Hoy, 10 de mayo del 2013, como en otras ocasiones, el auto-denominado “primer deportista,” “primer magistrado,” “hijo predilecto,” “alcalde honorifico,” “único magnánimo,” y sus acolitos, abrirán  la campaña electoral.

Durante los próximos catorce días por aquí se verán sombras que se esconderán bajo la bandera de la infamia y una vez más, harán llover promesas sin cumplir a unos ciudadanos aplacados  y hartos hasta las narices de ser atropellados, engañados, saqueados, violados y adulterados.

He pasado mucho tiempo—como muchísimos ecuatoguineanos—aferrado a las garras del miedo, sumergido entre la bruma del silencio, respirando e ingiriendo los tóxicos exabruptos del mando dictatorial; mientras  cada día, las realidades cotidianas (Muertes, robos, hambre, enfermedades, corrupción, detenciones arbitrarias…etc.) me agrietan  el alma.

Un año más pasarán a engañarnos y bordearan el parlamento y abrirán un nuevo senado y harán que sobre la columna vertebral del estado desplome todos los gastos de unos inoperantes incapaces de mantenerse solos de pie. Sobre la columna vertebral del estado caerán todos los gastos de unas entidades sin sentido en un sistema dictatorial donde sólo un hombre y su familia
mantienen y conducen sin ritmo  y a su antojo el timón de todo un estado. ¡Qué vergüenza!

Trabajadores,  alumnado y ciudadanos de todas las capas sociales se colocarán bajo sol,  y si llueve, bajo lluvia. Sin paraguas ni agua que les ayude a apaciguar la sed de libertad y de justica que necesita su organismo. En el estadio estarán hombres y mujeres  que asistirán por coacción y miedo a perder sus trabajos; estudiantes pávidos por perder su derecho a recibir una educación endémica. Porque si queremos ser serios y objetivos, tendríamos que estar de acuerdo con que la educación y la sanidad de aquí son epidémicos.

Harto de observar con pasividad, desde otra óptica, cansado de este silencio abrumador, sello mi compromiso de lanzar mis gritos a los cuatro vientos bajo el Pseudónimo “Tinieblas” porque entenderán que en un sistema dictatorial, los que quisieran hablar criticando la situación inhumana de opresión, son los primeros caldos de cultivo. Guinea  es un país joven, con historia joven, pero
desgraciadamente aquí nada es verdad. Todo es mentira.

No es cierto que aquí haya un estado de derecho.

No es cierto que aquí haya un parlamento que decida y al que se le escuche.

No es cierto que aquí haya opositores capaces de luchar en igualdad de condiciones con el Primer Ecuatoguineano.

No es cierto que en el Nuevo senado vayan a tener funciones serias.

No es cierto que la campaña y las elecciones se celebren en un clima democrático, libre, o transparente.
Todo es mentira.

Y las ansias de aparentar y recrear sistemas democráticos caducos y corruptos tienen una explicación: La torpe necesidad de aparentar y querer distraer al mundo internacional de lo mal que se hacen las cosas y así, perpetuarse en el poder.

Todo es mentira. En el estadio lloverán mentiras y engaños. Pues queramos o no, se escribe una nueva página de mentiras en la historia de Guinea Ecuatorial.

Malabo a 10 de mayo de 2013

As noted in a joint statement from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and EG Justice, there are still numerous human rights violations being committed in the lead-up to the legislative elections. A snapshot of Equatorial Guinea in 2013 reveals:

• Members of opposing political parties are still being harassed, intimidated, and subjected to arbitrary detention.
• Media outlets are state-owned and/or operated by government officials; thus depriving critics the opportunity to reach the masses. (Equatorial Guinea remains one of the lowest-ranked countries in the world for press freedom.)
• Election observers will be heavily restricted.

On top of all these issues, the political process continues to be biased toward the ruling political party, PDGE. Plácido Micó, Secretary-General of CPDS, one of two political parties opposing the PDGE, stated in a recent interview that “as little as two days before the start of the political campaign, the opposition parties had not received the state-sponsored funding that allows them to participate in election campaigning. Yet, the PDGE had containers full of campaign materials, worth almost 10 million USD, at its disposal.” Without an even playing field, the voters in Equatorial Guinea are unable to make an informed choice at the ballot box.

