McDougall: Well, some sanctions have been put in place, some punitive measures but they've all been very weak. I think the European Union suspended development aid. I think Britain strengthened its military sanctions. The United States did very little. We have a package of sanctions in place in the United States that are only mildly restrictive -- restrictions on visas and travel restrictions on direct air links with Nigeria -- but nothing really significant. The Commonwealth suspended Nigeria from membership.

Again, the problem here is that nothing has been done that significantly impedes the Abacha regime from staying in place and functioning.

McDougall: There are two or three obvious options here. One is to freeze assets of Abacha and his co-leaders in the military -- freeze them in countries around the world. There's no good answer that I've heard yet as to why we are not doing that. Secondly, there is, of course, the question of an oil embargo. The opposition to oil embargo says it's a very difficult thing to achieve. It will leak all over the place. The allies will not do it. It would mean the United States would do it only unilaterally, and that makes no sense.

In my view, though, even if a unilateral oil embargo is not airtight, it's an important statement. It's an important statement to Abacha. It will increase his transaction costs in respect to a continuing flow of revenue from oil exports. It's a meaningful thing to do.

The other thing, though, is certainly multilateral sanctions are the most effective but I think we learned something from sanctions against South Africa. There were sanctions put in place by a number of countries eventually but none of them equaled sanctions we put in place in United States law. So many of the trade sanctions we put in place were virtually unilateral. Ah, but I think we all today would say that there's been an important impact from those sanctions.

McDougall: In many cases, one would have to say they're really very different situations. But I think one of the parallels that is evident to me, and may be a critical piece, is that there is in Nigeria a civil society that has tremendous potential as there was and still is in South Africa. And it seems to me that that that gives us an opportunity to chart a multi-faceted strategy. In South Africa, we imposed punitive sanctions, but we also poured massive support into building the civil society. We can do that in Nigeria because that's the layer of Nigerian society that in the medium- and long-term is going to make the difference. This will work not just against Abacha but also to create a human rights culture, a democratic culture that will be irreversible and permanent.

McDougall: Yes. After the execution of Ken Saro Wiwa, President Mandela spoke out forcefully and I think certainly really made me and certainly many people who've worked on the anti-apartheid struggle over the years proud. He spoke out very strongly against the executions and against the Abacha regime.

He looked around after he spoke out and found that he didn't have any support from his brothers -- other leaders of African countries. So they sort of slapped his wrist on that.

McDougall: I can only speculate, it's hard to say. It's been one of the central tenets of the Organization of African Unity, that there be no interference in, quote, 'the internal affairs' of their brother and sister states -- sort of an absolute respect for sovereignty, writ large. I think that's breaking down now. I think that's the spirit in which they slapped the president's wrist but I think that's beginning to breakdown. You see sanctions being put in place, for instance, in Burundi by African countries. And you see new intervention led by other African countries in situations of humanitarian disaster and political turmoil, particularly in the Great Lakes regions.

So I think it's breaking down but I think it, at the time, stunned President Mandela and it caused him to pull back which he did for a couple of years. Now, last year, at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights--South Africa was one of the sponsors of a resolution that established a special report on Nigeria--and that's a very important move. So I think that, you know, the South African government's position is adjusting itself a little more to the point of again speaking out and creating some pressure.

McDougall: I certainly have been a part of the voice in favor of sanctions, tougher sanctions in the United States. So I spend a lot of time with people in the administration and State Department and White House and lobbying on behalf of sanctions legislation on Capitol Hill with members of Congress and Senate. So that's been one of the aspects of the work my organization has done. But I think the other piece I personally find more fascinating is working with civil society organizations in Nigeria from across the spectrum to undertake some efforts to give them the kind of support -- not just financial support -- but technical support, linkages with outside organizations and strategizing on how to target international assistance to their effort. Those kinds of things I personally have found fascinating.

As I said earlier, it's the people in the civil society sector in Nigeria as they grow stronger that will be able to make the critical demands for a human rights culture and democratic government.

McDougall: They function under quite a bit of threat and restrictions. There are members of the leadership of human rights groups that have been jailed. Certainly, opposition leaders of political parties on across civil society have been jailed. They have their publications confiscated. Some of them have difficulties traveling outside the country. They have difficulties interacting with people in the human rights movement internationally who want to come into Nigeria. Visas are denied. There's a whole array of measures the regime has put in place and exercises that make it damn difficult to do any work.

