national governments. Under these circumstances, our world comprises dual realms: one governed by states and another dominated by corporations. These spheres converge whenever disputes arise between them before investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) forums during conflicts or misunderstandings.

In September 1964, in Tokyo, Ja­pan, the proposal resurfaced during the 19th annual conference of World Bank. The major agenda of the con­ference was to protect, promote, and drive interests of corporations to make profits above the control of states by establishing the Investor/ State Dispute Settlement ISDS sys­tem worldwide. Out of the 103 coun­tries and delegates that attended the meeting, 21 developing countries with huge mineral resources and rare earth metals vehemently opposed the motion, but a voice vote was used by the presiding officer to ram the resolu­tion through in 30 seconds. The impli­cation of this event on the global stage is now the subject of controversy in Nigeria and Rivers state in particular.

This controversy and debate triggered by global oil politics is the realisation that oil has become the new currency of power and its pre­dicament on oil bearing communities like Rivers was first recorded in 1887 when King Jaja of Opobo was deposed as a monarch and sent into a forced exile by the British authorities for non compliance with terms of “an agreement “ with the British Monar­chy. After all, as we say now is Rivers state, agreement is agreement. The subject of controversy and disagree­ment between King Jaja of Opobo and the British Monarchy was access to palm oil, a major driver of the indus­trial revolution in Great Britain after the abolition of slave trade.

Later actions by major oil companies sparked demonstrations in developing nations where hydrocarbons were extracted, leading to environmental damage and threats to public health. In August 1958, communities from what was then known as the Oil Rivers Protectorate—an old term referring to today’s Niger Delta region—voiced concerns about minority worries in Nigeria during hearings before the Willink Commission of Inquiry. These apprehensions later became evident in Rivers State, setting the stage for protests and declarations in January 1990 against the operations of Shell Petroleum Development Company in Port Harcourt. This marked them as unwelcome entities within Ogoniland. Such opposition ran counter to the goals outlined in the business magna carta suggested by Abs in 1933. The conflict between the Ogoni people and these multinational firms over control of local resources culminated with the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and nine fellow activists under controversial circumstances following a trial endorsed by General Sani Abacha's military government in Nigeria.

From the ousting of King Jaja Opobo in the colonial Oil Rivers Protectorate in 1887 until now, little has altered except that indigenous elite have taken the place once occupied by external imperial forces and outlaws. The declaration of a state of emergency in 1993 and the massacre of more than 50,000 individuals in Ogoniland serve as evidence that control now hinges upon oil rather than human life; here, natural resources like minerals hold greater value compared to actual lives within Rivers State. The unbridled extraction of petroleum and natural gas—considered vital lifelines akin to blood and breath in River State’s terrain—is set to persist as an overwhelming ecological issue deeply troubling to those residing in this region. A report published by UNEP in 2011 regarding conditions in Ogoniland explicitly indicated that reversing the harm caused by major oil corporations could require upwards of three decades, urging both Shell Petroleum and the Nigerian administration to undertake necessary cleanup efforts.

Across Nigeria and beyond, the fight over managing, acquiring, and overseeing resources like hydrocarbons, valuable metals, and other scarce minerals has proven disastrous. Numerous emerging nations stand criticized for prioritizing economic gains over environmental concerns and people’s safety. Law enforcement bodies are often dispatched to safeguard petroleum installations owned by major oil firms with little heed paid to civil liberties. These enterprises increasingly see themselves as superior to governmental authorities, yet those who aid them will eventually face scrutiny through various means.

In the African subregion, Patrice Lumumba from Congo was reportedly assassinated by the CIA to secure unrestricted access to his nation’s abundant natural resources. Similarly, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi of Libya met a tragic end under similar circumstances. Numerous global conflicts, especially those occurring in developing nations, stem from disputes over resource management and control of minerals. Many brutal confrontations across Asian and African developing countries can be traced back to entrenched commercial interests held by companies backed by legal systems, wherein Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions have often been subtly included in fine print within bilateral or multilateral trade agreements, acting effectively as an indemnity policy for international investments and growth.

With the discovery of oil by the Chi­nese in 600 BC, its subsequent explo­ration by Col. Drake in Pennsylvania, United States, in 1859, the story had been that of tragedy for the people of the catchment area of oil production and Eldorado for the investors and traders. From the seven oil sisters of Mobile, Chevron, Texaco, etc., the story hasn’t changed as oil remains the major subject of oppression, vi­olent conflicts, espionage, and death by vested business interests using state apparatus as a veritable tool in connivance. In most cases, posterity has always held them to account in the wee hours of life.

Marcel David Reich, popularly known as Marc Rich, the acclaimed oil king of Glencore and the untouch­able US citizen, lived as a fugitive for decades in a remote village of Zug, Switzerland hiding from the U S law enforcement authorities until his death in 2013 after President Bill Clinton had granted him a presiden­tial pardon. Here in Rivers state, it is hoped that other commodity traders and agents of oil skulduggery would not escape justice. The brazen acts of impunity to subvert the cause of jus­tice and brigandage will also not go unpunished.

*Hon. Mikko was previously a member of the House of Representatives.

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).