Showing posts with label Julie Flint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julie Flint. Show all posts

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Mia Bittar's Wow Women film - Women's Votes (Julie Flint) - EU US Observers: Standards of Sudan's election fall short

WARM THANKS to a Sudan Watch reader in Khartoum, Sudan for sending in this 3 minute visual poem that weaves together images of Sudanese women artists in Khartoum. Honouring positive and powerful ...
Wow Women by Mia Bittar

- - -

Quote of the Day
"I particularly remember one young Nuer woman who told the men: “This war is your fault. We women are tired of giving birth to children only to see them slaughtered.” All the female delegates applauded her when she proposed a “revolution” of her own. “We will stop giving birth!” - Julie Flint, 16 April 2010 (see report below)
For the record, here is a copy of Julie Flint's great comment posted at Alex de Waal's blog, Making Sense of Sudan, in reply to his blog post 15 April 2010 Women's Votes.
Julie Flint:
April 16th, 2010

Alex, how interesting that women in the Darfur camps not only voted more than men, you say, but that they voted at all, with Abdul Wahid so strongly in favour of a boycott. Do you know what the voting pattern in the camps tells us about Abdul Wahid’s support there these days? Many people are saying that JEM stopped voters in areas under its control. Was there any coercion in the camps?

The interest of women in voting – and presumably in a negotiated rather than violent settlement of conflict – reflects the experience of the church-supported people-to-people peace process in southern Sudan, where the dynamism and determination of women was very apparent. They really gave the SPLA a bashing. I particularly remember one young Nuer woman who told the men: “This war is your fault. We women are tired of giving birth to children only to see them slaughtered.” All the female delegates applauded her when she proposed a “revolution” of her own. “We will stop giving birth!”

A good friend of mine, Awut Deng, walked 30 miles to mobilize women – despite being in the difficult early stages of pregnancy – because the New Sudan Council of Churches organising the process had no budget for mobilization. Everywhere she went women told her they wanted peace because their children were dying. As one delegate said, “In the past we fought over cows, but only fighters died. Now even children and women are killed.” I imagine the thinking of women in the Darfur camps is not so different.

Awut spoke anywhere and everywhere. She interrupted the work of courts to ask: “May I speak?” She spoke to students and teachers in schools. She invited herself to the naming of children. She used, she told me, “any little corner I could find.” She slept in the bush and in the street and went without food for days.

If your impression is correct – you don’t give any details – surely one conclusion must be that more effort must be put into supporting a peace constituency of youth, women and other members of civil society, to limit the margin of manoeuvre of the soldiers and politicians, especially given the late-in-the-day preference of so many of the latter for boycott – unsupported, as far as I can see, by any back-up plan. Viewed from Khartoum, is the plan as it seems to be from here – that there is no plan?
- - -

Note from Sudan Watch Editor
If anyone reading this has emailed me and not received a reply, please forgive me. I have had health and computer problems while monitoring news on Sudan's elections and now must take a break.

Thanks to a reader of Sudan Watch for kindly sending in a report from www.riftvalley.net by Marc Gustafson that is "based on months of interviews with government officials and assessments of government documents about the creation of electoral districts. The report exposes some violations of Sudan's new laws and calls attention to some ways in which the elections might be manipulated."

Thumbs up to SRS, BBC, VOA, UN News Centre, UNAMID, UNMIS, RNW, Xinhua - Thumbs down to Sudan Tribune and Reuters' Opheera McDoom (and their followers blogging at Save Darfur & Enough)

In my view, the majority of journalists and bloggers reporting on Sudan's elections have acted jaw droppingly irresponsibly. The only reports from Reuters on Sudan that I trust are those by British journalist Andrew Heavens in Sudan. France based Sudan Tribune is a clearing house for rebel press releases and anti-government propaganda. So far, I have found that the most accurate news reports are from SRS (Sudan Radio Service), BBC News, UN News Centre, VOA and China's Xinhua News Agency, to name a few. Whenever Sudan watchers read a news report on Sudan, I hope they do a search at Google news to see what else is being reported and sleep on it before jumping to wrong conclusions and spreading dangerous propaganda and inaccurate news.

LATEST NEWS

AU chief hails peaceful Sudan polls
From Agence France-Presse (AFP) - Saturday, 17 April 2010 13:31:
(ADDIS ABABA) - African Union chief Jean Ping hailed Sudan on Saturday for "peacefully conducted" elections as Khartoum kicked off vote-counting after five days of balloting.

Ping "wishes to commend the people of the Sudan and Sudanese political parties for peacefully conducting the just-concluded multi-party general elections," the bloc said in a statement.

"These elections constitute a fundamental milestone towards realising (its) democratic transformation ... as espoused by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement," it added.

Khartoum and its southern half signed the deal which provided for both the elections and the referendum, ending a bitter decades-long civil war that left around two million dead and some four million displaced.

Ping noted that the polls "were faced by administrative and logistical problems", but he hailed the electoral board for its efforts to address the shortcomings.

The African nation's first multi-party election in over two decades took place from Sunday to Thursday when Sudanese voted to elect their president as well as legislative and local representatives.

Southerners also voted for the leader of the semi-autonomous government of south Sudan.

Results are expected around April 20.
Sudan elections 'failed' to meet international norms
From BBC News online - Saturday, 17 April 2010 15:47 UK - excerpt:
Two international organisations monitoring the elections in Sudan say the controversial polls failed to meet full international standards. The EU and the Carter Center, led by former US President Jimmy Carter, said there were significant failings, citing reports of intimidation and harassment. However, both concluded the polls were a significant step towards democracy.

"It is obvious that the elections will fall short of international standards that are expected of advanced democracies... The people's expectations have not been met," former US president Jimmy Carter told a news conference.

"Turnout is very high, 60%, but with significant deficiencies," said EU mission chief Veronique de Keyser at a news conference in Khartoum. "These elections did not reach international standards, not yet."

Neither of the observer groups called for a re-vote, but recommended instead that the lessons learned be applied to next year's key referendum on Southern Sudan's independence.
Observers: Sudan Election Failed to Meet International Standards
From The Voice of America (VOA) - Saturday, 17 April 2010 - excerpt:
The European Union monitoring mission in Sudan and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Saturday that the elections fall short of international standards because of widespread problems.

During the five-day vote, observers reported a series of problems, including intimidation, incomplete voter lists and a shortage of voting materials.

Opposition groups have also complained. Several parties partially or fully boycotted the vote, including southern Sudan's main party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. And some groups accused the ruling National Congress Party of planning to rig the results.

Final results are expected to be announced Tuesday.

Some Sudanese officials defended the election Saturday, saying it was unfair to expect Sudan to meet international standards. A member of the National Elections Commission said officials had done their best for a war-torn country with little electoral experience.
Standard of Sudan elections fall short
From Radio Netherlands Worldwide (RNW) - Saturday, 17 April 2010 - 1:21pm
The elections held in Sudan earlier this week did not meet international standards.

Nevertheless, they were an important step in the democratisation process says Veronique de Keyser, head of the European Union observer mission in the east African country. People in South Sudan were able to vote for their own autonomous leader.

The three-day elections for the presidency, the parliament and local government were extended by two days because of logistical problems and delays. The turnout for the elections, the first in 20 years in which several parties could take part, was 60 percent. However, the legitimacy of the poll was brought into question when President Omar el-Bashir's two main rivals withdrew from the running.
News from SRS - Sudan Radio Service - Saturday, 17 April 2010:

NEC Announces Election Re-run in 17 Constituencies
16 April 2010 - (Khartoum) – The deputy chairman of the National Elections Commission, Prof. Abdallah Ahmed Abdallah, says there will be a repeat of the elections in 17 constituencies within sixty days due to errors in the distribution of ballot papers. Speaking to SRS in Khartoum on Thursday, Abdallah said that ballot boxes were misplaced in these constituencies. Full story

EU Observers Declare Elections Did Not Meet International Standards
17 April 2010 - ( Khartoum) – The European Union Elections Observation Mission to Sudan says that Sudan's elections did not meet international standards. The EU-EOM Chief Observer, Veronique de Keyser, addressed a press conference on Saturday in Khartoum.

[Veronique de Keyser]: “It is difficult to compare this elections with other elections, taking into account the particularities of the voting, the history of this country, the stakes and the future. But in terms of the methodology that have been applied by the European Union which is very strict I can only say that these elections have struggled to reach international standards. However, in the process, there were signs of a more democratic future. For instance, the withdrawal of a great part of the opposition in the north strongly reduced the competition in the moment of voting but not the interest during the electoral campaign. The observers have been the direct witnesses of the democratic space that was open to the parties.”

De Keyser said the ruling parties in both northern Sudan and southern Sudan dominated the elections.

[Veronique de Keyser]: “These elections have suffered from significant deficiencies but it has to be taken into account that the Sudan is immense and that these elections are the first in 24 years. In the north and the south these elections have been dominated by the parties in power. The serious incidents during the campaign have been sporadic, with reports of intimidation and harassment of some candidates.”