Furthermore, the body in charge of the vote and subsequent tally (the National Electoral Commission), is headed by Clemente Engonga, a top PDGE official and First Deputy Prime Minister. Without a professional, non-partisan electoral commission, fair elections in Equatorial Guinea are impossible.

Instead of blanket assertions about reforms, President Obiang needs to identify the specific “improvements” his government has introduced and highlight how these represent a departure from the past. The ability to handpick and appoint 15 members of the newly established Senate (the focus of the upcoming elections) cements the system of nepotism that has characterized his regime, rather than signifying an improvement. His new constitutionally increased power to control the judiciary further entrenches the status quo, rather than improving that important state institution or the people’s faith in it. What is clear, however, is that whatever improvements President Obiang was referring to are most likely not in the best interests of the people of Equatorial Guinea.

Why is this Index important? The simplest reason is that a free press is linked to the freedom of expression – the ability to freely speak one’s mind – a basic human right guaranteed by numerous human rights instruments and treaties. The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, which Equatorial Guinea has signed and ratified, is an example of one of these instruments. The body entrusted with ensuring the protections found in the African Charter considers the freedom of expression an “inherent quality of a democratic and open society. It is the right of every member of civil society to be interested in and concerned about public affairs.” In this regard, the freedom of expression, and with it, press freedom, goes hand-in hand with government transparency; independence enables a press to investigate and report on government performance, allowing the public to become aware of corrupt public officials and be a more informed electorate. Government transparency enables citizens to participate in rational public debate and make informed decisions regarding their private lives. This awareness can lead to reforms, since the electorate will be better able to hold corrupt government officials accountable for their actions when visiting the ballot box.

Press freedom is also important so that the international community has a window into the day-to-day realities of government corruption in a particular country. Without a free press, government corruption can go undocumented. Companies looking to invest internationally should have a complete picture of the operating environments of potential locations before committing their resources, allowing them the chance to invest their dollars in transparent and accountable countries and to avoid feeding the cycle of corruption.

Such is the problem in Equatorial Guinea, where the government tries to attract foreign investors by touting its “positive acts” without acknowledging the bad, or allowing an independent press to investigate and report on actual conditions. For example, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, the Second Vice President and son of President Obiang, was recently featured on Equatorial Guinea’s official government website for sponsoring a campaign to distribute over one million toys to the children of Equatorial Guinea. What is not found on the website, however, is any reference to the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit that aims to seize more than $70 million of assets acquired using funds acquired from alleged money laundering in the United States, or to the French seizure of his property as part of its corruption investigation. In another instance, the government advertised Equatorial Guinea’s high GDP and claimed it is Africa’s top destination for foreign private investment. Yet, the government failed to mention that the same report claims that 75% of the population sees no benefits from the oil economy, and access to information about job openings is not easy to obtain. The lack of government transparency in Equatorial Guinea thus permeates not only the governance aspect of its citizens’ lives, but also their ability to earn a living and provide for their families.

Unfortunately, no truly independent and regularly produced media exists in Equatorial Guinea. The country’s TV and radio stations are owned or controlled by members of the Obiang family or its close associates, and the editor of the newspaper El Lector is an employee of the Ministry of Information. It is impossible, therefore, for citizens to turn to the press for reliable information about government performance.

The World Press Freedom Index highlights just one symptom of the ongoing corruption in Equatorial Guinea’s government. However, it is concerning because the drop in the country’s ranking indicates no progress has been made despite government claims to the contrary. The government of Equatorial Guinea needs to be held accountable for its continuous disregard of this basic human right.

Cross posted with permission from the ONE Campaign Blog.

