[CTRL] The Sudan Peace Act: Perpetuating Africa's Longest War
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: June 2001 THE 'SUDAN PEACE ACT': PERPETUATING AFRICA'S LONGEST WAR On 13 June 2001, the United States House of Representatives passed "An Act to facilitate relief efforts and a comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan", also referred to as the 'Sudan Peace Act'. A more explicit example of confused, distorted and poorly-informed legislation would be hard to find. It is an Act that while paying lip service to the need for a "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan" at the same time provides one side to the conflict with millions of dollars worth of logistical assistance. It is an Act that decries the manipulation of food aid while ignoring the fact that the side it is supporting has been accused of diverting two-thirds of food aid within the areas it controls. It is also an act which decries the abuse of human rights within Sudan but provides millions of dollars to those accused of appalling human rights abuses in Sudan. In so doing the United States seeks to continue foreign interference in a conflict that has raged since 1955, fought, in its most recent phase, since 1983 between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) led by John Garang. Even a brief examination of attempts to achieve a comprehensive solution to the conflict in Sudan and relief efforts within that country reveal the deep flaws within this legislation. A "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan" In any examination of the search for a "negotiated, peaceful settlement to the war in Sudan", a little should be said first about those people who drafted this Act. The Act was drafted by legislators such as Representatives Tancredo, Wolf and Payne and Senators Frist, Brownback and Feingold, whose previous involvement with Sudan had resulted in an escalation in the Sudanese conflict and regional tensions. In April 2001, former United States President Carter, one of the most respected and objective commentators on events within Sudan, said of this period: "For the last eight years, the U.S. has had a policy which I strongly disagree with in Sudan, supporting the revolutionary movement and not working for an overall peace settlement." (1) This echoed earlier concerns voiced by Carter. In December 1999 he had observed: "The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war." (2) It is clear, then, that these legislators are hardly the best qualified group of people to talk about peace in Sudan. Far from working for peace they have stood by while the United States militarily and economically destabilised the largest country in Africa. They helped shape American Sudan policy from 1993 onwards - precisely the period referred to by Carter. While they publicly lament the numbers of deaths during this conflict, they are themselves directly responsible for the deaths through war, starvation or disease of thousands of Sudanese. Far from taking Carter's concerns into consideration, the 'Sudan Peace Act' merely perpetuates the Clinton Administration's failed and farcical Sudan policies. The United States Congress has shown itself either amazingly naïve or blatantly hypocritical in drafting the 'Sudan Peace Act'. In either case this piece of legislation reflects very badly indeed on Congress. This American attitude is all the more regrettable since the Sudanese government has repeatedly invited constructive United States involvement within Sudan. (3) A "comprehensive solution to the war in Sudan"? While making for good rhetoric, Congressional calls for a comprehensive solution illustrate either naivety or cynicism. For a solution there has to be some sort of political objective on the part of those waging war on the Sudanese government. The political complexion of the SPLA movement has varied from professedly Marxist through to now politically identifying with American Bible-belt Christian fundamentalists. Even on such a fundamental issue as to whether the SPLA is fighting for a separate south or a united Sudan, there continues to be confusion. (4) The war has always been about the political status of southern Sudan. While the SPLA appear to be confused, the Khartoum authorities' approach would appear to be clear. If the SPLA are fighting for autonomy or even separation this has already been offered by the government. In 1997, having already introduced a federal system and exempted southern Sudan from Sharia law, the Sudanese Government, in the Khartoum Peace Agreement, also offered, amongst other thi
[CTRL] Eric Reeves, Sudan, Displacement and Double Standards