De Keyser said the EU-EOM will continue to observe the counting of ballots nationwide and will make its final recommendations after the announcement of the final results of the elections.
NCP Rejects EU Observer Statement
17 April 2010 - (Khartoum) – The spokesperson for the National Congress Party reacted strongly to the EU observer statement, Fathi Sheela says that it’s too early to judge the elections in Sudan. Full story

Carter Center Critical of Elections Procedures
17 April 2010 - (Khartoum) – The Carter Center says that Sudan’s elections have fallen short of international standards because of major flaws in the polling process all over the country. The former US President and founder of the Carter Center, Jimmy Carter, held a press conference in Khartoum on Saturday. Full story

No Security Problems in Darfur During Voting Says HEC
17 April 2010 - (Khartoum) – The High Elections Committee in Darfur state says there were no security problems in the state during the counting of the ballots. The chairman of the High Elections Committee in Northern Darfur, Al-Sir Ahmed Al-Mek spoke to SRS on Saturday from Northern Darfur. Full story

Counting Delayed in Unity State As Pay Dispute Continues
17 April 2010 - (Bentiu) – Counting of votes in Unity state began on Friday with some delay due to complaints from elections officials about unpaid wages. Our reporter Clement Wani who is in Unity state sent us this report. Full story

SHEC Staff in Juba Refuse to Begin Count Until Salaries Arrive
16 April 2010 - (Juba) – Staff of State High Election Committee at Mayo Primary School polling centre in Juba have refused to count the ballots because their allowances have not been paid by NEC. The head of the polling station, Simon Saki, explained to SRS what happened: Full story

Failure to Pay Arrears Delays Count in Unity
16 April 2010 - (Bentiu) – An official from the State High Elections Committee in Unity state, Michael Mayar Mading, said that they have started counting the ballot papers. Speaking to SRS by telephone, Mayar Mading said party agents should remain calm until the winners are announced. Full story

Musician Attacked in Juba
16 April 2010 - (Juba) – A prominent southern Sudanese musician was the victim of an assassination attempt early on Friday morning. He was hit in the chest by a hand grenade thrown by an unknown assailant outside his house at Hai Jeberona in Juba. The grenade failed to detonate. Speaking to SRS in Juba, Kang John Jok, popularly known as Kang J.J., explains how the incident occurred. Full story

News from SRS - Sudan Radio Service - Thursday, 15 April 2010:

Polling Stations Close at 6pm Thursday 15 April
15 April 2010 - (Khartoum) – The National Elections Commission has signaled the end of the voting process. Voting officially ended on Thursday at 6pm. The deputy chairman of the NEC, Prof. Abdallah Ahmed Abdallah, made the announcement during a press conference on Wednesday in Khartoum. Full story

Insecurity, Logistics and Water Shortages Prevent Voting in Yirol East
15 April 2010 - (Juba) – Many of the voters in Yirol East county were unable to cast their ballots due to insecurity in the area. Our reporter Mageng Wade is in Yirol East and he sent this report. Full story

WES Vote Counting Begins Friday Amidst Complaints By Unpaid Election Officials
15 April 2010 - (Yambio) – The Chairman of the High Elections Committee in Western Equatoria state, Lawrence Suluvia, says counting of votes from all polling stations will start on Friday. Suluvia spoke to SRS in Yambio on Wednesday. Full story

Foreigner Traders in Juba Urge Sudanese to Remain Calm When Results Are Announced
15 April 2010 - (Juba) – Foreign traders in Juba are urging Sudanese not to react violently when the election results are announced. SRS spoke to some foreigner traders in Juba on Wednesday. Full story

Al-Bashir Still To Face ICC Charges Even if Re-elected
15 April 2010 - (Nairobi) – President al-Bashir will still face charges at the International Criminal Court even if he is re-elected. An ICC lawyer, Abd Al-Hadi Shalouf, told SRS on Wednesday by phone from The Hague that al-Bashir will still have to face charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Full story

Friday, April 02, 2010

Investigate and publicise abuses that have been committed by Darfur rebels in Sudan

Quote of the Year
“I think we have to do two things, one; make very clear to these Darfur rebel leaders who are refusing to talk peace and unity - and that includes Khalil Ibrahim and Abdulwahid - that they will lose if they don’t agree. Abdulwahid is sitting in the palace; maybe he shouldn’t be allowed to stay there any more, waging a propaganda war against the peace process and unity. Maybe Khalil Ibrahim should not be treated so much as the man we talk to. If I was mediating the peace talks, I would name and shame those leaders. I would investigate and publicize abuses that have been committed by these rebel movements. There are many big abuses committed by rebel groups but they never get publicity. I would ask the people of Darfur who they would want to lead them by empowering the very civil society that both Khalil Ibrahim and Abdulwahid at the moment reject.” - Julie Flint in an interview with SRS (Sudan Radio Service) Nairobi, 02 February 2010.

Full story: SRS, 02 February 2010 - More Reality And Less Rhetoric In Darfur Urges Flint
Note that in the interview, Julie Flint called on the international community to put pressure on the Darfur rebels and to withdraw the privileges which are bestowed upon some movements. Right on Julie! Keep up the great work, you deserve a medal for your courageous reporting.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

IMPORTANT: Julie Flint's report for the Small Arms Survey: Rhetoric and Reality. The Failure to Resolve the Darfur Sudan Conflict

From Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Sudan
The Strife Inside the SLA
By Julie Flint
Monday, February 1st, 2010
The difficulties facing the Doha peace talks—highlighted in my report for the Small Arms Survey: Rhetoric and Reality. The Failure to Resolve the Darfur Conflict—have been starkly illustrated as meetings resume in Doha between mediators and representatives of some of the Darfur armed movements. (Planned talks between the movements and civil society have been postponed, apparently indefinitely, at the insistence of JEM.)

Since 5 January, rival factions of SLA-Abdul Wahid have been fighting each other in Jebel Marra. The fighting, which has been largely unreported, has caused civilians to flee from a number of villages in the south of the mountains, towards Nyertiti and Kass. There are fears that the violence, which has many fault lines, too complicated to explain in this short posting, could have repercussions among civilians in IDP camps where SLA-Abdul Wahid has a hold.

It will be impossible to reach a sustainable settlement to the simmering but still-unresolved conflict in Darfur, regardless of anything the government does or does not do, while the ‘revolution’ of 2003 is eating itself.

The intra-SLA fighting has claimed the lives of a number of commanders critical of the SLA Chairman, his decision to reside in France rather than Darfur, and his refusal both to participate in the Doha process and to seek reconciliation in the SLA faction he leads. Some of the commanders have died in armed clashes; others have perished in ambushes—most recently, a commander from Kass, Mohamed Adam ‘Shamba’, whose car was reportedly attacked with rocket-propelled grenades in Jebel Marra on 26 January.

The long-standing tensions within SLA-AW over Abdul Wahid’s management surfaced dramatically (albeit behind closed doors) in the middle of 2009 when senior SLA commanders—including several of those considered most loyal to Abdul Wahid—‘challenged him for 10 days’, in the words of one of those present, at a capacity-building workshop in Switzerland. The chief of staff of the SLA, Yousif Ahmad Yousif ‘Karjakola’, went as far as to call the SLA chairman incompetent. Others complained about a lack of support, including salaries and military supplies, and the refusal to participate in the internationally-mediated peace process led by Djibril Bassole.

The spark to January’s mini-war appears to have been the capture of Karjakola by JEM in November 2009 as he returned to Darfur from Chad. Abdul Wahid’s critics allege that JEM acted at the instigation of the SLA Chairman, and are super-critical of the US special envoy, Gen. Scott Gration, for not seeking the release of a senior commander who defied Abdul Wahid’s rejectionism and favoured participating in the peace process. After Karjakola’s arrest, I received calls from SLA commanders in Darfur claiming that they have evidence of a ‘hit list’ (reportedly backed by serious money) of pro-peace reformers. I am aware that Abdul Wahid loyalists have made similar claims to others, but have no details of their claims. The list is said to include several SLA leaders in the Ain Siro area—including Ali Haroun, a law graduate of Khartoum University and responsible for justice in the SLA, and Suleiman Sakerey, the highest military commander in Ain Siro. Both met the AU High-Level Panel on Darfur in June last year.

Ain Siro has been untouched by the factional fighting and serious human rights abuses that have cast such a cloud over some rebel-controlled areas. But it has a history of problems with the SLA leadership in Jebel Marra. A number of commanders from Ain Siro were ‘arrested’ and taken to Jebel Marra, Abdul Wahid’s headquarters, late in 2007 as they gave voice to growing popular demand from the field for reform of the movement that Abdul Wahid leads from the diaspora. A confidential UN report said the Ain Siro group were accused of ‘attempting to divide the movement’. During the group’s detention in Jebel Marra, a university companion of Ali Haroun, Abdalla Mohamed, was kidnapped with his bodyguard, Hamadi, by masked men from the centre of Deribat, the SLA stronghold where the Ain Siro group was being held. (Abdalla’s body was later found three months later, hanged, in a village in Jebel Marra. Hamadi’s body was found in the same village, shot in the back.) I personally went to Paris to ask Abdul Wahid for guarantees for the safety of the Ain Siro group. He assured me they would come to no harm, and they were indeed released—albeit many months later. Abdul Wahid claimed that Abdalla Mohamed had been seized, from the market in Deribat, by ‘janjaweed’. I do not know Deribat. I leave it to those who do to judge whether ‘janjaweed’ could have got into the centre of the town, and out again, without a fight.