Reason and good sense do not always prevail. On March 8, 2012, UNESCO’s executive board voted 33-18 (with six abstentions) to award a renamed prize sponsored by President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea. The divisive vote marked the first time in UNESCO’s history that a prize was approved without consensus. Proponents voted in favor of the prize despite ongoing concerns over the source of the money provided to UNESCO to fund it. Discrepancies in the prize’s funding led UNESCO’s legal adviser to declare the prize to be “no longer implementable” in a legal opinion issued just days before the final vote. The prize’s original statute identifies a foundation bearing President Obiang’s name as the donor; in February, a representative of the Equatoguinean government provided evidence that the money for the prize instead originated from the state treasury, raising concerns that the government and President Obiang do not make a clear distinction between public and private funds.

President Obiang spent more than three years trying to persuade UNESCO to award the prize, which was suspended in October 2010 over concerns about President Obiang’s human rights record and the source of the prize’s funding. ONE Blog readers may recall that President Obiang repeatedly asked UNESCO to move forward with the prize, but with no success thanks to an unprecedented global outcry by Africans, civil society organizations, health professionals, ONE members and many others.

Feeling the heat, President Obiang offered to remove his name from the prize. UNESCO’s Executive Board agreed to the change, and the approved prize carries the name of Equatorial Guinea rather than that of President Obiang.

UNESCO’s decision to award the renamed prize is disappointing given the serious concerns over the prize’s funding. Perhaps more troubling, however, is President Obiang’s latest attempt to misuse UNESCO to further his own interests. This time, he has appointed his son Teodoro Nguema (“Teodorin”) to a post at UNESCO in a thinly veiled effort to provide him with diplomatic immunity that could shield him from an ongoing investigation into corruption and money laundering in France.

Teodorin, Equatorial Guinea’s Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, has acquired a reputation for spending big and living large. He has accumulated multi-million mansions around the globe, including in France, South Africa, and the United States. He has a penchant for fast cars and designer clothes. He once commissioned plans for a $380 million “super-yacht,” although it was never constructed, possibly due to the intense media scrutiny that inevitably occurred when the plans were leaked to the public. Teodorín reportedly stated to US Embassy officials in Equatorial Guinea: “I’ve been very lucky in business, and I like to live well.”

Authorities in France and the United States have apparently decided that Teodorin’s success in business is not due to luck. Both countries have accused him of money laundering and corruption, and moved to seize assets they claim were purchased with illicit funds. In the past six months, French police have twice raided a Paris residence used by Teodorin and seized luxury items reportedly valued at more than 45 million Euros, and the US Department of Justice has filed motions to seize more than $70 million in luxury assets belonging to Teodorin.

On March 27, it was revealed that French judges have requested an international arrest warrant for Teodorin on charges of suspected money laundering and fraud. The Equatoguinean government has accused the French government of trying “to provoke an internal destabilization” inside Equatorial Guinea.

The fate of the money laundering and corruption case against Teodorin in France may very well rest in the hands of the French Foreign Ministry, which has the authority to deny Teodorin the diplomatic visa necessary to enjoy diplomatic immunity in France. If the visa is issued, it could derail the French investigation against Teodorin. To pressure the Foreign Ministry to refuse Teodorin the diplomatic visa, Sherpa, a Paris-based NGO, has launched an online petition.

The recent misuses of UNESCO by the Obiangs highlight the important need for strong international transparency rules. Rules like Cardin-Lugar, or similar rules that have been proposed in the EU, can help shed light on opaque governments and the amounts of money they receive from the oil, gas, and mining industries. By giving ordinary people the information necessary to hold their governments accountable, these rules can help prevent government officials from using public money to finance extravagant lifestyles and self-aggrandizing prizes.

In 2010, President Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea told visiting President Lula da Silva that, “For us, the Republic of Brazil is a country that serves as a reference development model.” Brazil has become a model for many developing countries as it continues to grow in economic and political power. It has become a leader in south-south relations, helping developing countries gain a more powerful voice in the international community.

Yet Brazil showed questionable judgment in actively supporting a UNESCO prize sponsored and funded by President Obiang in an apparent effort to strengthen its relations with his regime, which has accumulated a long list of human rights violations and corruption in the course of its 32 years in power.  On March 8, UNESCO’s Executive Board approved the prize, and Brazil was among the countries that supported it. Given Obiang’s  dismal human rights record, a global campaign of Equatoguineans, civil society organizations, Nobel Laureates, Latin American literary figures, Cano Prize winners, press freedom groups, scientists and public health professionals, and others had urged UNESCO to abolish the prize.