McDougall: They continue. They continue. As such groups continued in apartheid South Africa. The important thing is that they have continued support from the outside, even an infusion of ideas of other tactics they might employ. And in that regard, I think that greater links between Nigeria and civil society actors and those people in South Africa who went through the same sort of things in the 1980's…who emerged to run the national mobilizations that eventually led to the end of apartheid. I think those kind of linkages are the ones that will be ultimately very important to Nigerians.

McDougall: Yes. Again, the sanctions movement…

McDougall: Interestingly enough, we have found a lot of support for the Nigerian struggle in the Congo -- the Democratic Republic of Congo -- where my organization also has a project. So we have brought Nigerians and Congolese together on a couple of occasions, both in Africa and in Geneva at the meeting of the Human Rights Commission so they could collaborate on the problems that exist in both those countries and perhaps start to chart a common strategy.

McDougall: Absolutely!

McDougall: Very poorly. You know technology is a problem. But there is some of that.

McDougall: Yes, it’s pretty long-standing. I started doing work on African liberation struggles in the early 1970s. I was a part of the African Liberation Support Committee in the United States and I think only people about my age will remember that. We worked on, at that time, those countries that were still under colonial rule -- the Portuguese colonies, Rhodesia, of course, Namibia. When the ears in the Portuguese colonies succeeded…

McDougall: Well personally, the beginning of my political activism started in the civil rights movement in the south of the United States. I grew up in Georgia and participated in a lot of civil rights projects around the south -- voter education projects, for example. So I come out of that activism and I think many of those of us who did that kind of work, as we moved into the 1970s -- late 60s and 1970s -- the civil rights movement took a narrower focus, a lot of us looked to Africa for a variety of things. There were those who looked to Africa for a cultural identification of sorts. And then there were others, and I count myself a part of that, who looked to Africa for more political education and identification with the thought or hope that by really studying the movements which were happening in Africa at the time, we would learn some things that would be useful in our own struggles in the United States.

I actually think that that’s what solidarity is all about. It’s not just altruism but it’s, you know, an identification of common goals and interests. So, you know, just about that time, came the Sixth Pan African Congress in Tanzania, in Dar Es Salaam and that focused a lot of support, particularly of the African-American community, on Africa and things moved from there. I got very much involved in southern Africa, particularly Rhodesia, then Rhodesia, Namibia and ultimately South Africa.

McDougall: I've often said that in all the work that I've done, in Southern Africa particularly, I've learned far more, and gained far more than I have given.

I think that particularly in the South African movement, there was a highly developed sense of, not only what activists were against -- apartheid -- but rather what they were for. So over the years, it was real development of analysis of, you know, the apartheid regime and where it fit into the global economy and what fueled the oppression that existed in South Africa.

And on the basis of that analysis, real detailed thinking about where the movement was going -- what does transformation mean -- not just winning state power but really transforming the society into one that was egalitarian in the ways that were the most meaningful to those in the struggle.

So, I observed and participated in that development of political maturity and thought and it's been a powerful contribution to who I am.

McDougall: Certainly in Nigeria, Shell and the other oil companies really quite play a pivotal role. The Abacha regime is getting 80 percent of its revenues from foreign oil companies operating within Nigeria and offshore in Nigerian territory. Ninety-percent of the foreign exchange earnings comes from the oil industry. So you're talking about some non-state actors--corporations--that have a tremendous potential and actual influence on the way things go within Nigeria and other countries where they're that largely invested.

These oil companies are really financing the Abacha regime and repression through taxes and oil revenues and royalties -- so they're quite critical. They’ve also, over the years, as there have been rounds of protests from the Nigerian population -- not just to Abacha but also to the kinds of practices that these oil companies have, in terms of the natural resources of the country. As protests have arisen, these companies have turned to the military establishment in Nigeria to protect them. And so they’ve reinforced that end as well.

They could play positive roles. They have declined to do that. They have been called on to intercede with the regime with respect to political prisoners -- to call on the regime to release political prisoners -- they have largely declined to do that.