On 5 January this year, a senior SLA commander critical of Abdul Wahid and supportive of the peace process, Abdalla Abaker, was shot dead by Abdul Wahid loyalists at a checkpoint in Jebel Marra. Abdalla’s supporters subsequently attacked and looted the homes of a number of commanders considered to be Abdul Wahid loyalists, setting in motion a chain of attack and counter-attack that will continue until the root causes of the problem are resolved—most importantly the lack of structures, and accountability, in Jebel Marra.

The people of Darfur—those stuck in wretched camps and those still clinging to the countryside so utterly devastated by Khartoum’s criminal counter-insurgency—deserve better leadership than this. I have many reports of, and testimony to, the latest clashes and killings. It is a pity that none of this reaches the ‘ordinary’ people of Darfur, to enable them to judge for themselves who they want to represent them and speak on their behalf. A little naming and shaming, with dispassionate, detailed reporting of what exactly is going on—and why—might help Darfurians to find a voice of their own that is informed by fact rather than internet rumour and propaganda.
Click here to read comments.
- - -

Book by Julie Flint & Alex de Waal - Darfur: A New History of a Long War (African Arguments) - Revised and Updated

Julie Flint

Julie Flint is a journalist and Sudan researcher. She has co-authored two books on Darfur with Alex de Waal—most recently, Darfur: A New History of a Long War—and acted as a consultant for a range of international organizations and human rights groups on the Darfur conflict and the Inter-Sudanese Peace Talks in Abuja, attending four sessions of the talks over two years. (Photo credit: us.macmillan.com)

Julie Flint & Alex de Waal

Photo credit: Amazon.co.uk

Further reading

Nov 29, 2008, Sudan Watch - Qatari Peace Bid: UN, EU, AU, AL, UK, US & France support the joint Arab-African peace initiative for Darfur led by Qatar & Sudan People's Forum (SPF)

Oct 26, 2009, Sudan Watch - Sudan in 2012: Asking New Questions (Alex de Waal)

FULL TEXT: FINAL REPORT OF THE AFRICAN UNION HIGH‐LEVEL PANEL ON DARFUR (AUPD) OCTOBER 2009

Click here for AUPD Report in English

Click here for AUPD Report in Arabic

Monday, December 07, 2009

Darfur Sudan: The media keeps missing the importance of the Doha consultations and Declaration

People are asking why the media keeps missing the importance of the Doha consultations and Declaration.

From Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Darfur
Friday, December 4, 2009
Civil Society and Doha: Where Next?
By Julie Flint
It is disappointing how little attention there has been, including on this blog, to the civil society conference in Doha in mid-November, the first such meeting held under the auspices of the succeeding Mediations. Two weeks on, the only version of the final Doha Declaration I have seen comes (predictably) not from the mediators, who are no better at informing Darfurians of their work than their predecessors in Abuja were, but from one of those present, Ali B. Ali-Dinar, who posted it on the Sudan Tribune.

In just three days, representatives of the three states of Darfur, including from Khartoum and the diaspora, succeeding in doing what the armed movements continue to fail to do—agree on a single, unified position paper. What is striking about the conference is how intensively ‘ordinary’ Darfurians had prepared for it and how, once in Doha, they re-worked the plan presented to them by the Mediation (see Ali’s account on Sudan Tribune for this). The four topics tabled for discussion (land, power-sharing, civil society, general issues) immediately became seven, with the inclusion of security arrangements and disarmament, wealth sharing and economic and social development, and justice, reconciliation and return. The land chapter was expanded to make specific mention of ‘nomadic routes’.

What is missing from the Declaration is as interesting as what is included. There is no reference to the International Criminal Court, rather an emphasis on ‘transitional justice’ in all its many forms—and at all levels, from local to international—in order to ‘cure the soul and mend the social fabric’ and ensure there is no impunity for any of the crimes committed in Darfur (2.4.1). There is no mention of genocide, ‘ongoing’ or past, only to ‘illegal stop and search[es]’ of IDPs’ and unspecified impediments to security in the IDP camps (2.1.1 C ). (This raises the question: was enough effort exerted to bring to Doha war-affected Darfurians not in camps?) There is no call for the armed movements to have a role in getting the displaced back to their villages, as demanded by the movements. This should be organized by the Native Administration ‘with the help of the unified police, UNAMID forces in addition to the army if necessary’ (2.1.2.D). There is no demand for a single Darfur region, a subject participants said requires more ‘research and consultation’ (2.3.11). There is no finger-pointing: the words ‘militias’ and ‘movements’ do not appear in the text, which recommends ‘the simultaneous collection of weapons from all parties except the regular forces’ (2.1.2 B).

Civil society is looking forward, not back, demanding the re-establishment of boarding schools (especially important for pastoralists), ‘major development projects of national character [to] foster a sense of nationhood and [remove] a sense of marginalization’ (2.2.1), job creation (2.2.5).

The Doha Declaration requests the parties to observe an immediate ceasefire. The parties claim to represent the people. It’s a pity that the Mediation isn’t exerting greater efforts to get the people’s voice to the parties (and to the media and lobbies that support the parties) to exercise pressure on them to put aside their individual agendas in the interests of the whole.

Many questions remain. Among them:
• Did the Sudan Government in any way impede the meeting or the ability of delegates to travel to Doha? Only five months ago, organizers of Mo Ibrahim’s Mandate Darfur were told that anyone attempting to go to Addis Abada for that civil society meeting would be arrested and put on trial for treason.
• Were pastoralists satisfied with their representation and input?
• How was the Declaration agreed on? By state or delegate? By unanimity or majority?
• Were the movements present as observers? (I believe this was the plan initially) If so, what was their reaction away from the media spotlight?
• What now?
Were any of the readers of this blog present in Doha? If so, can they do what the Mediation hasn’t—supply a detailed account of the meeting (and its corridors)? JEM has (predictably) said ‘most of the civil society representatives (in Doha) are supporters of the ruling National Congress Party’. The conference facilitator, Siddig Umbadda, refutes this. He says ‘quite a few government people declined to come because they thought the opposite’.

One final point: civil society sees a role for itself in ‘documenting’ any future negotiations (2.6.3 F). Had this been done in Abuja, we might not have seen such an immediate, violent reaction against the DPA. The failure of the AU to keep the people of Darfur informed of the progress, and content, of the negotiations was surely one of the main reasons for the uncompromising rejection of the DPA it its entirety.

4 Responses to “Civil Society and Doha: Where Next?”
Ahmed Hassan:
December 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Dear Julie Flint,
Many thanks for bringing this issue to discussion. Actually, ever since the meeting ended I was trying very hard to locate this famous Doha Declaration which was only briefly mentioned in the press release of the Qatari government.
I join my voice to you in raising these questions, and hope that someone can shed the light on the details of the meeting.
Moreover, I am also interested to know how representative to the civil society the participants were. A comment that I read in one article claims that the delegations were dominantly supporters of the government and that explains why the issue of the ICC was avoided. I do not claim that this is true, but I would like to know more about the selection and the composition and background of the delegates in addition to answers for the important questions that you raised in this article.
Many thanks again.
- - -

Sean Brooks:
December 4th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Good post Julie…I too have been asking why the media keeps missing the importance of the Doha consultations and Declaration, see: http://blogfordarfur.org/archives/2102.
I have not heard of the NCP impeding the travel of any delegates, which is something that was of great concern given what happened before Mandate Darfur. As for the the content of the Declaration, I addressed this in a recent post as well http://blogfordarfur.org/archives/2214: “And it seems apparent from the “Doha Declaration” itself that NCP representatives had limited influence on the outcome. In addition to a call for a ceasefire and negotiations, the civil society representatives also made strong demands about carrying out justice, ending impunity, and resolving land issues in Darfur. In fact, the document specifically calls for the return of all land of displaced persons and refugees to their original owners and the evacuation of those who have lived on the land during their absence. It also calls for the disarmament of all armed forces in Darfur, except for the constitutionally authorized regular forces, and the establishment of the necessary security mechanisms by UNAMID to allow displaced persons and refugees to return to their villages.”
As for how the declaration was agreed upon, Ali Dinar mentions that the delegates agreed to merge the recommendations brought to the consultations by the South/West Darfur and North Darfur delegations. Its my understanding that once the recommendations were merged together they were agreed upon unanimously.
I hope other attendees of Doha might answer your other important questions.
- - -