Controversy over the prize led UNESCO to suspend it in October 2010 and to reaffirm that suspension twice the following year. Then, in February 2012, Brazil joined forces with Cuba and Zimbabwe to make an internal push at UNESCO to reinstate the prize. In doing so, Brazil dismissed concerns about Obiang’s human rights record as well as concerns that the $3 million Obiang gave to UNESCO might be tainted by corruption.

According to the prize’s original statute, the prize was to be funded by President Obiang’s foundation, but in February 2012 the government of Equatorial Guinea revealed that the money for the prize had actually been drawn from the public treasury, raising concerns that President Obiang was blurring the distinction between private and public funds. Given the uncertainty surrounding the source of the money, UNESCO’s legal office stated that the prize could no longer be implemented, and that doing so would violate UNESCO’s own regulations. The Executive Board approved the renamed prize anyway. The unquestioning and shameful support of the prize by Brazil and other countries demonstrated a lack of regard for the rules and reputation of UNESCO.

It is likely that Brazil’s support for the prize is linked to its increased economic ties to Equatorial Guinea, especially in regards to petroleum. Petrobras has made multiple forays into Equatorial Guinea over the past decade in search of oil, and Brazil began importing Liquified Natural Gas from the region in 2009. As a sign of the two countries’ warming relations, then President Lula da Silva traveled to Equatorial Guinea in July 2010 and signed several bilateral agreements to promote trade and cooperation. He returned one year later to give a speech at the African Union Summit, which Equatorial Guinea hosted. Brazil is also supporting Equatorial Guinea’s bid to join the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (CPLP), despite the fact that very few people speak Portuguese in Equatorial Guinea.

Equatorial Guinea has recently tried to position itself as a leader in south-south relations, and its overtures to Brazil should be viewed as part of that effort. In November 2011, Equatorial Guinea hosted the Council of Ministers meeting of the Africa-South America Cooperation Forum, at which Brazilian Foreign Minister de Aguiar Patriota spoke. President Dilma Rousseff is scheduled to travel to Equatorial Guinea in May for the Heads of State meeting of the Africa-South America Cooperation Forum.

Sadly, the two budding allies share some common problems as well, namely in regards to human rights abuses and poor governance. Torture and poor prison conditions are still reported in both countries. Security forces commit illegal abuses, including arbitrary arrests and extrajudicial killings. Corruption is another major barrier to progress in both petro-states. President Rousseff’s administration has been plagued by corruption scandals, forcing more than a dozen officials—including her cabinet chief—to resign in the first few months of her presidency.

Nevertheless, Brazil could be a positive example to Equatorial Guinea on democracy and human rights. Brazil’s relatively smooth and effective transition from a military dictatorship to a participatory democracy in the 1980s contains lessons for democratic transitions in other southern countries, including Equatorial Guinea.  In recent years, Brazil has supported several important international human rights initiatives. In 2010 and 2011, for instance, Brazil backed United Nations resolutions addressing human rights violations in Iran, Belarus, North Korea, and Sudan.

Furthermore, President Rousseff’s dismissal of ministers accused of corruption signals that Brazil is getting tough on corruption. Brazil has taken a lead role in promoting transparency and government accountability at the international level. In September 2011, Brazil and the United States announced a new joint initiative, the Open Government Partnership, which promotes government transparency, accountability, and effectiveness worldwide.

Government accountability is something that people in Equatorial Guinea and other southern countries dream about. Their current reality consists of a state-owned media, flawed elections, widespread corruption fueled by government secrecy, and impunity by government officials. By justifying its support for President Obiang’s UNESCO prize as south-south solidarity, Brazil harmed its international reputation, weakened the credibility of south-south alliances, and turned its back on the daily struggles of Equatoguineans to hold their government accountable.

