President Teodoro Obiang Ngeuma’s nomination and acceptance of the position as ceremonial head of the African Union (AU) in January 2011 caused much outrage amongst non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society around the world. These bodies claimed that the election of Obiang, whose 30-year tenure in Equatorial Guinea has been associated with vast human rights abuses, undermines the very principles for which the AU stands. Six months into his term as ceremonial head, however, a counter argument has emerged in which some claim that the very hosting of the AU may present an opportunity to transform and structurally engage with the country.

This paper will critically examine these arguments by assessing recent developments in Equatorial Guinea over the past year. Evidence will suggest that although on the one hand, Obiang seems to express a willingness to conform to international standards, his actions frequently indicate the contrary. In this regard, it will be argued that Equatorial Guinea currently rests at a critical point where Obiang’s stronghold on power is tested against the strength of external forces. Before such developments can be examined, however, a brief overview of the political economy of Equatorial Guinea is required in order to better understand the outrage that followed the election of President Obiang to the AU.

The political economy of Equatorial Guinea

President Obiang rose to power in Equatorial Guinea through a coup launched against his own uncle Francisco Macias Ngeuma in 1979.⁽²⁾ The following 30 years have since witnessed the almost complete isolation of this small state as Obiang has frequently shown little tolerance for opposition, whether generated internally or externally. His reign has consequently been associated with fierce political oppression, in addition to a blatant disregard for human rights.

In Freedom House’s 2011 survey, in which it examines the political freedoms of various countries, Equatorial Guinea ranked as one of the ‘worst of the worst’ alongside states such as North Korea and even Somalia.⁽³⁾ According to the institution, Equatorial Guinea is not an electoral democracy and despite claiming to be one, the state has yet to hold credible elections.⁽⁴⁾ In 2009, for example, Obiang allegedly won 95.4 % of the vote thereby enabling the ruling party to hold 99 out of the 100 seats of the country’s Parliament, ironically known as the House of People’s Representatives.⁽⁵⁾ Civil liberties also remain a sham as Equatorial Guinea was recently ranked 167th out of 178 countries in the 2010 Reporter’s Without Boarders Freedom Index.⁽⁶⁾ The organisation has further concluded that Obiang is a “Predator of Press Freedom,” as all media outlets are closely monitored by an information ministry that is staffed by supporters of the ruling party only.⁽⁷⁾

Obiang was able to ensure this Machiavellian hold on power for so long due to the discovery of the offshore Zafiro oil field by Exxon Mobil in the 1990s. According to Humans Rights Watch, Obiang has used the country’s oil boom to entrench and enrich himself further at the expense of the country’s people.⁽⁸⁾ In this regard, although Equatorial Guinea has had one of the world’s fastest growing economies in recent years, its people have yet to see these riches. A fundamental paradox consequently exists where income per capita is an alleged US$ 36 600, while 70% of the population lives below the poverty line.⁽⁹⁾

Rampant corruption within the Obiang family is also to blame and the President has been tied to numerous scandals, while his eldest son and presumed successor, Teodorin Obiang, allegedly spends more than double of the country’s education budget on luxury goods.⁽¹⁰⁾ Such blatant corruption has recently seen the country being expelled from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in 2010, a clear rejection of the country’s lack of transparency by the international community.

Despite such infamy, Central Africa still decided to nominate President Obiang as a part of their rotating presidency to represent them at the AU in 2011. The question therefore remains whether the hosting of this event presented an opportunity to structurally engage with Equatorial Guinea in the hope of transforming this pariah state. A review of recent developments, however, presents conflicting results.

Equatorial Guinea and the African Union summit of 2011

In what some would call uncharacteristic behaviour, President Obiang has gone to great lengths over the past year to transform his image within the international arena. Not only did he hire an American public relations firm to revamp his image away from that of a corrupt and repressive leader, but when he faced even more criticism earlier this year, the country’s Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) took it upon himself to write to the New York Times. According to Ambassador Anatolio Ndong Mba, media coverage of Equatorial Guinea is ‘outdated’ and ‘unrealistic’ as the country “is struggling vigorously to become more free, to modernise itself and to provide a better standard of living for its people”.⁽¹¹⁾ These affirmations largely fail to live up to realities on the ground, however.

As the 17th session of the AU to be held just outside of Malabo drew nearer, civil society hoped that this event would force Equatorial Guinea to ease some of its secretive restrictions, given the exposure of the event at both a regional and global level. On the contrary, civil society was completely denied access to the summit, while arbitrary arrests and police raids preceded the event as the Government embarked on a massive cleanup campaign.⁽¹²⁾ Moreover, journalists who were likely to criticise the state such as those affiliated to Reporters Without Borders were denied visas and those granted them were closely monitored.⁽¹³⁾ The AU summit consequently did little to alter the standard for civil liberties in Equatorial Guinea in 2011.

On the contrary, one could argue that the very hosting of the summit inspired developmental initiatives within this largely impoverished state. In this regard, the AU summit did facilitate the building of new roads and highways, Government ministries and even social housing projects.⁽¹⁴⁾ The largest sum of money, however, was allocated to the US$ 830 million Sipopo resort where foreign delegations, housed in 52 luxury beach front villas, were treated to the country’s first beauty spa, a major new conference centre, a mile-long artificial beach and an 18-hole golf course.⁽¹⁵⁾ It is this flair for extravagance in the face of such need that would merit this most recent summit a failure on principle.

Concluding remarks

Although these developments may be disappointing, the AU summit was limited in the political reform it could have inspired from the start. In this regard, it is important to bear in mind that this event was the very first of its kind for this pariah state and so in itself, helped to galvanise an important power play for the future. As a result, it can be argued that a balancing act has now begun, where on the one hand Obiang continues to delve into his more infamous methods of leadership, whilst on the other hand, he seems to value the opinion of the international community that has for the first time in the country’s history seen his regime embark on at least some projects of social development.

As Equatorial Guinea continues to engage with the world beyond its borders, particularly as the country prepares itself to host the Africa Cup of Nations in 2012, this room for structural engagement and external leverage will only grow. This small state located in what has so often been referred to as the ‘armpit of Africa’ therefore requires much more attention for the future as the African community, as well as the global community, is not without options to slowly dismantle one of its most authoritarian regimes through peaceful and social methods of engagement.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Keri Leicher through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Africa Watch Unit ( africa.watch@consultancyafrica.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ).
(2) ‘Equatorial Guinea’, Central Intelligence Agency: World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov.
(3) ‘Worst of the Worst 2011: The World’s Most Oppressive Societies,’ Freedom House, http://www.freedomhouse.org.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) ‘Press Freedom Index 2010,’ Reporters Without Boarders for Press Freedom, http://en.rsf.org.
(7) Ibid.
(8) ‘World Report 2011: Equatorial Guinea,’ Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org.
(9) ‘Equatorial Guinea: Overview,” African Economic Outlook, http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org.
(10) ‘World Report 2011: Equatorial Guinea,’ Human Rights Watch, http://www.hrw.org.
(11) ‘Letter: Equatorial Guinea’s Ambassador Objects,’ New York Times, 13 June 2011, http://www.nytimes.com.
(12) ‘We won’t go to Malabo,’ Reporters Without Borders, 29 June 2011, http://en.rsf.org.
(13) Ibid.
(14) David Lewis, ‘Equatorial Guinea Steadies Itself for Africa’s Big Stage,” Mail and Guardian, 30 June 2011, http://mg.co.za.
(15) ‘Equatorial Guinea: Abuses Ahead of AU Summit,’ Human Rights Watch, 22 June 2011, http://www.hrw.org.

Written by Keri Leicher ⁽¹⁾