Khalid Al Nur:
December 4th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Ever since the failure of Abuja, a whole range of Darfurian groups including CSOs have been knocking at the door of the negotiations and asking to be represented. The mediators have always responded that to allow them into the hall would “complicate the process” and might lead to the armed movements (JEM and SLA-Abdul Wahid) pulling out. What this conference shows is that their presence doesn’t complicate the process at all, in fact it moves it forward. And, if there is a deal that brings in all Darfurians including the IDPs, the Arabs, civil society and the native administration, but is boycotted by JEM and Abdul Wahid — what does that mean? My prediction is that Khalil and Abdul Wahid might fulminate but they would have no option but to say, “those are my people, I’m their leader — let me follow them!”
- - -

Ali B. Ali-Dinar:
December 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am
This is in response to Julie Flint’s questions:

(1) Did the Sudan Government in any way impede the meeting or the ability of delegates to travel to Doha?
For the Doha meeting, the wish of the government of Sudan (GoS) for the conference is to issue a statement that is critical of the armed movements and with fewer demands from the GoS. I believe the arrival to the meeting of individuals such General Adam Hamid, the Ex Governor of South Darfur, and General Hussein Abdallah Gibril, the Ex-Governor of North Darfur, whose names are floating around in the unofficial list of Darfur war criminals is a testimony to the government’s intention to derail the meeting/declaration but such attempt has failed. It failed mainly because the delegates from the three states did their homework before arriving to Doha. For Mo Ibrahim’s planned meeting the Government had tried to advance and bar specific individuals and the organizers reacted by canceling the conference. For Doha, the Government has its way in sending it’s people, but they failed in influencing the outcome. For more details about the process through which the Declaration was reached please read my statement: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article33323

(2) Were pastoralists satisfied with their representation and input?
The agreed Declaration was endorsed by delegates representing women, youth, IDPs, native administration, local NGOs, and NCP-ers. This is their vision for peace and justice in Darfur and for the benefit of all Darfurians regardless of their livelihood.

(3) Were the movements present as observers?
Some of the movements were already in Doha and in the same hotel (Sheraton) where the conference took place in negotiation with GoS and the team of mediation. The civil society delegates were accommodated in a different hotel (Retaj Al-Rayan). There was no presence from the armed movements in the civil society’s conference neither as delegates or observers because they were not invited. JEM’s response to the Declaration is announce here: http://www.sudanjem.com/2009/archives/21725/en/
- - -

See photo of Julie Flint in report at The Washington Post dated May 28, 2004: Julie Flint travelled for 25 days on foot and horseback in the Darfur region of Sudan to collect evidence of attacks by government-backed militiamen.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Reports of Oil in Darfur are Exaggerated (Julie Flint)

From Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Darfur
Reports of Oil in Darfur are Exaggerated
By Julie Flint, Friday, August 7th, 2009:
Claims that the war in Darfur is intimately linked to vast untapped oil reserves have been made ever since the conflict began and are revived in The Scramble for Africa, where Steven Fake and Kevin Funk repeat a series of assertions that, as far as is known in the often secretive world of oil exploration, have no basis in fact. Thus far, all efforts to find oil in Darfur have failed in the almost 30 years since Chevron discovered the small and declining Abu Gabra and Sharaf fields that border Kordofan.

Unlike in southern Sudan, where the war for oil was terrible, the massive displacement in Darfur was not caused by the presence, or even hopes, of oil; it was caused by a vicious counter-insurgency to quash a rebellion, including by the regime’s Islamist rivals in the Justice and Equality Movement, that seemed to be threatening to take control of the whole region. If oil reserves are ever found in significant quantities in Darfur, they could become a source of contention. On present evidence, however, that seems unlikely. Most of central and western Darfur consists of non-sedimentary rock, which will not contain any oil deposits. Experts concur that the region has only two areas where there could be serious finds—southern Darfur, bordering Kordofan and Bahr el-Ghazal, and the very north-western corner bordering Libya.

Slowly-expanding new exploration in both areas has caused intermittent, and apparently very limited, local conflict, but so far has yielded nothing of commercial interest.

Although important discoveries have been claimed since the war in Darfur began—including by the Ministry of Energy and Mining, which often exaggerates its success—the claims have been vague, significantly lacking in detail, and, in the single most important instance, incorrect.

The most productive field in Darfur is Block 6, where Chevron first found oil in 1979. This concession straddles Kordofan and South Darfur and was awarded to Sudan’s most important oil partner, the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), in November 1995. Early in the conflict in Darfur, CNPC relinguished most of the part of Block 6 that was inside Darfur to a group of small companies. Now called Block 17, there have not been any reports about activities there. The operator, Ansan, is a small Yemeni company with no track record in the upstream. (For a map of oil concessions, including in Darfur, see this map produced by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan.)

The Darfur production in Block 6 is Abu Gabra, which is situated just inside Darfur and has been attacked several times by rebels, without lasting effect. Alleged production figures from the field vary from 20,000 to 60,000 b/d. CNPC has built a pipeline from the Fula field in Block 6, in the middle of Southern Kordofan, to Khartoum. The Abu Gabra oil is trucked out to Fula, which produces approximately 45,000 b/d. A small refinery at Abu Gabra, built before CNPC arrived, with a 2,000 b/d capacity, has been closed by CNPC. It produced mainly diesel.

In April 2005, Energy Minister Awad al-Jaz grabbed headlines by announcing discovery of a giant oilfield in southern Darfur that he said was expected to produce 500,000 b/d within months. The reported find was in Block C, a concession granted to a consortium called the Advanced Petroleum Company (APCO). APCO had started drilling late in 2004 and soon after claimed that its exploratory well had ‘oil in place’. But announcements of success were premature and proved illusory: the oil discovered was in insignificant, noncommercial quantities, and the well was soon reassessed as dry. Cliveden Petroleum, the largest partner in the original consortium, sold its share to High Tech, one of Sudan’s largest conglomerates that is controlled by a former Energy and Mining Minister, Abdel Aziz Osman. APCO stopped all activity and hasn’t resumed since.

This ‘discovery’ provoked considerable confusion and a surge of new reports linking the Darfur war to oil. On 16 April, UPI correctly reported the find as being in ‘southern Darfur’. On 19 April, Reuters said the discovery was ‘southwest of El Fasher in North Darfur State’. This sentence was problematic—although El Fasher is in North Darfur, the discovery was in South Darfur. In September 2006, citing the 2005 Reuters report, Tomdispatch, an armchair blog with a tendency to ascribe US foreign policy to oil and oil alone, said a discovery in North Darfur (the italics are mine) had ‘effectively doubled Sudan’s oil reserves’. The blog continues to be widely circulated on the internet. Fake and Funk cite it as evidence that ‘Darfur, along with Kordofan, “may be the areas richest in oil in the entire country.”’

But the South Darfur find trumpeted in 2005 was a bust, and there have been no lucky strikes in North Darfur. Industry sources say that one of the companies that bought drilling rights to 125,000 square miles of the North Darfur desert—Block 12A— in November 2006 has reportedly had good seismic results. But it would be premature to claim even the possibility of oil wealth there: seismics identify potential; they do not find oil.

Book cover:  The Scramble for Africa

Monday, March 09, 2009

ICC's Ocampo got it wrong: 5,000 people are not dying a month - there is no ‘ongoing genocide’ in Darfur, Sudan

The following excerpt is from Julie Flint's comment posted in the comments section of her analysis "Justice and Hunger" March 6, 2009 at Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Darfur:
Five thousand people are not dying a month. There is no ‘ongoing genocide’. (The ICC judges said that, effectively telling Moreno Ocampo he got it wrong.) Not all aerial bombardment by the government is ‘genocidal’ and unprovoked. Let’s get it in perspective, stop talking about ‘saving’ Darfur and work out how best we can help them Darfurians to save themselves - especially now that our own leverage is so dramatically reduced.
Here is a copy of some responses to "Justice and Hunger". I have used red to highlight some of the text and added links within Julie's last comment, for future reference.
- - -

From Ahmed Hassan:
March 7, 2009
Dear Julie Flint,
Thank you very much for your analysis. However, I believe we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into a game staged by the government of Sudan and which the regime knows exactly how to play.  El-Bashir is playing on the reactionary “pride” of the international community and of those affected humanitarian agencies, to buy a compromise.  Albeit the fact that those INGOs represent the “big players”, let us not to exaggerate facts regarding their contribution, in favor of the government game, by claiming that 60% of all humanitarian aid in Darfur will disappear in a matter of days if these INGO leave Sudan.

Let us just not forget that there are still more than 100 INGO operating in Darfur, all of them are American and European.  As long as the cry is for the victims in Darfur, who are in need for help, I don’t see why donors can not re-allocate funds to those operational NGOs or to national partner NGOs? 

I think the only obstacle that I can see is the “hurt pride’ of the kicked out INGOs as well as of the International donor community, and I believe this should be considered as small price for what the government is quoting as Moreno statements that he gathered his information mainly from INGOs.  Technically, I am sure someone will respond with comments about the capacity of the other INGOs and the National NGOs to handle the humanitarian operations in Sudan.

Again, I think the International donor community should prove their rhetoric about partnership and should invest in building the capacity of the national NGOs as part and parcel of the calls for empowering the civil society and bringing peace and democracy.