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: June 2001 ERIC REEVES, SUDAN, DISPLACEMENT AND DOUBLE STANDARDS Eric Reeves, an English teacher at Smith College in Massachusetts, has since 1999 set himself up as a long-distance commentator on events within the Sudanese oil fields, stating that he was opposed to the Sudanese oil project and those foreign oil companies involved within it. Dr Reeves' credibility as a commentator and researcher has already been extensively questioned in "The Return of the 'Ugly American': Eric Reeves and Sudan".(1) Supposedly at the heart of his concern has been the alleged displacement of civilians from areas in or around the Sudanese oil fields. Amongst other things Dr Reeves has claimed that the Sudanese government has displaced populations around the oil fields, "orchestrating a ferocious scorched-earth policy in the area of the oil fields and pipelines." (2) He stated, for example, in July 1999, that "[h]uge swaths of land around the oil fields and pipelines are presently cleared of all human life and sustenance". (3) While these claims have been discredited and contradicted by detailed satellite analysis of the areas in question, which showed migration to and not movement from the oil fields, and by comments made by groups such as the World Food Programme (4), the extent of Reeves' double standards with regard to allegations of civilian displacement within Sudan is now also all too clear Despite his stated concern about displaced civilians, Reeves has ignored the 60,000 civilians displaced by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) rebel offensive in Bahr al-Ghazal in May-June 2001. This offensive has resulted in the massive displacement of southern Sudanese civilians. On 8 June, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the offensive had led to the displacement of at least 20,000 civilians. The Sudanese Catholic Information Office reported that most activities within the region had been halted by the offensive: "locations from Tonj northwards remain no go areas forcing both church and humanitarian agencies to suspend their flights to the region." (5) By 11 June, the United Nations estimated that 30,000 civilians had been displaced within Bahr al-Ghazal. (6) Two days later, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Rumbek, Bishop Mazzolari, reported that just under 60,000 civilians had been displaced by the offensive, and that these civilians were in desperate need of humanitarian assistance.(7) This offensive followed the announcement that the United States was to provide the Sudanese rebels with thirteen million dollars worth of logistical assistance.(8) What is also evident is that this is not the first time that Dr Reeves has studiously ignored irrefutable evidence of the forced displacement of civilians by the SPLA rebel movement. In March 2001, the Catholic Comboni missionaries stated that SPLA forces displaced 15,000 civilians when they attacked and destroyed the town of Nyal in westerner Upper Nile in late February. (9) In August 2000 Reuters also reported that: "An influx of displaced people into Bentiu, the capital of Unity state in war-torn southern Sudan, has greatly strained humanitarian and food aid in the town...World Food Programme (WFP) official Makena Walker told Reuters about 20,000 people displaced by recent fighting had reached Bentiu in the last three weeks." That is to say the refugees were fleeing into Government-controlled areas. Reuters also stated that Sulaf al-Din Salih, a government humanitarian aid commissioner, had said that displaced people were arriving in Bentiu at a rate of 150 to 200 per day, with the total number now running at 40,000. (10) In July 2000, as yet another example of civilian displacement, Bishop Mazzolari of Rumbek stated that thousands of civilians were fleeing the southern town of Wau. Bishop Mazzolari said that this massive human exodus was triggered by fears of a possible rebel attack. (11) All these deliberate displacements of civilians were ignored by Dr Reeves, committed as he seemingly is to presenting one-sided and distorted images of events within Sudan. Dr Reeves has also claimed that Sudanese oil revenues were fuelling the civil war. While this claim has not been supported by any credible evidence, in June 2001 the United States publicly announced that it had given 13 million dollars to the Sudanese rebels. On this too Reeves is silent. What price credibility? Notes 1 'The Return of the "Ugly American": Eric Reeves and Sudan', European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, November 2000. 2 'Investors Fuel Humanitarian Crisis in Sudan', 'The Catholic New Times', Toronto, 31 October 1999. 3 Eric Reeves, 'Silence on Sudan', 'The Chicago Tribune', 29 July 1999. 4 See, for example, 'Interview - Sudan Says Oil
[CTRL] The Bush Administration's Sudan Policy: Encouraging War and Hindering Peace?
