I have no definite opinions about this alleged coup attempt that alleged Sir Mark Thatcher allegedly aided by alleged Jeffrey Archer (and alleged others) allegedly plotted. I have only now learned that the object of their disaffections was the government of Equatorial Guinea. But I have seen big headlines, and big pictures of Mark Thatcher looking furtive and ashamed. Thatcher himself now apparently denies having anything to do with the alleged plot, but then he would, now.
However, I cannot help noticing that it is being taken for granted that a coup in Equatorial Guinea would have been a self-evidently bad thing.
What kind of place is this? Well, I found some answers here.
The country’s current president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema, came to power in 1979 by leading a self-initiated coup that overthrew Francisco Macias Nguema, Obiang’s uncle and the country’s first president. In 1992, the government adopted legislation establishing a multiparty democracy. Since then, Obiang has been re-elected twice, most recently at the end of 2002, but both times amid opponents’ allegations of election fraud.
Charming. You can see how this guy would be sensitive about coup attempts.
Despite rapid growth in real GDP, there is strong evidence that oil revenues have been misappropriated by the government. Furthermore, the government’s failure to direct oil revenues toward development – especially to fund urgently-needed infrastructure improvements – has undermined economic and social progress in the country. Meanwhile, the rapid increase in public sector spending has increased inflationary pressures, translating into average growth of the consumer price index (CPI) of about 7% annually for the past few years.
Not exactly paradise on earth, is it?
All I am saying is: maybe a coup might have improved things.
Now, now Mr Micklethwaite. Surely you know that black Africans can do no wrong?
Whatever may be amiss in Equatorial Guinea, it is not our place to judge.
Best save your concern for the poor Iraqis, suffering under the jackbooted heel of George W Bush,
…continued BBC/The Independent/Guardian ad nauseam
The type of regime in Equatorial Guinea can be judged by the fact that not long ago the state radio station (which is the only radio station) declared that the president was in permanent contact with God and that the president himself was God of his country, with power of life and death over all.
Brian Micklethwait blogged:
You mean Jeffrey Archer is only allegedly himself now? 🙂
Of course a coup would be a boon for Equatorial Guinea, but you see these were white male mercenaries and therefore evil and arrogant.
If I had my druthers professional white male mercenaries would be running all over Africa, the Middle East, parts of Asia, Central and South America kicking over anthills (ie: insane marxist/kleptocratic/messianic regimes).
Milton: “Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live.”
And America too!
How can you even think about meddling with the Sovereignty of an independent country. It is a matter for Equatorial Guineans to sort out.
Sovereignty is supreme to everything else, unless of course we want to sell your country to the EU in exchange for a fat pension.
Of course there is also Sudan / Darfur, Kosovo, Chechnya and a few other places where this doesn’t apply, but apart from that all other meddling is imperialism
While I’m pretty sure I smell sarcasm, I know that many libertarians do indeed believe that governments are sovereign in a way different from the aggregate sovereignty of their citizens.
I addressed the issue of sovereignty in my Iraq article. My main conclusion is that the concept is to be taken seriously, at least to the extent that if you deny a government’s sovereignty you ought to really mean it, and have a good reason.
Whether the same applies to mercenaries as to foreign policy is questionable, but I incline to the Bush view that a state can be held responsible for attacks overseas by its citizens that it tolerates.
Thus, it might be OK for the UK govt to decide to allow Thatcher, Archer et al to remove some scumbags, but it should not do so casually or by default. Said scumbags are entitled to view such toleration as an act of war by the UK.
Equatorial Guinea may indeed be corrupt but what is clear is that the coup plotters had no interest in making it any less so. Their motive was to make themselves the beneficiaries of that corruption.
Their method was an armed assault and the consequence would most certainly have been a dysfunctional state, with two ruthless factions vying for control of natural resources with utter disregard for the population at large. Surely we need no reminder of what happens in such circumstances, especially in Africa, and how unimaginable is the suffering of those caught in the middle?
These plotters were already wealthy and their potential profit would have made little difference to their lifestyle but to make it they were prepared to visit misery and death on complete innocents on a huge scale.
In there anything more morally repugnant than that? Is it possible to be more unscrupulous, more venal, more squalid than that? And you speculate it might be good thing to let these people run the country?
Get a grip.
Trying to expand your word power? Do you really not know of anything more morally repugnant than what these fellows were trying to do (not that you even know for sure what that was)? Today’s Daily Telegraph has an example.
Of course the only solution is to get Hilary Benn on the case (if he’s not alreasy so) with the standing legions of NGOs and charidees. They can then lavish the country with British taxpayers’ money. Surely its unarguable that this is the answer as its been so successful in so many other basket cases (whoops! I mean countries) for so long?