As an eye witness and as humanitarian worker with recent experience in Darfur, I don’t buy any argument that the level of the humanitarian emergency can not allow for a lengthy process of capacity building, there are enough INGO and local NGOs with adequate capacity to fill the gap caused by the expelling of the 13 INGOs and at the same time undergo a systematic process of capacity building. This could be quite an option to deprive the regime in Sudan from what it plan to use as a leverage to gain a compromise.

To a some extend also, I think we should start looking at things differently, that we are now dealing with two different but not separate issues; the arrest of Bashir, and the Darfur or Sudan Peace.

I like Alex’s statement that “The ICC pretends to be outside politics, representing principles on which no compromise is possible. The key word is ‘pretense’, to paraphrase David Kennedy: it is a nice fiction for the human rights community to believe that it is ’speaking truth to power’ and not actually exercising power.  The ICC arrest warrant is a real decision with real consequences in terms of lives saved and lost and the political life of a nation”. Again, even under this pretence, I don’t see how the ICC can step back from this situation.

Bashir arrest process and trial should go on without being questioned or doubted. The international community, on the other hand, should start working on issue number two, which is the primary issue, of peace in Sudan, and which I strongly believe that it could be more possible and more attainable without Bashir in the picture.

The International community on the other hand, should not be deceived with the staged demonstrations in support of Bashir, or with the silence of the rest of the political forces in Sudan.  The regime is keeping events for the time being by the sheer use of force and resources, however, once the International community decides on the right mode of actions, it will be surprising the support that would come from all the political forces in Sudan, now intimated and subdued by the ruling party.
- - -

From Abdikarim Ali:
March 7, 2009
Ocampu’s excuse was that it couldn’t get any worse for the Darfurians; And now we know it really could and it is already in process. Now the UN and AU are on the ground in Darfur; what can they do?
- - -

From Ibrahim Adam:
March 7, 2009
To Bob Williamson: And America takes it on itself to ’solve’ other countries’ problems it disagrees with by tearing-up, and using shock-and-awe bombing tactics (with huge civilian casualties and other likely war-crimes) by murdering other people living in said-country, and regulates it (the assault) with a sophisticated media and other communications tools apparatus. Touche…..Or it lets other allies do it and provides them with diplomatic cover.

Put simply, there’s no moral high ground for the US to occupy here: don’t search for it.

Agree with Ahmed Hassan’s incisive reality of the humanitarian situation, staffing and capacity on the ground; also agree with Julie’s sharp analysis completely and Alex’s posting on the day of the ICC announcement: “Yes, Alex, you’re right, it was a sad day for Sudan….”
I Adam
Country-Risk Consultant,
El Fasher, North Darfur, Sudan
- - -

From Sharon Silber:
March 7, 2009
What a terrible disaster. It really seemed that the difference between the hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur and the millions killed in South Sudan was due, not just to the difference of duration in years of the conflicts, but due to the lack of access of humanitarian groups in South Sudan since so many died not from the killing itself but from hunger, thirst and lack of medical care. I am very fearful of what this means for Darfur. What are you recommending now? What pressure can be harnessed? Are there specific economic sanctions that could be implemented?
- - -

From Julie Flint:
March 7, 2009
Dear Ahmad Hassan,
You are absolutely right in that what we need to be doing now is trying to limit the damage done by the expulsion of the aid agencies. I appreciate that those expelled are a minority, but they represent more than half of the overall capacity of the Darfur relief operation. The assistant secretary general for humanitarian affairs has said the suspension of their work means that ‘1.5 million have already lost access to health care, and over one million could soon lose access to potable water. The loss of MSF alone will leave more than 200,000 patients in rural areas without essential medical care. The departure of Oxfam Great Britain, which is the largest NGO providing water, sanitation, and hygiene services, is likely to leave 600,000 people in a precarious situation.’ She warned that nearly 1.1 million people may be without food at the next distribution time.
OCHA said (privately) yesterday that Kalma and Kass would run out of water ‘by tomorrow’ - i.e. today.

The impact of the arrest warrant is going to have a massive impact, and soon. And not only in Darfur. In the east, the Three Areas and perhaps even Chad, if the displaced are forced to leave the camps - either through hunger, or thirst, or actions of the government or its militias, or possibly even the rebel movements. Can UNAMID protect them?

I’m not an aid person, and pretend to no expertise there whatsoever, but I understand that funds cannot be reallocated quickly, nor new personnel recruited overnight. Even if they could be, not every INGO has the operational capacity of those that have been expelled. National NGOs, however courageous and committed, simply don’t have the capacity or the expertise for such a large and complex operation, that brought in the best cadres from all over the world. The transfer of capacity is difficult because assets have been confiscated. Management capacity can’t be transferred because staff have been ordered to leave the country.

There seems to be an emerging consensus that it is more useful, in the short term, for the expelled NGOs to put their energy into helping the remaining NGOs to scale up their activities to prevent loss of life rather than putting all their energies into lobbying for the Sudan government to reverse its decision. And I would imagine a priority has to be mapping what remains, and where, and determining how the need that has been created can be best and quickest addressed.

John Smith says ‘the Prosecutor is not a diplomat and should not be expected to act as such.’ Fair enough; he is only doing what the UNSC asked him to do. But he is required, by the Rome Statue, to take the interests of the victims of the account. And running out of water, food and health care, in the middle of a meningitis epidemic, is not in their interests. This government has been in power for 20 years - expect Bashir to organise one hell of a party on June 30 this year - and we have no excuse for not knowing how it works. It is constantly looking for pretexts to erect obstacles in front of humanitarians. This is a tragedy foreseen, and avoidable. I’m not against accountability at the highest level for the crimes committed in Darfur. Far from it. But with no-one to protect the victims, this is not the time.
- - -

From Julie Flint:
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Dear Sharon,
Your diagnosis of the difference between the South and Darfur is spot on. Throughout twenty years of war, most Southern Sudanese never saw any relief. Most war-displaced Darfurians have received a fair amount.

It’s so much easier to know what not to do than what to do at this point, when we have so dramatically limited our options. Don’t impose a no-fly zone, for starters, since most aid goes - or more correctly now, went - by air and must again. Don’t bomb. Nick Kristof, who a few days ago told us that our fears that aid agencies would be expelled were ‘overblown’, now wants us to bomb the Sudan air force. And the same government that has cut the lifeline of more than a million Darfurians without batting an eyelid will take that sitting down? Pull the other one. De-escalate. Don’t escalate. Get off the high moral ground into the dust and mud where displaced Darfurians live. Put yourself in the place of a mother who has been under canvas for five years, whose child has meningitis, malaria or diarrhea, and not a doctor or nurse in sight now. Prioritize the life of that child. There are hundreds of thousands of them, most already beginning to feel the effects of Bashir’s arrest warrant.

The immediate challenge is to respond to the gaping holes in service provision - NGOs estimate that 70% of humanitarian service delivery to 4.7 million people in Darfur will be affected - and to try somehow to utilize (and if necessary protect) the 2,570 national staff rendered jobless. The 200 international staff have until 9 March to leave Sudan. Sudanese law states that NGOs should have 30 days to challenge the revocation of registration, but the government has dismissed this, citing ‘national emergency’ and ’state security’. I see no moderates on the horizon, no ripe prospects for peace.

Somehow international organizations have to find a way to dialogue with the government - criminalized in its entirety by the ICC Prosecutor - at a time when it appears that those who want a degree at least of cooperation have been silenced or pushed aside. In the immediate term, this may have to be by proxy - through Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the African Union. The CPA cannot be allowed to collapse. HAC Commissioner Dr. Hassabo Mohamed Abdul Rahman has said more NGOs are under investigation for collaboration with the ICC and will be expelled if a connection is found. Ever since Moreno Ocampo applied for the arrest warrant, activists in the US especially have been hailing this as a breakthrough for peace and a means of leverage on the government. I don’t get this. I see a dwindling of peace hopes and vastly diminished leverage.

Security in the camps must be a major concern. The ICC’s outreach was poor, and the arrest warrant against Bashir seemed to many like a magic bullet. (Even if he were, somehow, arrested, would the regime veer into democracy? Almost certainly not.) There is a need for urgent contacts with the rebel leaders who have influence in the camps - especially Abdel Wahid - to calm rather than inflame the situation and do what they can to stabilize it. JEM must be warned not to seize this moment to make another military push.

Economic sanctions? Would they not affect ordinary Sudanese? What I am hearing indicates that the main concern ordinary Sudanese have about the Bashir warrant is the effect it will have on their economy. Make things tougher on that front and risk increased support for Bashir, I think.

Finally, start telling it like it is. (In for a penny in for a pound.) Distortion of facts, purple prose and exaggerated rhetoric, with a liberal sprinkling of Sudanophobia, have all conspired to create the current dead end - Bashir dances while Darfurians risk starving again, en masse. Five thousand people are not dying a month. There is no ‘ongoing genocide’. (The ICC judges said that, effectively telling Moreno Ocampo he got it wrong.) Not all aerial bombardment by the government is ‘genocidal’ and unprovoked. Let’s get it in perspective, stop talking about ‘saving’ Darfur and work out how best we can help them Darfurians to save themselves - especially now that our own leverage is so dramatically reduced.