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: June 2001 ENCOURAGING WAR AND HINDERING PEACE?: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S SUDAN POLICY "The people in Sudan want to resolve the conflict. The biggest obstacle is US government policy. The US is committed to overthrowing the government in Khartoum. Any sort of peace effort is aborted, basically by policies of the United States...Instead of working for peace in Sudan, the US government has basically promoted a continuation of the war." Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, December 1999 (1) "For the last eight years, the U.S. has had a policy which I strongly disagree with in Sudan, supporting the revolutionary movement and not working for an overall peace settlement." Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, April 2001 (2) The 13 June 2001 resolution of the United States House of Representatives to provide Sudanese rebels with ten million dollars worth of assistance has confirmed the concerns of much of the international community at the negative influence American government policy continues to exercise on the long-running Sudanese conflict. (3) It had been hoped by many that the incoming Bush Administration would adopt a more progressive and better-informed approach to Sudan than that shown by the Clinton Administration. The Sudanese government had also welcomed the possibility of constructive American involvement in Sudan.(4) While there were some early hopes and encouraging statements by the American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and despite the clear policy failures of its predecessor, a policy characterised by the disastrous and farcical 1998 cruise missile attack on the al-Shifa medicines factory, it is clear that the new United States government has continued to pursue a very questionable course. War-weariness within Sudan, which has been at war off and on since 1955, has become increasingly obvious. In January 2001, the Roman Catholic Comboni missionaries condemned the civil war as "immoral and a tragic farce". They stated that "The number of victims is escalating, especially among women and children. Spiritual, human and cultural values are getting lost. Corruption, tribalism and fratricidal hatred are fostered. Degradation, underdevelopment and anarchy increase". The Comboni missionaries also pointed stated that "The word 'liberation' is abused" and that the civil war was "not any longer a struggle for freedom of the Sudanese people and for the defence of human rights". (5) Throughout 2001, the Sudanese government repeatedly called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Khartoum has also, since 1997, offered an internationally-supervised referendum whereby the people of southern Sudan would be able - for the first time since independence - to chose their destiny, either within a united Sudan or as a separate state. This offer was incorporated into Sudan's new 1998 constitution and has been repeated on several occasions (6), most recently during the June 2001 peace talks in Nairobi. (7) It is an offer that has also been acknowledged, but not taken up, by the SPLA. In mid-May, Khartoum once again declared its readiness to enter into "an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire" and to restart negotiations for the achievement of a comprehensive peace: it called upon the SPLA to do the same. (8) On 24 May 2001, at least in part as a response to United States concerns, the Sudanese government stated that it would unilaterally cease air strikes against military targets in southern Sudan. (9) The Sudanese government said that the decision was taken "in pursuance of the state's set policy for achieving peace and stability, bolstering the reconciliation process and the continued call by the state for a comprehensive ceasefire." The Khartoum authorities also stated: "The government calls upon the other parties for an immediate response for boosting the peace process in the country and appeals to the international community to back up the call for a comprehensive ceasefire." (10) It was immediately following this declaration and call for peace that the Bush Administration's initial provision of three million dollars worth of assistance to the Sudanese rebels was made public, soon to be augmented by the ten million dollars in assistance announced in June. It was said that the assistance would be used to purchase vehicles and communications and office equipment for the rebels. (11) It was also stated that a contract for providing such services had been awarded to DynCorp, a private company accused of mercenary involvement in other conflicts. (12) This assistance is going to an organisation guilty of appalling human rights abuses, The New York Times, a vigorous critic of the Sudanese government, has stated that the SPLA: "[H]ave behaved like an occupying army, killing, raping and pillagi