McDougall: The human rights law and activism traditionally focused on making governments -- the state -- do right by their citizens. And solely focused on state action. And um, I think we developed quite a few tactics to deal with repressive and oppressive state action. But now what's happening in the world is, you're getting the emergence of extremely powerful non-state actors who have a greater impact on the quality of life and ultimately the rights of people in a country or territory-- multinational corporations essentially. There are other non-state actors that are problematic.

The company called for security assistance from the Nigerian regime…the Abacha regime. And they proceeded over a period of time to impose a severe crackdown on the Ogoni people. And this included beatings, shootings, cordoning off Ogoniland so there was not free flow of movement in or out. They were harassed. There were detentions, um, complete catalogue of all the worse things you can think of. And eventually Ken Saro Wiwa and eight others of the leadership were arrested and charged with murder. They were tried and it is agreed internationally that the trial was a sham proceeding. And then in 1995-- much to the horror of everyone they were executed. The world called on Shell to intercede to save their lives---and for a good long time, they declined to do this saying this is a political matter and it’s going through the courts, and rule of law, etc. I understand that at the last moment they did appeal, but it was far too late to save those lives then.

So I think that Shell has been intricately linked with the Abacha regime.

McDougall: I think Shell and all the other oil companies have the collective power to get Abacha to release the political prisoners. I think they could get him to do that. I think they could get him to allow free political party activity. I believe they could get him to make this upcoming election on October 1st a real process which would reflect the will of the people. I think they've got that power. And the sad thing is that we have not been able to figure out a way to get them to use that power constructively.

McDougall: I think that that has a hollow ring when they bring in the state and the state security forces as protection for their facility. They can't have it two ways. They called on the state to do their dirty work and I think they've got to pay the piper now.

McDougall: There is money. For example, the Nigerian government has spent something in the range of ten million dollars, I understand, in the United States, lobbying against the NGO/human rights sector. They've hired a series of public relations firms, um , to do lobbying on the Hill. They have printed full-page color ads in the New York Times, Washington Post, other major papers. They have spent a lot of money and, you know, money does, from time to time, have its impact. Last year, at the UN Human Rights Commission, there were something like 30 members of the Nigerian delegation--an outrageous number of people,...they were there to influence countries...um, um...in their direction. So they have been able to use the wealth of the oil revenue to create some kind of political protection for themselves.

McDougall: I think there is no question about it that over the last 3 or 4 years...I think one of the most exciting thing that has been happening in the human rights movement is that there’s been an explosion of human rights organizations around the world that are now in touch with one another...that are now beginning to talk more and more about common problems, common strategies. Um..it's no longer just the question of a human rights organization that focuses solely on problems in their country. But they are seeing the link between the problems in their countries and problems across borders, regionally and internationally. And I think that's perhaps one of the most important things that has happened to us. It is nascent -- still embryonic -- a lot of work needs to be done to strengthen those linkages. That takes money that's not always available to us. But it’s a critically important factor.

And as I said, it’s really quite amazing to get … to be able to get human rights groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a place that has enormous problems of its own right now to engage in a lobbying effort about the problems in Nigeria. And that kind of crossover thing is happening in all regions.

McDougall: We in the human rights movement are having to stretch our concepts of what the problems are and how we deal with them. We're not just talking about civil and political rights anymore, we're not just talking about people being put in jail or denied the vote. We're also talking about economic rights.

And, yes, it’s causing us to change our tactics, but it’s also causing us to enter into new relationships. We're beginning to talk to businesses now -- corporate leaders. I’m involved in two separate activities which are attempts to interact with corporate leadership about how human rights are important, even for business. And for them to get a little more comfortable and familiar with who we are as human rights activists. So we’re doing those things. We’re getting involved in the talks about trade agreements. We’ve got to be there. We've got to be involved in what's going on with the international financial institutions -- the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. So we are growing and we’re understanding everyday more about what makes things happen in this world and what we can do to make real change.

CHG: So it’s never simple, I mean it’s never easy … but it’s more complex than...

McDougall: We’ve got a more textured understanding, if you will, of what the problems are and what’s involved in motivation. You can’t look at political prisoners in Nigeria and not deal with the fact that Abacha is kept alive by oil revenues. Ah, you know, there’re no simple issues--- maybe there never were, but now we’re seeing it more and more and we’re trying to craft our tactics to respond to more aspects of what is really motivating rights abuses in the world.

Go back to the list of interviewees.