For its part, the World Bank responded to Chad's renegging on its ageements in 2006 by suspending disbursement of $124 million in loans to Chad, and froze the country's $125 million in assets in the London-based Citibank escrow account (Zissis, 2006). In effect, the World Bank has ceased its involvement in Chad. However, the Chad oil investment was $3.7 billion (Zissis, 2006) and the majority investor, the oil consortium wasn't prepared to back out. In fact, to this day, this consortium continues business operations as usual and is actually expanding its drilling activities in both existing and new oilfields in Chad (Bank freezes pipeline funds to Chad, 2006).
World perceptions of the consortium as a result of the failed Chad experiment vary. Critics believe the company is guilty of helping to finance a corrupt regime in which poor subsistence farmers do not receive compensation to make up for lost livelihoods, local villagers are extorted for money from local authorities and the military, human rights activists have to confront death threats when they are try to defend the rights of local people, and pollution is extracting its toll on the health and crops of desperately poor people (Bank freezes pipeline funds to Chad, 2006). Yet, the oil consortium believes they are merely trying to do business in a corrupt country that lacks democracy and that the people are still better off with the project moving forward.
So, who is right, the critics of the oil consortium or the oil consortium confronting the difficult realities of developing regions that lack the ethical considerations in a more affluent society? This is a difficult question to answer, but it is the opinion of this author that if corrupt, undemocratic...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now