Then we can worry about putting Sudan’s leaders in handcuffs. They’ll still be there in a few years’ time.
- - -

Grenade victim

Grenade victim

Photo: After a grenade exploded, Bakit Musa, 8, lost his hands, one eye and the skin on half of his face. (Nicholas D. Kristof/The New York Times March 4, 2009) 

From Kristof's blog at nytimes.com March 7, 2009
Your comments on my Darfur column
By NICHOLAS KRISTOF
My Sunday column is about the aid workers being expelled from Darfur. Surprisingly, the United Nations reacted with rather more vigor than the Obama administration, especially at first. Ban Ki-moon issued a tough statement and has been busy calling up leaders in the region to try to get this reversed, and the heads of WFP and other agencies made strong statements as well. In contrast, the initial State Department comment was pathetic, although it was strengthened to a condemnation on Friday. Obama, Biden, Clinton were all tough on Darfur when they were in the Senate and when they were running for office, so let’s hope they aren’t backing down now that they are in office.

Let me also try to clarify something. There are still many aid workers who have not been expelled (World Vision is one of the biggest groups that remains in place), and of course they will try to pick up the slack. But they won’t be able to, except at the margins, for a couple of reasons. First they have their own missions, and everybody is understaffed. Second, Sudan security officials have closed the offices and confiscated the equipment of the expelled NGO’s, and you can’t do a food distribution if you don’t have lists of people who are supposed to get aid; a communications technician for a group that remains can’t shift to treating children with diarrhea, particularly if the clinic and medications have been confiscated. In some areas, the camp managers were expelled, so there is no longer anyone who even knows what is needed. Third, there is a wide variation in the regional impact of the expelled NGO’s. For example, almost all the aid groups in West Darfur were expelled, but a World Vision staff member in South Darfur can’t do anything to save lives in West Darfur.

Bashir surprised most of his own ministers with the decision (the first vice president didn’t know of it), and they seem to have mixed views. Bashir has been very tough in meetings in the capital, but he was also very tough on how he would never allow UN peacekeepers into Darfur, and of course he did. The key was international pressure, and that’s what we desperately need right now.

Your comments?
- - -

Postscript from Sudan Watch: Here is a copy of a noteworthy comment posted to Kristof's commentary copied here above.  There are more from the 50+ comments posted that I would have liked to include here (especially one re British involvement over 100 years) but I can't re-read them all, must close and sleep now.  Maybe more, tomorrow.  Bye for now.
While in your replies to comments you do acknowledge some of the complexities of the situation, your original column was just an artificial and simplistic ‘white hat/black hat’ distortion. You can’t just go visit a place for a few months and think that you know what should happen there better than the locals.

I still remember your suggested ’solution’ to the issue of Tibet’s status which was equally simplistic. No element of that solution has come to pass, ever will, or should. It was a very typical case of the perils of half-understanding a situation, which seems to be a specialty of yours.

These neo-imperialist attempts to solve other nations’ problems for them without their consent are just as harmful coming from well-meaning and intelligent liberals such as yourself as they are from incompetent noecons, if not more so. The Third World is rightly hypersensitive to this in the aftermath of Iraq, and any attempt to escalate the issue, particularly along military lines as you suggest, would fracture the world order and cause immeasurable damage compared to which Iraq would be a walk in the park. American pilots shot down enforcing a no-fly zone by Sudanese using Chinese antiaircraft weaponry helped by Chinese advisers, and locked up in a Sudanese jail? Peacekeeping troops from the A.U. fighting UN troops from Europe? Sudan bombing French airbases in Chad? The nightmare scenarios are endless. The Chinese would veto any Security Council action, and rightly so, but that still leaves a lot of scope for the Americans and Europeans acting independently to cause an enormous amount of damage.

The comprehension of Americans, in particular, of other countries and how they work (as opposed to how we would like them to work) is just about zero, and you unfortunately are no exception.

The best hope in this situation would have been to push all sides in the peace talks to the negotiating table and towards a solution, but the ICC’s boneheaded action has removed all incentives for any party to negotiate. The rebels hope the international community will do their dirty work for them, and the government now no longer has any scenario in which the international community recognizes their rule, and hence has absolutely nothing to gain from negotiating and nothing to lose by walking away. Nice job (not)! This one is going to get ugly, and you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

— Martin Mellish
Well said, Mr Mellish, brilliant comment. Loved the lines that I have highlighted with red!

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Friedhelm Eronat is behind Cliveden Sudan and Darfur oil deal - It's blood for oil in Southern Sudan