[CTRL] The European Coalition on Oil in Sudan: Misinformed and Irresponsible
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: June 2001 MISINFORMED, IRRESPONSIBLE AND ARROGANT: 'THE EUROPEAN COALITION ON OIL IN SUDAN' In Brussels, on 31 May 2001, a number of European organisations, describing themselves as "working for peace for Sudan", launched what they called the 'European Coalition on Oil in Sudan' (ECOS). This "public appeal" was regrettably characterised by questionable allegations and stale positions. Above all else it demonstrated what can at best be described as a naïve arrogance in its calls for sanctions on Sudan. This grouping made serious claims about the Sudanese oil project, namely that "in the oilfields of the Sudan, thousands of civilians have been killed and displaced, their villages burned to the ground". It called both for all those involved in Sudan's oil sector to suspend their operations until the Sudanese civil war comes to an end, and for the European Union to introduce sanctions to that effect. It is regrettable that such an alliance of European organisations should make allegations that have been repeatedly questioned by better informed observers nearer to the areas concerned and, indeed, in large part disproven by independent analysts. It is equally disappointing that on the basis of these questionable claims ECOS has then chosen to arrogantly demand that the poverty-stricken people of Sudan should not be able to develop their own natural resources. The partisan nature of ECOS is also clearly illustrated by the fact while it called on the Sudanese government, other governments and companies to take necessary steps "towards peace" in the oil fields it pointedly did not call on the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) rebels to stop their concerted attacks on the population around Sudan's oil areas - despite such Associated Press headlines as 'Sudanese Rebels Plan to Intensify War Around Oil Fields". (1) ECOS ALLEGATIONS OF OIL-FIELD DISPLACEMENT NOT CREDIBLE The basis for the claims made by ECOS that thousands of Sudanese civilians have been displacement has been disproved by a detailed recent scientific analysis of satellite pictures taken over a number of years in the very areas of Sudan concerned. The study was commissioned by the Canadian oil company Talisman Energy, one of the companies involved in the Sudanese oil sector. Talisman asked a leading British satellite imagery analysis company, Kalagate Imagery Bureau, to study a series of satellite photographs taken of several parts of their oil concession in Sudan, the epicentre of the sort of "displacement" claimed by ECOS. The images analysed by the Kalagate Imagery Bureau included civilian satellite images collected last year and images acquired by U.S. military intelligence satellites in 1965, 1967, and 1969. Ground resolution in the images varied between about three feet and 10 feet. There were additional lower resolution Landsat images from the 1980s and Radarsat images from 2000. (2) The images were analysed by Geoffrey John Oxlee, one of Britain's leading experts in the field. (3) Mr Oxlee found that "there is no evidence of appreciable human migration from any of the seven sites examined." (4) To the contrary, he further stated that analysis revealed that "once the sites were developed, then people did come into the area, and in fact it looked as if people developed around the oil sites rather than going away from it." (5) The massive "displacement" alleged by ECOS would have been immediately obvious in any such study. Asked if there was any chance that he had been provided with doctored images, Mr Oxlee stated that the satellite photographs examined "are genuine pictures. Having looked at hundreds of thousands of satellite pictures, there's no way these pictures have been doctored. Absolutely none. We check these things out." It would appear from detailed satellite picture analysis that that far from witnessing the systematic displacement of civilians, southern civilians seem to be being drawn towards the oil concessions. ECOS: OUT OF STEP WITH THE DEVELOPING WORLD It is all too evident that the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan is out of step with attitudes towards Sudan within the international community, and particularly the developing world. As much is admitted by ECOS when it stated in its "public appeal" that "the international isolation of Sudan is ending." ECOS is repeating stale claims and echoing naïve and arrogant demands which the international community have dismissed quite some time ago. The Canadian government attempted to introduce a resolution containing many of the same measures called for by ECOS while Canada was chairman of the United Nations Security Council in 2000. The Canadian government had to drop this idea in the face of considerable opposition from the international community. The Canadian
[CTRL] Eric Reeves Against Africa