If Brazil truly wants to be a good friend of Equatorial Guinea and its people, as well as a good ally to its other southern partners, it should set a consistent example and take a stand against corruption and human rights abuses, wherever they occur.

Cross posted with permission from Oxfam America’s Politics of Poverty blog.

In the first Star Wars movie, Luke Skywalker and friends somehow blew up the Death Star. That’s a bit how we felt in 2010 when after years of fighting we got a new global financial transparency requirement into the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. The provision requires oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose tax and other payments in every country of operation. As I’ve been writing about in the last two weeks, we now feel like we are in The Empire Strikes Back. The oil industry has threatened to sue the SEC if they don’t get a regulation they like and are using lobbyists and lawyers to try to roll-back our victory.

Now it’s time for Revenge of the Jedi and the gloves are off. Oxfam and our allies in the Publish What You Pay coalition are mounting a big campaign to tell oil companies to stop fighting transparency—join us to take action. We have asix-figure ad campaign running the next two weeks, including a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal, and online ads in the Washington Post, The Hill,Politico, and the Huffington Post. (The Wall Street Journal ad is endorsed byGlobal Witness, Revenue Watch Institute, Global Financial Integrity, EG Justice, and the Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development.)

In addition to mounting an e-action campaign targeting Chevron, Exxon and ConocoPhillips, Oxfam is reaching out to our university campus-basedCHANGE student activists for a petition drive to SEC Commissioners telling them to issue a strong final regulation. The ONE campaign is also pressuring the SEC with a petition that has over 84,000 signatures so far.

Last week Oxfam activists portrayed Chevron, Exxon, and the SEC in bed together outside SEC headquarters in Washington, which generated goodcoverage including the morning commute on NPR. This week, the “hear no evil, see no evil” monkeys will be outside the Chevron tower in Houston, telling the company and its employees the time for silence is over.

Congress is ramping up the pressure on the SEC to issue a strong final rule and to follow the law—five prominent Senators wrote on Jan. 31, and we are expecting more Congressional pressure this week.

The battle is also being fought on a number of fronts. Over in Europe, activists staged a stunt a government building in London and the ONE campaign has a big petition drive to make sure European regulators stand up to oil company lobbying there. Elsewhere, allies in resource-rich countries such as Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Senegal, Cambodia, and Ecuador are writing to the SEC to make sure they know how important this information is to hold their own governments accountable for the spending of oil and mining wealth.

Oil companies have a lot on their plate and this lawsuit has the makings of a classic PR nightmare. (Imagine the headlines—“Oil companies sue to keep tax payments secret”.) Let’s win again and bring this saga to an end.

By Ian Gary

Ian Gary is Senior Policy Manager for Extractive Industries at Oxfam America.

Cross posted with permission from Oxfam America’s Politics of Poverty blog.

The oil and gas industry loves to trumpet their support of international transparency initiatives and their tax contributions to the US government, but when a new law requires them to tell the public exactly how much gets paid to whom around the world, they bring out the lobbyists and lawyers.

Browse through the corporate social responsibility reports of the top oil and gas companies, and you’ll see them singing from the same transparency hymnbook. Chevron says it “believes that the disclosure of revenues received by governments and payments made by extractive industries to governments could lead to improved governance in resource-rich countries.”

Many oil and gas companies are also “supporters” of the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). (Companies can become a “supporter” simply by declaring “their support publicly”.) Unless a country decides to implement EITI, though, they are obliged to disclose nothing. For a company such as Chevron, this means disclosing tax and other payments in Nigeria (perhaps years after the fact), but nothing in next-door Equatorial Guinea, a classic petro-dictatorship. For the citizens of Equatorial Guinea—mala suerte (tough luck)!

In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act was signed into law. Dodd-Frank contains an important provision (“Section 1504″) that requires each oil, gas, and mining company to disclose their tax, royalty and other payments to governments in every country of operation. (Oxfam and our allies in the Publish What You Paycampaign fought hard for the inclusion of this provision—alongside our support for EITI.)