Intermission interrupted to share some important news. [June 10 update: The following post, drafted June 9, has been edited to insert additional material. Light blogging continues. If anyone has further info on issues raised here, please let me know and I will add info and link at end of this item and/or in a fresh post at a later date. Thanks. This story may be added to and remain on front page here during six week intermission.] As noted here previously, Sudan confirmed in April that geological studies and surveys proved there are "abundant" quantities of oil in the western region of Darfur. The following excerpt, from a report at Aljazeera April 19, 2005 entitled Sudan discovers abundant oil in war-torn Darfur, covers most of the details provided in April by various newswires [see also AKI report April 20, 2005]
"Sudanese Energy and Mining Minister, Awad Ahmed al-Jazz, said that a newly discovered oil field in Darfur was expected to generate 500,000 barrels of crude oil per day by August this year. At the same time, Mohamed Siddig, a spokesman for the energy ministry also announced that drilling for oil had started in Darfur "on the basis of the geological studies and surveys which proved the presence of oil in abundant quantities in Darfur." Siddig said the ABCO consortium, in which the Swiss company Cliveden has a 37 percent share, owned the rights to the field. He also said work on the first oil well, southwest of El-Fasher in North Darfur State, was underway. Apparently, previous surveys showed that the region has untapped oil, gold, iron, silver as well as natural gas. Currently Sudan exports around 300,000 oil barrels per day. The country's main oil fields are in the south."
This evening (Thurs June 9) on television here in Britain, I watched a Channel 4 News special report on Sudan by Jonathan Miller. The report covers news logged here at Sudan Watch over the past year but the big news is, it revealed the name of the person behind the mysterious Swiss oil company Cliveden. It has given me a lead to google further info [see notes below]. When I last posted on Cliveden, I could not find who was behind the company which appeared to be either Swiss or UK based. Jonathan Miller's investigation is important. He has discovered that the Khartoum government has signed a 25-year contract (which he has a copy of) with a consortium to drill for oil in southern Sudan and reveals the man behind Cliveden and the oil deal is Friedhelm Eronat a former US citizen (who often acted on behalf of Mobil overseas and ex-business partner of convicted Mobil dealmaker J. Bryan Williams) turned British citizen now living in Chelsea, London. How on earth did he get British citizenship so quickly? My understanding from Channel 4's TV news report is that as an American citizen he would have been jailed for 10 years for doing such a deal because of US sanctions. Why do the same rules not apply in Britain? [Note, the point of copying various report excerpts and notes here below is to show how it was known in 2003 there was oil in Darfur - Cliveden's 25-year deal was signed in October 2003. Darfur rebellion began in earnest February 2003. Genocide in Darfur started around Feb/March 2004 causing, over the ensuing year, causing the deaths of some 300,000 - 400,00 Darfurians and millions to flee the region or country. South Darfur is an extremely dangerous and a "no-go area" for UN staff. Scroll down here below to see a map showing how few refugee camps are located in South Darfur, where oil is being explored. Drilling has started.] Here is a transcript of Jonathan Miller's report entitled "Briton involved in Sudan oil drill" - below which is a rare photograph of Friedhelm Eronat, courtesy Channel 4 News. The report, I believe, opened with a mention of Darfur, saying "What a place to be looking for oil": Say Darfur, we think genocide, ethnic cleansing. But to Khartoum and its corporate partners, deep below dustbowl Darfur lie abundant hidden riches. In 2003, as Sudanese government forces and their murderous militias hounded black Africans from their homes, Khartoum signed a deal to drill for oil in Darfur. In April this year, with the burning and killing still going, the oil minister announced they had struck oil. A potential windfall for a pariah regime and its friends. So what on earth does the human misery of war torn Darfur have to do with the exclusive London borough of Chelsea? Well, the man who was behind the Darfur oil deal lives here. Right here, in fact, in this multi-million pound mansion. Until two years ago he was an American citizen. Now though, he's British. His name: Friedhelm Eronat. Peter Felter knows Cliveden's secrets, and Friedhelm Eronat's too. He was his lawyer for eight years and ran the whole empire for four before he was sacked. He is taking the Group to an employment tribunal. Cliveden's rigorously defending the action. Peter Felter was the chairman of Cliveden Sudan at the time of the Darfur oil deal. He said: "He's a complex personality. Very rich, very charming, a very good salesperson. He now is Mr Big Oil, untouchable. He doesn't care about the minor issues of Darfur or genocide." We could not find any film of Friedhelm Eronat. But Channel 4 News has obtained the only known photographs. In 1990 Mr Eronat set up a global oil empire: the Cliveden Group. It operates in Europe, America and Africa. Friedhelm Eronat was at the heart of the deal to get at Darfur's oil. In late 2003, through his company, Cliveden Sudan, he acquired the biggest stake in the consortium drilling for oil. Mr Felter said: "Cliveden Sudan was bringing not only money of course, but it also was bringing quite a level of expertise in looking at the geology in Sudan." Darfur is vast. For many years geologists have suspected it holds abundant reserves of oil. Cliveden Sudan now has the biggest share in a concession granted by Khartoum called Block C. It is almost as big as Scotland arcing across South Darfur and down into southern Sudan. The consortium says an aggressive oil exploration programme is currently underway. Block C is at the southern end of the conflict zone. Many thousands of Darfurians there have been forced to flee to makeshift camps. Channel 4 News has seen the contract granting the concession to explore for oil in Darfur. This gives us an unprecedented insight into the workings of a deal that would normally remain secret. It reveals that the agreement runs for 25 years. And that the consortium which includes Cliveden will - once oil is produced - pay up to $8m in bonuses to the Khartoum government. It also shows how they will share the profits - starting with 70% to the government of Sudan and 13% for Cliveden Sudan. From another document we know that Cliveden Sudan is registered in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven, and has a business address in Switzerland. Normally, it is impossible to determine the true owner of such companies. But our document reveals that in December 2003, Friedhelm Eronat personally owned Cliveden Sudan. Channel 4 News has obtained confidential photographs, taken by African Union monitors last July in Suleia, a village just to the north of Block C. The following month I went to other nearby burned villages. In them, I met people still on the run from Suleia. They said theyd been bombed by government planes. Some had then been shackled and burned alive, many shot dead; others wounded; women, raped. Suleia is 180km from Block C's first well. Cliveden Sudan insisted to us that the 'wells' are 1000km from the conflict zone. So how did Cliveden Sudan get into bed with a regime accused of war crimes, in the very province the ethnic cleansing is happening? Here's how. Channel 4 News can reveal that Friedhelm Eronat's Sudan venture was very much a Chelsea-set affair. The whole deal brokered by his close neighbour, Lebanese businessman, Eli Calil. If his name sounds familiar it's because he is alleged to have helped bankroll last year's failed coup in the West African state of Equatorial Guinea, an allegation he denies. Mr Felter said: "He was purely and simple an introducing instrument. It was quite natural to ask Eli Calil he said he said I think I know a company that might be interested because they are already in Chad and he therefore introduced the Sudanese lot as it were to Eronat." One of Darfur's rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement is adamant that the search for oil will enflame the conflict. They want all exploration to stop, until there is peace. Ahmad Hussein Adam of the JEM said: "So when they say they discover oil in Darfur, who is going to benefit from that? Are they the people of Darfur? Of course not. Absolutely not, the only beneficiaries is the ruling elite and ruling minority of the regime." In the rebels' view, Cliveden Sudan has joined those accused of propping up a pariah regime, whose members include UN war crimes suspects. Yet, under British law, Friedhelm Eronat has done nothing illegal in doing a deal with Khartoum. But then there is the ethical argument. Mr Felter said: "I would say for Eronat he would deem it pretty irrelevant because it is about getting a signature on a document and I don't think it would be in his mind again Eronat is not interested in Darfur or political issues, he's interested in making money." We've discovered another interesting fact about the mysterious Mr Eronat. A US Treasury Department notice lists individuals who have renounced their American citizenship. One name on the list: Friedhelm Eronat. And the date: October 2003, just before the Darfur oil deal was signed. Co-incidence: maybe. But the effect was certainly helpful. Under US sanctions against Sudan, an American doing business with the Sudanese state oil company could face ten years in jail and fines of half a million dollars. Mr Felter said: "In terms of doing business in Sudan of course one advantage of denouncing your US citizenship is that suddenly you can also do deals in Sudan. If there is a direct connection or not I can't say but the timing was good." In fact, we have learnt that it was in August 2003 that Friedhelm Eronat acquired a British passport. We showed our evidence to a Conservative MP John Bercow, with a long interest in Darfur. In his view, Mr Eronat's new passport and the timing of his Sudan deal raise disturbing questions. Mr Bercow said: "What discussions took place between the British and US administrations about his activities in the oil business? What assurances were sought about the prospective scope of his activities? "What benefit did the British government think that an oil deal of this kind between a company and the government of Sudan could do to help the long-suffering people of Darfur? And what does the British government think that this deal will do for the credibility of its foreign policy towards Sudan?" Mr Eronat has told Channel 4 News that he is not a shareholder or officer of Cliveden Sudan and that he does not work for or financially benefit from Cliveden Sudan. Also that Cliveden Sudan is not the operator of the concession, but a shareholder. In a statement to this programme, Cliveden Sudan said "there has been no commercial oil find in Block C." As the International Criminal Court, backed by Britain, investigates the Sudanese regime for war crimes, and efforts to stop the killing gather pace, a British businessman has thrown oil on the flames in Darfur - and has done so legally. 
Rare photo of Friedhelm Eronat courtesy Channel 4 News UK. Friedhelm Eronat is the man behind the Darfur oil deal
 - - - 

Sudan's oil deal with Swiss company Cliveden The following report dated October 22, 2003 [via European Coalition on Oil in Sudan] at Al-Sahafah Sudanese newspaper mentions Swiss company Cliveden in an agreement on oil prospecting and production signed for the Block 2 which extends from the Bahr al-Jabal State [southern Sudan] to the borders of the Central African Republic and Chad: KHARTOUM, Oct. 22, 2003 -- An agreement on oil prospecting and production was signed yesterday at the Ministry of Energy and Mining for the Block 2 which extends from the Bahr al-Jabal State [southern Sudan] to the borders of the Central African Republic and Chad. The agreement was signed between the Ministry of Energy and Mining and a group of [oil] companies including the Swiss company, Cliveden, which has a 37 per cent share; High Tech, with 28 per cent; the [national] Sudanese [oil] company, Sudapet, with 17 per cent share; Khartoum State, with 10 per cent; and the Hejlij Company with 8 per cent share. In a press statement after the signing of the agreement, the minister of energy and mining, Dr Awad Ahmad al-Jaz, said these companies had extensive expertise in the oil industry. He added that the presence of the Swiss company Cliveden was going to give a strong impetus in this field. - - - US backs off genocide charge in Darfur Note this excerpt from a report by Brian Smith entitled US backs off genocide charge in Darfur May 3, 2005: Sudan's minister of energy and mining announced last week the discovery of an oilfield in Darfur with abundant deposits. The announcement did not take oil experts by surprise, as previous reports had indicated that Darfur has untapped oil, gold, iron, silver and natural gas deposits. The country's ABCO Corp., in which Swiss company Cliveden has a 37 percent stake, has already started drilling southwest of El-Fasher in North Darfur state. The southern civil war, which lasted 20 years, was prolonged by the question of how the region's oil wealth would be distributed. Sudanese political analyst Mohamed Issam explained, "If you look back to the original demands made by the [Darfur] rebels at the start of the rebellion, they were asking for 80 percent of Darfur's oil wealth." He added, "Now they know for a fact the oil is there. The perception that the government is benefiting from Darfur's resources will fuel resentment and definitely complicate the [peace] negotiation process. - - - Darfur rebel group JEM say oil drilling in Darfur must stop LONDON, April 19 -- Sudan on Tuesday said its ABCO corporation -- in which Swiss company Cliveden owns 37 percent -- had begun drilling for oil in Darfur, where preliminary studies showed there were "abundant" quantities of oil. "The Sudanese people have never benefited from these (oil) discoveries," said Ahmed Hussein, the London-based spokesman for the Justice and Equality Movement. "The oil must wait until a final peace deal is signed." Here is a copy of a report dated April 19, 2005 by Nima Elbagir via Reuters Darfur's two main rebel groups called on the Sudanese government on Tuesday to stop oil exploration in the country's war ravaged western region until a resolution to the two-year-old conflict has been achieved. Sudan on Tuesday said its ABCO corporation -- in which Swiss company Cliveden owns 37 percent -- had begun drilling for oil in Darfur, where preliminary studies showed there were "abundant" quantities of oil. "The Sudanese people have never benefited from these (oil) discoveries," said Ahmed Hussein, the London-based spokesman for the Justice and Equality Movement. "The oil must wait until a final peace deal is signed." "We call upon international companies to not invest in Darfur under these conditions and under this regime," Hussein added. Sudan's main oilfields are in the south and disputes over oil prolonged negotiations to end 20 years of civil war. Mohamed Siddig, a spokesman for Sudan's Ministry of Energy and Mining, told Reuters by phone on Monday: "The drilling (in Darfur) was undertaken on the basis of the geological studies and surveys which proved the presence of oil in abundant quantities." A peace deal signed in January revived interest in Sudan's potential oil reserves but analysts say the conflict in Darfur, where tens of thousands have been killed and at least 2 million driven from their homes, has scared off investors. Sudan Liberation Movement spokesman Adam Ali Shogar told Reuters from the Chadian capital N'Djamena that the drilling for oil was a waste of time. "I welcome this discovery for the Sudanese people but if they find oil -- even if they find gold --, without a just distribution of wealth and a resolution to the conflict it is pointless." Sudan began exporting oil in 1998 and exports around 300,000 barrels per day, which is set to rise to 500,000 bpd by August. Work on the first Darfur oil well, southwest of El-Fasher in North Darfur State, is under way. Analysts say the discovery of oil wealth could give the two sides of the conflict more to fight over. "If you look back to the original demands made by the rebels at the start of the rebellion, they were asking for 80 percent of Darfur's oil wealth," Mohamed Issam, a Sudanese political analyst, told Reuters from Khartoum. "Now they know for a fact the oil is there. The perception that the government is benefiting from Darfur's resources will fuel resentment and definitely complicate the (peace) negotiation process," he added. - - - Update June 11: A kind reader here helpfully points out an error in Nima's report above: the company representing the joint venture partners on Block C is called APCO - not ABCO. A website for Advanced Petroleum Company (APCO) http://www.apco-sd.com was accessible but today when I clicked into it, it throws up a blank page. Maybe the site has been deleted? Even if it has been deleted, is there any way to know the ULTIMATE owner of that domain name? Apparently, Standard Who searches don't go very far. If any readers can throw light on this or anything to do with APCO or Cliveden please let me know for future Sudan oil posts. Thanks. Today, I came across a World Energy News article at IHS Energy. The article is extracted from International Oil Letter, Vol 21 issue 21 published 2005-05-25: APCO fails with its Dokhon 1 wildcat in Block C - Sudan Despite some initial encouragement, APCO has abandoned its Dokhon 1 wildcat in Block C, Muglad Basin, after testing fresh water over an unspecified interval. The well was drilled to a total depth of 3,433m seeking a Lower Cretaceous Abu Gabra sandstone primary objective and is estimated to have cost US$ 5.5 million to drill. It is located around 2km south of the Hiba 1 duster drilled by Chevron in 1979 and is the first well to be drilled on the block for 20 years. Block C covers 65,000 sq km mainly in the Muglad Basin, south-west of the oil producing area of Block 1 and 2 where the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company has significant oil production. APCO (Advanced Petroleum Company) is a joint venture between Cliveden (37%); High Tech Group (28%); Sudan Petroleum Corporation (17%); State of Khartoum (10%) and Hejlij Co (8%). 
- - -
 