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: May 2001 ERIC REEVES AGAINST AFRICA When Smith College's Dr Eric Reeves demands an end to the Sudanese oil project, his poorly-informed campaign attempting to interfere with economic investment in Sudan brings him into direct conflict with the other countries within the Horn of Africa region. Reeves has, for example, in the past challenged the following comment made by one of the petroleum companies involved in Sudan that "[i]ncreasingly, Sudan is becoming a relative source of regional stability". (1) With an unbounded arrogance unsupported by reality, not only does Dr Reeves apparently believe that he knows what is in the best interests of the Sudanese people, but that he also knows more about Sudan, and its involvement regionally, than the governments and peoples of the Horn of Africa. Dr Reeves' claims about events within Sudan have already been devastated His allegations that the Sudanese government has displaced all the population around the oil fields, "orchestrating a ferocious scorched- earth policy in the area of the oil fields and pipelines" (2), including, for example, claims in July 1999, that "[h]uge swaths of land around the oil fields and pipelines are presently cleared of all human life and sustenance" (3) were comprehensively disproved by satellite images taken of the areas in question and scientifically analyses by Geoffrey John Oxlee, one of Britain's leading experts in the field, and a former head of the United Kingdom Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Mr Oxlee stated: "there is no evidence of appreciable human migration from any of the seven sites examined." (4) To the contrary, he further stated that analysis revealed that "once the sites were developed, then people did come into the area, and in fact it looked as if people developed around the oil sites rather than going away from it." (5) Dr Reeves' claims about Sudan within its region are similarly easily disproved. Possibly as a result of prejudice or simple naivety, Dr Reeves chooses to ignore the simple fact that Sudan by any measure has become a source of regional stability economically and politically. All Dr Reeves need have done was follow some of the international news agency reports on Sudan in recent months. Given that Dr Reeves claims to have approached Sudan "with the eyes of a professional researcher", claiming "[l]ong hours and days of assiduous reading, archival retrieval, and real-time communications with Sudan experts in and out of government" (6) his inability to find relevant material is puzzling. He has either not been professional enough to find searingly relevant Sudan articles published by first-class international news agencies such as Reuters and Agence France Presse, or he has seen them and has not had the intellectual courage to address material contradicting his thesis. Dr Reeves' credibility as a commentator has already been extensively questioned in "The Return of the 'Ugly American': Eric Reeves and Sudan". (7) His partisan myopia with regard to Sudan, and its position regionally, is once more clear for all to see. Dr Reeves seems to have missed the Agence France Presse report in February 2000 headlined "Sudan Heading for Improved Ties with Neighbours". (8) Sudan has, over the past three years, emerged as an economic and political leader of its region. This has culminated in its hosting of the Eighth Heads of State summit of the regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) body in November 2000. Sudanese President Omer al-Bashir was elected Chairman of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of IGAD at the November meeting. IGAD comprises seven eastern and central African countries, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan, Uganda and Somalia. In addition, on 12 February 2001 President al-Bashir was also elected Chairman of the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (COMESSA or CEN-SAD). COMESSA is a body which brings together sixteen north African states. Its members are Sudan, Egypt, Nigeria, Morocco, Chad, Eritrea, Tunisia, Libya, Somalia, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad. The Secretary General of the Organisation of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim, also attended the COMESSA summit. (9) Sudan additionally plays a central role in another regional African grouping, the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa. It has additionally been at the forefront of establishing a free-trade area under the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). COMESA transport and communication ministers met, for example, in Khartoum in October 2000 to address crucial issues such as the implementation of regional air, road and railway transport. (10) Sudan's relations with Egypt are at their best since the 1980s. (11) Th
[CTRL] An Open Letter to Anti-Slevery International: CSI, "Slavery" and Sudan