Many of the same companies praising transparency have been actively lobbying since the law passed to gut implementation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The hypocrisy is out there in the open if you know where to look. Senate lobbying disclosure forms show that Chevron, Exxon, Shell, Conoco Phillips,Marathon, Occidental, the American Petroleum Institute (API), and others have been very active in Washington on this provision, targeting not only the SEC, but the House of Representatives, Senate, Department of State,Department of the Interior, and the National Security Council.

As I wrote last week, API (revenues of more than $198 million in 2009) has now threatened to sue the SEC unless the agency withdraws its proposed rule and starts from scratch to meet big oil’s secrecy wishes rather than the law and Congressional mandate. (Five API member companies are also on the EITI board, Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, and Statoil.)

No one knows how much the oil and gas industry is spending specifically to undo the Dodd-Frank provision, but the oil and gas industry is one of the biggest lobbyists in the US, spending more than $145 million on lobbying activities in 2011. ConocoPhillips, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP were the top five oil and gas spenders on lobbying in 2011, with ConocoPhillips spending a staggering $20.5 million. API spent more than $7 million in lobbying in 2011 and is spending a “significant amount” on its faux “grassroots” advertising campaign called“Vote 4 Energy”. These are the same companies who complain that the cost to disclose information they already collect is too onerous.

The yawning gap between the transparency rhetoric of companies and the reality of their actions has never been more apparent than it is now. The SEC may shortly issue a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank provision, while on February 14th the oil industry’s designated transparency groupies, governments, and civil society groups will convene in the UK for the latest EITI board meeting. While the EITI board members enjoy the lovely and historic “Downton Abbey”-esque country manor setting of their board meeting, the industry’s lawyers and lobbyists will be working hard in Washington to gut a new global corporate transparency standard.

It’s time to blow the whistle on the industry’s transparent hypocrisy. For the more than 1.5 billion people living on less than $2 a day in resource-rich countries, there’s no time left to wait.

Ian Gary is Senior Policy Manager for Extractive Industries at Oxfam America.

Cross posted with permission from Oxfam America’s Politics of Poverty blog.

1504   Section in Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act requiring companies to disclose taxes, royalties, and other payments made to the US and foreign governments

1.5 billion  People living on less than $2 a day in “resource-rich” countries

$30 million  Value of Malibu mansion owned by Teodoro Nguema Obiang, son of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea’s dictator

1    Number of white crystal-covered ‘Bad Tour’ gloves in Teodoro’s Michael Jackson memorabilia collection valued at $3 million (See “U.S. vs. One Crystal-Covered ‘Bad Tour’ Glove” court filing.)

270   Days after enactment that Congress required the SEC to issue a final rule (regulation) to implement the law

559   Days since Dodd-Frank enacted into law by President Obama

289   Days that the SEC has been in violation of the law

13    Months after Dodd-Frank that the European Commission issued a legislative proposal that would place a similar requirement on oil and mining companies

0    Host country laws oil companies have been able to cite that would prohibit disclosure of payment information as required by Dodd-Frank

3    Commissioners eligible to vote on the final rule (Chairwoman Schapiro and Commissioner Paredes are recused because of conflicts of interest.)

$50 million  Estimated amount Exxon says that it would cost to comply with law, even though it provides no backing data for the estimate and presumably already collects and tracks payment information

$41 billion  Exxon’s 2011 profits—a 35% increase over 2010

$100,000  Cost Barrick Gold, world’s largest gold producer, says it would cost them to comply

$1.2 trillion  Approximate combined assets under management of investors who have told SEC to issue a strong final rule

3   Companies and industry associations (Shell, Exxon and API) who say that payment disclosure “could allow terrorists” to target a project

2  Nigerian oil workers unions who say it would actually make them safer

5  Companies who met SEC Commissioner Gallagher on December 2, 2011, to lobby for a weak final rule—Shell, Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental

15  Oil and mining companies who “support” the voluntary Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) program who are also members of American Petroleum Institute (API). API has threatened to sue the SEC to keep payment info secret.

