A large splodge of Wonga
The Wonga coup: something you've probably never heard of before, which happened in a country that, well, you've probably never heard of before. The Wonga coup was an attempted overthrow of Obiang Nguema, the brutal dictator of Equatorial Guinea, a tiny country in the armpit of Africa overflowing with oil, by Western mercenaries, including the son of Margaret Thatcher. The Wonga coup is masterfully documented in journalist Adam Robert's account of the events The Wonga Coup.
But as entertaining (and sometimes hilarious) as as the story can be, it brought to light another topic of discussion: global north-south relations, especially those of American interest. You can see how, in many ways, directly and indirectly, the U.S. supports one of the worst violators of human rights on the the planet. This type of support is not uncommon in U.S. history: see El Salvador and Nicaragua in the '80's, for example.
The U.S. role in the story of Equatorial Guinea was much more ambiguous than the other countries involved. Lax banking regulations and an environment of people acting on special interests helped Obiang remain a very rich and powerful man. U.S. Senate investigations revealed that Obiang’s Rigg’s Bank accounts were being illegally funded with millions of dollars from U.S. oil revenues and being used for Obiang’s personal interests instead of being spent on the development of his country; one with one of the largest inequality gaps in the world. As this came to light, tighter control was placed on the Rigg’s accounts forcing Obiang to diversify his assets; although the corruption did not stop. A much more comprehensive account of the U.S. relationship with Equatorial Guinea, and the sheer level of corruption involved, can be found in this MotherJones article by Peter Maas: A Touch of Crude, which I urge you to read.
On another note, just to put America's actions in perspective; let's pretend the U.S. were a kakistocracy, or, a country run by the most corrupt, least competent, and most foolish people (do we really have to pretend?). Would the level of corruption be any worse? Probably not. Obiang would still be free to do whatever he wants with his money. The general concept remains; the United States, even with knowledge of Obiang’s personal use of the money, deteriorating Equatorial Guinean living conditions, and his well-documented human rights violations, fails to make any effort to stop the man in charge. Instead, Obiang still receives revenue from American oil firms such as ExxonMobil. Whether kakistocratic or not, the United States did not use its seemingly democratic institutions and legitimate international force to end the corrupt and inhumane actions of the Equatorial Guinean regime.