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: May 2001 TIME TO SPEAK OUT ON CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY INTERNATIONAL AND SUDAN: AN OPEN LETTER TO ANTI-SLAVERY INTERNATIONAL We address this open letter to Anti-Slavery International given its well-deserved reputation as one of the world's premier human rights organisations, and its particular concern about slavery and slavery-like practices. We call upon Anti-Slavery International to once again publicly speak out with regard to the claims of government-sponsored slavery and "slave redemption" in Sudan being made by groups such as Christian Solidarity International. A civil war has been fought in Sudan between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) since 1983. As Anti-Slavery International will be only too aware, while there have been legitimate concerns about inter-tribal raiding and abduction in the course of this conflict, several organisations and anti-Sudanese activists have claimed there is a flourishing "slave trade" in Sudan in which the Sudanese government and its northern forces raid southern villages and "enslave" Dinka tribesmen, women and children. These claims have been made by groups such as the Swiss-based Christian Solidarity International (CSI). CSI further claim that in the course of visits to parts of southern Sudan it has engaged in "slave redemptions" whereby southern Sudanese tribesmen, women and children are supposedly "bought back" from northern Sudanese tribesmen said to have abducted them. Christian Solidarity International and other groups claim to have "bought" back or "redeemed" thousands of slaves, often several hundred at a time, from Arab traders. (1) These groups have also been active in taking outsiders in with them on pre-arranged trips. Westerners, often with no experience whatsoever of Africa, then come back believing what they have been told they saw. Having taken these claims at face value, several of these "political pilgrims" have taken somewhat opportunistic positions with regard to "slavery" in Sudan. This has degenerated into little more than a propagandistic circus. African-American activists such as Rev Al Sharpton and pop star Michael Jackson have now also been caught up in this circus. (2) Even 'The New York Post' has described Al Sharpton as "a crass opportunist". (3) We now also have further crass opportunism in the form of anti-Sudanese activists deliberately getting themselves arrested in front of the Sudanese embassy in Washington. Former District of Columbia Congressional delegate Walter E. Fauntroy, radio talk show host Joe Madison and the Hudson Institute's Michael Horowitz all chained themselves to the fence in front of the Sudanese embassy in protest at "slavery" in Sudan. When they appeared in court their lawyers were Johnnie Cochran, of O.J. Simpson fame and former Monica Lewinsky scandal independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr. (4) All these people claim to be responding in large part to allegations about "slavery" and "slave redemption" made by groups such as Christian Solidarity International. It is also clear that there is concern amongst better-informed sources much closer to the issue about this American campaign. 'Africanews', a Nairobi-based newsletter closely identified with the Roman Catholic Church in Kenya and in southern Sudan, has observed that: "Analysts, mainstream Church officials, and aid workers are worried that the stance taken by the Christian Right might jeopardize relief operations and precipitate a humanitarian crisis in Sudan...Since last year, interest in Sudan by Americans has mushroomed largely due to campaigns led by missionary groups and U.S. based African-American churches, resulting in an unusual alliance of right-wing politicians identified with the Republican Party and members of the Democratic Congressional Black Caucus...Observers also note that some leaders - particularly Rev. Al Sharpton - could be using the Sudanese conflict to build political careers back home." (5) Anti-Slavery International has itself spoken out in the past challenging many of the claims made by Christian Solidarity International. The official 1997 Anti-Slavery International report on allegations of Sudanese slavery commented on claims of government involvement in slavery: "[T]he charge that government troops engage in raids for the purpose of seizing slaves is not backed by the evidence. (6) Anti-Slavery International's comments were supported by the then co- director of African Rights, the human rights expert, and Sudan specialist, Alex de Waal: "(O)vereager or misinformed human rights advocates in Europe and the US have played upon lazy assumptions to raise public outrage. Christian Solidarity International, for instance, claims that "Government troops and Government-backed Arab militias regularl
[CTRL] ICCAF on Sudan: Issues of Concern