5  Companies on the EITI board who are also API members

11  Luxury sports cars worth at least $5 million belonging to Teodoro seized by French police in Paris as part of an investigation into possible corruption

20  Days after auto seizure that President Obiang scored his son a UNESCO envoy post in Paris

$5,000  Teodoro’s reported monthly government salary as Equatorial Guinea’s minister of agriculture

2010  Year Equatorial Guinea was expelled from EITI for failing to meet its minimum transparency requirements

5   Companies producing oil and gas in Equatorial Guinea who will be covered by Dodd-Frank (Exxon, Marathon, Hess, Noble, and Mitsui produce the vast majority of oil and gas in Equatorial Guinea. The first four are members of the American Petroleum Institute. API sent a letter to the SEC on January 19 saying it would be unlawful to issue a final rule to implement the Dodd-Frank provision.)

No data  Percent of Equatorial Guinea’s population living below the poverty line. An estimated 60 percent lived on less than $1 a day according to a 2006 UN report.

700,000  Population in Equatorial Guinea still in the dark about the country’s finances and waiting for full implementation of Dodd-Frank Section 1504

“La esencia de la coerción psicológica consiste en que aquellos que actúan bajo su efecto tienen la impresión de que están actuando por iniciativa propia. La víctima de la manipulación mental no sabe que es víctima. Las rejas de su prisión le son invisibles, y cree que es libre. El hecho de que no es libre, sólo es aparente para los demás. Su esclavitud es estrictamente objetiva.” Aldous Huxley, 1958.

Recientemente, mantuve una conversación por chat en Facebook con un amigo mío residente en Malabo.  Mi amigo, regresó a Malabo, después de vivir varios años en España—donde para un inmigrante Africano, la política nacional de inmigración, las condiciones socioeconómicas, y el racismo todavía son asignaturas y capítulos pendientes. No acostumbro a compartir públicamente conversaciones mantenidas en chat—sobre todo, cuando mi interlocutor se encuentra dentro del país. Pero en esta ocasión supuse que como nación podríamos aprender algo de esta conversación. Pensé que esta era una de esas raras ocasiones en que una excepción se podría o debiera justificar. He tomado las medidas posibles para no desvelar la identidad de mi amigo.

Este fue nuestro intercambio (después de los saludos y demás cosas que nos dijimos al abrirla conversación):

Tutu: ¿Como ves la situación?

Mi Amigo: Bien en líneas generales aunque hay que tener también la dosis de paciencia en todos los aspectos.    Al menos he conseguido ya trabajo y voy ya más tranquilo

Tutu: ¿Dónde trabajas? Mi Amigo: En XYZ

Tutu: Pas mal de tout, mon ami (Eso no está nada mal, amigo mío)

Mi Amigo: Yo al menos no me puedo quejar esto es más o menos lo que buscaba y poder situarme lo más rápido posible.  Pues hermano Annobón esta super bonito a su manera. He estado y me ha encantado

Tutu: No me digas. Hay gente que cuenta otra historia

Mi Amigo: Cada cual emite su opinión y la mía es que esta acogedor con muchos cambios positivos pero que se ha de hacer áas si pero no podemos volver a tras

Tutu: Me dicen que gran parte de Palea es posesión privada de los gerentes del país, y que a pesar de las grande infraestructuras (puerto y aeropuerto), falta comida y sobra el alcohol

Mi Amigo: No es verdad.  La gente se ha dormido y no ha entendido que si la ciudad se está ampliando las fincas rusticas se convierten en zonas urbanizables y los listos legalizaron lo suyo y lo han vendido. Falta comida por la sencilla razón de que la gente ya no va a la finca, pero en la casa de mi madre sobra de todo y la gente no va a la pesca pues se ha de importar todo de de Malabo. Si uno cuando se levanta en lugar de ir a su puesto de trabajo prefiere el drinking pues alla él

Tutu: ¡Pero amigo!  ¿Cuál es la política de alimentación y trabajo del gobierno? Y en cuanto a las fincas urbanizables, supongo que se está indemnizando a la gente que está perdiendo su terreno, ¿verdad? No puede ser tan sencillo como que algunos prefieran el drinking, ¿no?  Amigo: Por favor, dame un análisis un poco más complejo.

