Wednesday, June 21, 2006


"the U.S. has trade sanctions against Sudan and imports no oil from that country, another little known fact..."

Darfur is in West Sudan, and has a population of 7.4 million people. When the Republic of Sudan was made independent from the British Empire in 1956, Darfur was part of it. In 1994, Darfur was divided into three federal states within Sudan: Northern (Shamal), Southern (Janub), and Western (Gharb) Darfur.

Africa Showing SudanSudan Showing Darfur

For years now a civil war in Darfur has been raging, with rebels and soldiers killing each other as well as muslims killing non-Muslims and raping the women so that a Muslim child results, in some perverse logic. It started in 2003 when the government was accused by rebels of oppressing non-Arab Sudanese, and from there the violence escalated. The Muslim militia (Janjaweed) are now apparently out of the control of the government.

According to Human Rights Watch,
"The government and its Janjaweed allies have killed thousands of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa—often in cold blood—raped women, and destroyed villages, food stocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population. They have driven more than one million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, hostage to Janjaweed abuses. More than one million others have fled to neighboring Chad but the vast majority of war victims remain trapped in Darfur..."
Although in May 2006 the main rebel group, the Sudanese Liberation Movement signed a peace agreement with the Sudanese government, this does not seem to have stopped the violence. At this point, the original cause of the fighting is all but forgotten. Like many African conflicts, this one appears to be yet another tribal dispute gone mad, such as what happened in Rwanda. Ancient animosities, territorial disputes, and tribal conflicts are given guns, bombs, and tanks, and the horror is incredible. Add to that a religious aspect to the slaughter, and the mix is ghastly.

To date, almost 200,000 people have been killed, or about 3% of the total population of Darfur. Predictably, the burden of blame has been laid on the shoulders of the United States and specifically President Bush for not doing something by some:
Has the Bush Doctrine inspired American military capabilities to prevent genocide in Darfur, in which hundreds of thousands of people have already been killed simply because of their ethno-racial background, and religious affiliation, and elsewhere? Or, has the Bush Doctrine ignored human cries in Darfur, and elsewhere, and is instead being used to support a well-reported apparent agenda of the pursuit of oil resources, which has politically marginalized the surrounding chaos, human suffering, and loss of life?
But Lou Minatti notes a problem with this analysis:

I want you to take a look at the map below, entitled "Oil Concessions in Central & Southern Sudan". It's from Click on the link to, or click on the image below to enlarge it. Then take a minute or so to read it over.
Sudan Oil mapNotice which country is missing from the list? Yep. Which country has the oil concessions in the Darfur region? Yep. Which countries are working tirelessly against establishing peace and order in Darfur? Yep, you guessed it.
In a blow to Britain and the United States, Russia and China on Monday blocked proposed sanctions against four Sudanese accused of interfering with peace efforts and violating human rights in Darfur.

The sanctions, proposed by Britain and strongly supported by the United States, would have been the first imposed by the U.N. Security Council since it authorized an asset freeze and travel ban in March 2005 on individuals who defy peace efforts and violate international human rights law in the western Sudanese region.
Guess which other country is against ending the violence in Darfur? Take a look at the map again. I bet you can guess.
France says it does not support US plans for international sanctions on Sudan if violence continues in Darfur.

The UN Security Council is debating a US draft resolution imposing sanctions on militias accused of "ethnic cleansing" against non-Arabs.
People are indeed dying in Darfur because of oil and Islamofascism. But it's not America that is ignoring the tragedy. Nor is it the Brits. The US and UK want to end the slaughter. But there are certain countries that are perfectly content to let the slaughter continue. You can guess from the map which countries they are.

Commenters responded:
Very good post but, not something I already didn't know. The problem is that 90%+ of the citizens in western nations don't know the connection between politics and oil as it relates to Sudan. For that I really must place some blame on the U.S. and other non involved western governments.Would it really be so terrible to hold up this map at the U.N. and call on all the nations with oil contracts to do something about the slaughter (no blood for oil and all that)? BTW, the U.S. has trade sanctions against Sudan and imports no oil from that country, another little known fact... But, the world calls for the U.S. to put boots on the ground to solve the problem (or maybe just send a whole bunch of taxpayer money). Disgusting.
-by babs

This article doesnt make sense.
You are making false claims from a map.

Like if the United States wasn't present in Sudan for oil...


Chad exports "only" 160,000 barrels per day, produced by a U.S.-Malaysia consortium of Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco and Petronas.
-by BritFox

Like if the United States wasn't present in Sudan for oil...

Britfox or Mogwey as you call yourself on No Pasaran... The United States is not in the Sudan for oil. The United States placed trading sanctions on Sudan years ago due to their gross violation of human rights.

Yes, a consortium of oil companies, some of which are American companies, are pumping oil in Chad. A total production of 160,000 barrels a day is a pittance of world production and doesn't come close to the production in Sudan.

Currently, the United States government is trying to mediate between the World Bank, which lent Chad the money to build their pipeline and the gov't of Chad. Chad changed the laws governing revenue distribution in violation of the terms of their loan with the World Bank.

The point of this post is that the countries with commercial interests in Sudan are actively blocking sanctions on Sudan and allowing the slaughter to continue for their own economic gain.

To my knowledge, the citizens of Chad are not being slaughtered wholsale while the U.S. exports their oil. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the commercial interests backed by their gov'ts in Sudan.

You, Britfox/Mogwey are the one that does not make sense.
-by babs

Don't be so hard on britfox.

When things get confusing you should return to first principals and analyze in that light.

As anyone who has read Gnome Chomsky knows, America is responsible for all the evil in the world. The killing in Darfur is evil. Therefore Darfur is America's fault.


No need to confuse people with maps and facts. Besides, how do you know that Chad and Sudan are two different countries? Have you ever been there?
-by Mark in Texas

Yet another example of how the UN does not work as well as yet another conflict that the Russians enable through blocking any sort of resolution.

Of course we will not be able to impose international sanctions on the Sudan either because France, China, and Russia are against military action. Only a politician can make a statement like that with a straight face.

This leaves the US (and others) the option of either ignoring the problem or doing something outside the UN. Perhaps the US has learned from other recent actions and the leaders of the Sudan will instead wake up in a pool of blood instead of the US doing a full-scale invasion.
-by Fred Fry
[technorati icon]

1 comment:

Anna Venger said...

the problems in Sudan go back much further than this. Even if we can't stop the problems overnight, I'm glad the world is finally paying attention.