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: April 2001 THE INTER-CHURCH COALITION ON AFRICA AND SUDAN: ISSUES OF CONCERN It is disappointing to note that Inter-Church Coalition on Africa (ICCAF) continues to misinform the Canadian public with regard to events in Sudan. ICCAF's clearly selective and unbalanced activity on Sudan has already been commented upon in 'Turning a "Blind Eye and a Deaf Ear to Crimes Against Humanity": The Inter-Church Coalition on Africa and Sudan'. (1) It is sad to relate that ICCAF continues to serve as the Canadian extension of the American anti-Sudan lobby tenaciously wedded to the failed Sudan policies of the previous Clinton Administration. In so doing it continues to echo questionable claims made by equally questionable, often right-wing Christian fundamentalist groups and others in the United States. Even a cursory review of ICCAF's recent positions and statements on Sudan illustrates the disjointed and distorted image it projects of the country - projections based on questionable claims. In April 2001, for example, ICCAF published as part of its 'Sudan News' a report entitled 'Sudan: Oil Before Food'. Amongst other things this report alleged, on second hand accounts, that Sudanese government forces have left "the areas around oil installations and supply roads virtually empty of the original population...Tens of thousands have been forced to flee their homesteads." The report also spoke of "continued expulsions of the people living in 'promising' oil fields". (2) In a February 2001 letter to Canadian Parliamentarians, ICCAF Coordinator Gary Kenny had similarly asserted that the Sudanese government has used "scorched-earth warfare to secure the oil fields for development. Thousands have been brutally driven off their lands." (3) These particular claims can now be assessed. The focus of many of these questionable allegations has been the Canadian oil company Talisman Energy. In April 2001 Talisman released the results of a detailed analysis of a series of satellite photographs taken of their oil concession in Sudan. The images analysed by the leading British satellite imagery analysis company, the Kalagate Imagery Bureau, included civilian satellite images collected last year and images acquired by U.S. military intelligence satellites in 1965, 1967, and 1969. Ground resolution in the images varied between about three feet and 10 feet. There were additional lower resolution Landsat images from the 1980s and Radarsat images from 2000. (4) The images were analysed by Geoffrey John Oxlee, a former head of the United Kingdom Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre and one of Britain's leading experts in the field. Mr Oxlee focused his analysis on the epicentres of the oil areas claimed by ICCAF to have been subject to population displacement. Mr Oxlee stated: "there is no evidence of appreciable human migration from any of the seven sites examined." (5) To the contrary, he further stated that analysis revealed that "once the sites were developed, then people did come into the area, and in fact it looked as if people developed around the oil sites rather than going away from it." (6) He further stated that he would stand by his conclusions in court, if needed. It is inconceivable that the "scorched earth" displacement of thousands of civilians as claimed by Gary Kenny would not have been immediately noticeable in the satellite pictures studied. When asked if there was any possibility of interference with the pictures he analysed, Mr Oxlee stated that the satellite photographs examined "are genuine pictures. Having looked at hundreds of thousands of satellite pictures, there's no way these pictures have been doctored. Absolutely none. We check these things out." (7) ICCAF's third or fourth-hand disinformation about Sudanese oil fields would appear to have been partly displaced by first-hand state-of-the- art science. Mr Kenny's reliance on questionable disinformation on Sudan is a matter of record. His gullibility is perhaps nowhere better displayed than in ICCAF's 'Sudan Urgent Action Bulletin #5 August 31, 2000'. In it ICCAF states that "A very critical situation is developing in Sudan. China appears poised to intervene militarily to protect its investment in the oil fields". The 'Sudan Urgent Action Bulletin' urged Canadians to write to the Canadian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on this issue, and included, as a model letter that written by ICCAF chairman Rodger Talbot to the Canadian Foreign Minister. This letter claimed that "credible reports indicate that China is worried that access to its premier off- shore source of oil is at imminent risk as a result of advancing SPLA forces. Under such circumstances it makes sense that China would want to act to defend its strategic interests." ICCAF
[CTRL] Human Rights Watch's Eulogy for a War Criminal