Mi Amigo: Si tienes la documentación se te paga por ejemplo tengo una finca en Abobo que estoy legalizando y que nadie lo tocará por que podré demostrar que es mía

Tutu: Veo!

Me he visto en la necesidad de compartir esta conversación puesto que me ha llevado a concluir que a pesar de los cuarenta y tres años de independencia que celebramos esta semana en Guinea Ecuatorial, todavía no somos libres los guineanos. Muchos somos todavía, meras herramientas manipulables, explotables, desechables, y sustituibles una vez que se agote nuestra capacidad productiva en la fábrica privada de otros.

La conversación con mi amigo trajo a mi memoria un previo intercambio con otro amigo común de nuestra generación, en la que me exhortaba a regresar a Malabo, argumentado que mi futuro estaba en Guinea. Me preguntaba, entre otras cosas, si me había parado a pensar lo que sería de mi vida si volviera a Guinea; como para insinuar que tendría una mejor calidad de vida que la que actualmente disfruto. También tuve que revisitar otra conversación con un tercer amigo a quien llamé para que nos echara una mano cuando el célebre escritor Guineano, Juan Tomás Ávila Laurel, emprendió una huelga de hambre por motivos por los que todos los guineanos deberíamos estar en perpetuas huelgas. Ese amigo mío me pidió que jamás volviera a llamarle por un tema similar. Me recordó que él trabajaba para el gobierno de una república democrática y que por esa razón no quería que lo volviera a llamar para un tema similar.

Llama la atención que estos amigos míos, con quienes compartí años memorables en Malabo cuando teníamos todos menos canas y más sueños, se han formado en las mejores universidades de Europa y han vivido en sociedades libres y un tanto democráticas, a pesar de las asignaturas y capítulos pendientes a las que hice alusión en el primer párrafo.

Me está costando entender y aceptar este egoísmo moral, el miedo atroz, y la falta de análisis crítico de las que padece mi generación de guineanos. ¿Cómo puede ser que mi amigo y José Paco Man  (internauta en Facebook) estén hablando de la misma realidad sobre Annobón? Sabiendo que soy abogado de derechos humanos y que dirijo una organización no gubernamental de derechos humanos, ¿por qué me aconsejaría un amigo mío regresar a Malabo cuando Juan Tomás Ávila Laurel tuvo que abandonar Malabo tres días después de comenzar la huelga de hambre, porque su vida corría peligro?

La realidad—sin duda—ah de ser más compleja de lo que tanto mi amigo—el de la conversación de arriba—como yo, en este análisis escueto, damos a entender. Pero, las anécdotas que me llegan desde el terreno sobre Annobón, las noticias e informes sobre expropiaciones y desalojos forzosos que EG Justice ha ayudado a elevar ante instancias de la Naciones Unidas, por ejemplo, me hacen pensar que en mis conversaciones con estos amigos míos, nos falta un eslabón esencial o que hay enormes fisuras en nuestras mentalidades que nos empujan a llegar a diferentes conclusiones ante los mismos hechos. Creo que redunda aquí entrar en detalles y hablar sobre el efecto que tiene legalizar terrenos en un país donde no impera el derecho. Y, dejamos para otra ocasión, hablar de la necesidad de que un gobierno tenga y ejecute políticas de empleo y otras políticas sociales importantes que ayuden a evitar el alcoholismo desenfrenado del que sufren los jóvenes en Guinea. Dudo mucho que mi amigo tenga razón al decir que los que se dedican al drinking es porque no quieren ir a trabajar, aunque parece que algo similar ha dicho en más de  una ocasión en sus discursos, el “fundador.”

Tengo que recalcar una vez más que no escribo para poner en evidencia a mis amigos—con quienes espero seguir manteniendo algún tipo de amistad.  Pero sí tengo miedo de que hayamos perdido a una generación entera de guineanos. Espero que me esté equivocando; y en todo caso, espero que mis amigos me perdonen por compartir estas conversaciones con el público lector.

Por supuesto, invito respuestas y todo tipo de crítica razonada hacia lo que aquí planteo.

tutu@egjustice.org