Private soldiers were O.K. for Mr Blair when Sandline was helping out in Sierra Leone. Now an ex S.A.S. officer is in trouble in Z. and Mr Blair does not want to know – and the Guardianistas (and others) snear about “dogs of war” and “imperialism”
Let the locals “sort in out”: How? By having their arms cut off?
The point is that, in these countries, the locals can not “sort it out”.
So the choice is letting them be mutilated and murdered (and the government has murdered a lot of people in E.G.) and trying to stop this happening.
If one says that governments (such as the wicked Mr Bush) should not get involved in “regime change” – that leaves private enterprise and private troops need to be paid.
What exactly security for the local opposition would mean in practice is a moot point. Perhaps a coup – perhaps just making election rigging (or the pysical elimination of the opposition) more difficult.
But unless we are going to do the job ourselves we are in no position to snear at people who were prepared to try.
Governments our not holy things – they have no special rights.
If a group of people wish to overthrow a government the only questions to be asked our “is the plan practical” (does it have a good chance of working), and “would taxes and regulations be less under a new regime”.
I’ll accept that if you include executions and slavery as “government regulation”. Also no one can rightfully overthrow a liberal government, even if the expected result is less tax and regulation. I’d have a couple more questions than you have posed if someone tried to overthrow the government of Sweden or France.
Where is any evidence that they were doing this out of some altruistic urge or a desire to see better governance of the country? I’m inclined towards Adrian’s point of view here; yes the current government’s not good, but the plotters show no signs of intending to be any better, and they’d certainly have introduced the whole concept of civil war to the populace, for which they would undoubtedly have been grateful indeed.
Yes, it’s wrong to overlook people’s faults just because they’re African, but it’s a big mistake to assume that because people are white & from ‘civilised’ countries that they’re not capable of equal barbarity & greed. Do any of you have any evidence that suggests Thatcher etc were intending anything else but replacing one corrupt regime which benefitted those at the top with another?
I also agree with Andrew; given our current position on terrorism & state sponsors thereof, it seems logical that if we tolerate privately organised attacks on sovereign countries organised on our soil, those attacked can interpret it as an act of war & hold us all collectively responsable. If that’s going to be the case, i’d rather such things weren’t organised in secret for unknown reasons; i’m certainly not willing to put my life, or the life of British soldiers, at risk in order to enrich a small number of men.
Why not?
We supposedly have a liberal government in the UK. If the Civil Contingencies Bill becomes law I’d happily see this government overthrown.
Brian,
I see that you acknowledged Sir Mark Thatcher’s baronetcy but overlooked Lord Archer’s peerage when writing about them. I feel that it is only fitting that one should strive for consistency when writing about the criminal nobility.
There’s a bill before Parliament at the moment that would allow Blair to retroactively strip Archer of his peerage (and anyone else he doesn’t like), so maybe Brian was being only slightly presumptious.
If you’re going to hand out 50 new honours for the brave civil servants who had to endure such horrendous suffering and bloodshed in the Gulf War, to ensure that Generalissimo Blair and Field Marshal Campbell would be left stainless over the Hutton Inquiry, then it stands to reason that they don’t want to be in a House of Lords where nasty perverted criminals, like Archer, might also sit.
Ted, have you read Jeffrey Archer’s novels?
I don’t think he could pass the Turing test, and so is indeed ‘alleged.’
Almost everyday we can see material proofs that the British Empire should not have been dismantled. The “liberated” nations, in most cases, are unable to rule themselves. Iraq. Saudi Arabia. Syria. Equatorial Guinea. You name it. Are they better off when they are “free”?
Rudyard Kipling was absolutely right about the concept of “white man’s burden”. It’s OK to sack corrupt African rulers or dictators who order their soldiers to shoot two-year babies and pregnant women (see the article about the mass grave found in Iraq).
Call me racist or chauvinist if you want to. The world would be a better place if it were ruled by the “Coalition of Willing” with the US and UK in the first two places.
Private individuals taking up arms against despots is the only way for a regime change, in my opinion.
And Taki had some wonderful comments on this issue recently.
But what about private companies channeling money to the despot, his extended family and his friends? Even opening bank accounts for them and depositing large amounts of money?
Especially where easy money is available, as it is in the case of oil, the money frequently comes from private companies to the despotic state in the form of bribes, commissions, fees, etc. This appears to have been happening on a large scale in EG, and also goes on extensively in Nigeria. How do you stop this?
EG (no relation to the country with the same initials)
they had freedom until Francisco came along and then they lost it all over again. that sucks. they should turn back into a democracy like the US.