Ogoni People

Adding to issue was the need to improve the lives of the Ogoni people by giving them jobs, an education, and cleaning up the region. Although “oil deposits in Nigeria’s Niger Delta generate 80 percent of current government revenues” (Weeks 599), “oil revenues have improved the lives of few Nigerians: Some 70 percent of the country’s 155 million citizens live in poverty, two-thirds lack access to basic sanitation and life expectancy is less than 48 years” (Weeks 600). The final proposal that promised education and job training for all people in the region from Shell and the government was hopeful in that the Ogoni would now have a form of income, and it would be a start to helping them get out of poverty. “Payments toward the Ogoni people will

be sent directly to citizens and/or projects, leaving Ogoni leadership out of decision making at this time” (“Messages”). It also stated that Shell would fund the clean-up of the region, which is another huge step in trying to re-normalize their lives and homes, because “A local resistance movement developed in 1990 among the Ogoni people, …who contended that oil production in their homeland was causing massive environmental damage but that local communities were not receiving any economic benefits” (Weeks 611). Overall, the proposal, suggested by the IMF, was basically geared towards helping the Ogoni people. In their private messages, the IMF can be seen reaching out and helping the Ogoni by making compromises with the other groups:
The International Monetary Fund is currently working within our means to support the Ogoni people.
The International Monetary Fund is looking to create stability in the area to allow for more international investment. Are you [the military] willing to work with the government and Ogoni people to keep the area peaceful?
We are willing to give you [the government] 60 [million] as long as you reinvest in the Ogoni people and work to keep peace in the region. What percent of our investment are you willing to give towards the Ogoni people and their needs? (“Messages”)
The impact the IMF had on these groups clearly allowed for change and compromise to be made in order to prevent more damage to the homes of the Ogoni, and for the Ogoni people to receive more benefits that would improve their lives.

I think the simulation also accurately portrayed how minor groups in Nigeria were ignored, like the HRW, CWG, and Greenpeace. However, I’m unsure as to why the CWG had a vote in the final proposal. There were also some issues that the simulation ignored altogether: They didn’t include foreign country’s involvement or investments in the oil production. I’m sure the United States pushed our way in somehow, and surrounding countries of Nigeria, specifically Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea, were involved as the oil spills affected them, as well. Another thing was that groups that had a lot of actions taken against them didn’t actually end up paying for them/experiencing consequences. They were basically just threats that never went on to something more significant. They also decided not to include the fact that there are other major oil companies working in the region, such as Royal Dutch Shell and Eni (“Nigeria: Hundreds of Oil Spills Continue to Blight Niger Delta”). I do think, however, that if these aspects we considered in the simulation, it would have made everything a lot more

complicated.

Power is widely used all the time throughout the simulation. All of the groups have power to a certain degree, and some use it more and better than others. A way to work out rationally the best common solution to a common problem, otherwise known as the “making of a common decision for a group of people” (Shively 3), by another group of people, is the first face of power. “The use of power by…a group of people to affect the behavior of another…group of people” (Shively 3), which is the ability to get someone to do what you want, by whatever means, is the second face of power. Politics always involves this exercise of power.
One way in which the first face of power was used was when the military decided to protect Shell Oil.

Not only did Shell agree to this, but they were the ones who initiated the compromise and asked for our protection. The second way the first face of power was used was when the IMF agreed to give the government $60 million in investments for infrastructure if Shell invests $35 million. This took a little negotiation: “In order for your company to expand in the region, you must contribute to improving the regions infrastructure. How much are you willing to give?” (“Messages”). Now, these actions taken by both examples are choices made by each group, but the fact of the matter is that these weren’t purely choices – these actions were “needed by society as a whole or at least by some politically significant figures” (Shively

9).
Two ways in which the second face of power was used was when the military threatened a coup against the government, and when Greenpeace issued a report criticizing Shell Oil, with the hope of taking advantage and therefore getting what they want from the company. At first, we issued a report criticizing the government’s actions – or rather, inactions – after reading a different report on a major oil spill. They did not comment on the issue, therefore sending the message that they refuse to take any action on the matter, which is seen as irresponsible to the people of Nigeria. We “released a signed public statement of dissatisfaction with government policies in the Delta region, accusing the government of contributing to tensions due to policy mistakes” (“Actions”), which basically was our effort in trying to prevent environmental damage and more pollution, that could have been stopped in the government had decided to do something about it in the first place. We then threatened them with a coup, in which we were “prepared to remove the government and take control of the country unless a policy shift occurs” (“Actions”). All we wanted was to have a policy change, and I’m still not sure why the simulation made it so the coup was foiled and the government didn’t take any action. It does seem like real life, though – the government ignoring the most important issues of the country.
For the second way that the second face of power was used, Greenpeace criticized Shell Oil for a good reason – their organization is based on reducing climate change, and Shell essentially is the total opposite of that. Greenpeace blackmailed Shell with this threat: “We're not looking to destroy your reputation but if you don't make progress towards cleaning the environment, we will have no choice but to release a negative statement towards your organization” (“Messages”). The report “mobilized an environmentalist boycott against Shell, leading to a drop in stock prices and criticism in the international media” (“Actions”), and Shell eventually “announced plans to cooperate with Greenpeace to discuss environmentally friendly changes to oil exploitation policies” (“Actions”). This is a prime example of how the second face of power was used to control another group.