-Caveat Lector- The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council 1 Northumberland Avenue London WC2N 5BW England Tel:020 7872 5434 Fax:020 7753 2848 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date of Publication: April 2001 EULOGY FOR A SUDANESE WAR CRIMINAL: JEMERA RONE, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH AND DOUBLE STANDARDS The death in April 2001 of the senior Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) commander Yousif Kuwa afforded a tangible example of the double standards that have characterised both the stance and much of the "reporting" by human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch with regard to Sudan. Kuwa joined the SPLA in 1984. He served as the SPLA commander in the Nuba mountains and was widely seen as the deputy commander of the organisation. The SPLA stated that Kuwa "has been a prominent member of the SPLA/SPLM and has been part of the Movement Leadership since 1986 where he held several key positions". (1) Following Kuwa's death, Jemera Rone, Human Rights Watch's counsel and Sudan researcher, was quoted as saying: "He was a thoughtful man, curious and intellectual. He took liberation seriously, understanding that it included respect for the rights of all." (2) This was an astonishing statement for someone supposedly concerned with human rights to have made. Ms Rone must be aware that Yusif Kuwa was directly or indirectly responsible for some of the most heinous crimes committed in the course of the Sudanese conflict. Far from showing respect for "the rights of all", he was directly responsible for massive human rights violations including the murder, rape and torture of hundreds if not thousands of his fellow Nuba tribesmen and women. As an SPLA leader he was also directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of other Sudanese elsewhere in Sudan. Kuwa was also directly responsible for the abduction of thousands of under- age Nuba children for use as child soldiers and their transporting to Ethiopia: nearly three thousand of these children died from malnutrition or disease while in the hands of the Kuwa's SPLA. Kuwa's Responsibility for Systemic Human Rights Abuse in the Nuba Mountain Reporting on his 1993 visit to the Nuba Mountains, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on human rights in Sudan spoke of a "very dark picture" of gross violations of human rights by the SPLA. The Special Rapporteur was given lists of hundreds of victims of SPLA terrorism. Local Nuba chiefs described murders, torture, rape, kidnappings, abductions, the forced conscription of Nuba children, and the destruction of homes and looting of property by the SPLA. (3) Yousif Kuwa was the commander of the SPLA in this area. Ms Rone ignored the fact that Amnesty International reported that the SPLA imposed a "civilian exclusion zone" around areas it controlled in the Nuba mountains in order to deter civilians leaving. (4) Those attempting to leave were murdered or punished by the SPLA. Yousif Kuwa was the SPLA commander at the time of the introduction of this "civilian exclusion zone". Ms Rone would appear to have forgotten the thousands of Nuba children who were forcibly removed from their parents by the SPLA. The fate of these children has still not revealed by the SPLA. An indication as to what happened to many of them was given by Dr Peter Nyaba, a serving member of the SPLA national executive council. In his 1997 book, The Politics of Liberation in South Sudan: An Insider's View, Nyaba publicly criticised the SPLA for not disciplining those of its members responsible for the deaths of thousands of under-age Nuba children: "For instance, the officer responsible for Bilpam was not held accountable for the deaths from starvation and related diseases of nearly three thousand Nuba youths under training in 1988. And yet it was known that their food was being sold at the Gambella market, and the proceeds appropriated by the commander." (5) Thousands more under-age Nuba children are believed to have died while forced to fight as SPLA child soldiers. There are still thousands of Nuba mothers anxiously awaiting news of what happened to their children. As the SPLA commander in the Nuba at the time, Yousif Kuwa was directly responsible for the abduction of these children and their use as child soldiers. As Ms Rone may remember such actions constitute a practice similar to slavery. (6) Kuwa must also be held accountable for the fact that almost three thousand of these children died from starvation or disease while in SPLA hands. The SPLA's abduction and gathering of children, and their subsequent mistreatment, is dealt with over almost thirty pages in Human Rights Watch's own study Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan. (7) Ms Rone may also have forgotten that on 13 June 1996 she wrote to John Garang on the issue of the SPLA use of child soldiers and the treatment of Sudanese children in SPLA camps. It is difficult to square Ms Rone's eulogy of Yousif Kuwa as "thou