Secret World of the Chelsea Oil Tycoon 
On googling for Friedhelm Eronat and Cliveden Sudan, I came across a great post by British blogger Adrian Gatton who is an investigative journalist and independent film-maker based in London, UK. The post provides an excerpt from his report entitled "Secret World of the Chelsea Oil Tycoon" published in London's Evening Standard newspaper May 26, 2005. Sorry, I have not had a chance to contact the Evening Standard archive for full article:
He is at the centre of the new scramble for Africa but few have heard of him. A bitter struggle with his former lawyer, however, has opened the door on the remarkable life of Friedhelm Eronat. Friedhelm Eronat is one of the world's most successful oil dealmakers. He is also one of the most secretive men in Britain. He has an estimated fortune of at least $100m (£55m) built on controversial deals worth billions - in far-flung, difficult places such as Nigeria, Russia and Kazakhstan. But details about him are scant. He eschews publicity.
- - - 

Chinese-backed Cliveden? 
Here are some snippets I have gathered from google searches. Sorry some of the links have broken or require special subscriptions. The notes provide a pointer to further information on Friedhelm Eronat. Most interestingly, snippet (1) mentions "Chinese-backed Cliveden". (1) November 2004 report entitled "Before coup, Chinese-backed Cliveden eyed Equatorial Guinea" via Platts Oilgram News - The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. -- New York - Friedhelm Eronat, ex-business partner of convicted Mobil dealmaker J. Bryan Williams and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Justice Department's pending James Giffen Kazakh bribe case in ... (2) Platts Oilgram News - The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. - New York - Friedhelm Eronat, ex-business partner of convicted Mobil dealmaker J.Bryan Williams and an unindicted co=conspirator in the Justice ... construction.ecnext.com/ coms2/plattsbrowse_PN__1681_1760 (3) Africa Energy Intelligence No. 319 - 27/03/2002 report - Chairman of Cliveden Petroleum, Friedhelm Eronat is a London-based trader who was highly active in the Caspian sea countries in the 1990s. (4) The New Yorker Archives The Price of Oil report by Seymour M. Hersh Issue of 2001-07-09 Posted 2003-04-07. Excerpt: In Mobil's case, the company's in-house investigators came to believe that the proposed swap between Kazakhstan and Iran was but one element in a complex of seemingly high-risk business deals that were devised by Bryan Williams. The investigation also led to the two other Americans named in Tabbah's suit: James H. Giffen, a New York merchant banker and adviser to Kazakhstan's President Nazarbayev; and Friedhelm Eronat, a businessman who often acted on behalf of Mobil overseas. The business dealings and friendships among the three men date back many years, and they have done billions of dollars' worth of deals worldwide. The three might never have become the focus of grand-jury scrutiny if they hadn't fallen out with Farhat Tabba. (5) Online Journal Big Oil, The United States and corruption report by Larry Chin: Federal authorities began working on the case in 1999, triggered by a British case in which a Jordanian businessman Farhat Tabbah filed a claim in British court alleging that Giffen had stiffed him out of $40 million of commissions for his help in the oil swaps. According to reporter Seymour Hersh's investigation of the case, Tabbah claims that London oil trader Friedhelm Eronat helped Tabbah arrange the shipments between Mobil and the Kazakhstan government. Eronat denied a major role in the deal. (6) Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Is oil intrinsically dirty?: "Gabon's" - The Tengiz oil field on Kazakhstan's Caspian coast is one of the 10 largest oil deposits in the world, and also the centre of a huge scandal involving ExxonMobil. This country is listed at position 88 in the TI index. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in 2001 that Jordanian businessman Farhat Tabbah had filed a lawsuit in London alleging that Mobil trader Friedhelm Eronat and a representative of the Kazakhstan government conspired to cheat him of millions of dollars in commissions for assisting in a profitable 10-year oil swap between Mobil and Kazakhstan. (7) 12.03.04 Time for Transparency - Coming clean on oil, mining and gas revenues -- Information contained in legal assistance documents passed to Global Witness reveal that CC-1 is, in fact, Vaeko boss Friedhelm Eronat (8) AC Vol 45 No 21 ... Friedhelm Eronat, an oil trader also active in Sudan and in Central. Asia, has used his connections with them to secure three big concessions, ... www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ bpl/afco/2004/00000045/00000021/art00001 - - - It's blood for oil in Southern Sudan Veteran journalist Julie Flint has written extensively on Sudan and researched and co-authored a Human Rights Watch report on Darfur titled "Darfur Destroyed." She wrote this commentary for The Daily Star Lebanon, published Friday, June 10, 2005: When UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Darfur recently, he went to the front line - to Labado, where more than a hundred people died in one of those aerial bombardments the Sudan government says isn't happening. When he went to Southern Sudan, he went to the back line - to Rumbek, administrative center of the new Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS), where the children of a relief generation greeted him with banners saying: "Kofi, no food, hunger imminent." Had Annan gone to the front line - to a village like Payuer, on the east bank of the White Nile - he would have received a very different message. "The war's not over." Five months after Africa's longest-running civil war ended - officially, at least - Rumbek and Payuer are worlds apart. Everyone visits Rumbek; almost no one visits Payuer. Peace will not break down in Rumbek, but it could in Payuer. Rumbek is a seethe of UN officials, relief workers and rebel commanders turned ministers-in-waiting. It has a secondary school (built by the British in 1948), roads, solid brick buildings, satellite dishes and restaurants with napkins. It has children who hold up banners that appear to have been dictated by adults. The biggest security problem the town has experienced since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed on January 9 was a fatal hit-and-run accident involving a UN driver. The driver fled into the local police station. Relatives of the victim attacked the police station, took the driver away and lynched him. There are no cars in Payuer, no police and no paper to write slogans on. No one like Annan has ever visited Payuer, and until recently the place received no relief from the UN. Two years ago, Southerners displaced from government attacks on villages around the Adar oilfields were living in stone-age conditions there - eating leaves and re-boiled fish heads; sleeping without blankets or mosquito nets; dying of malaria, kala-azar, diarrhea, respiratory infections and wounds sustained during indiscriminate aerial bombardments. Things are a little better now: there's a small market offering shoes, clothes and oil brought from government towns for the few, the very few, who can afford them. There are a couple of aid workers investigating malnutrition (and finding less than they expected). There are cattle too, although most of them belong to Fellata - Sudanese Muslims of West African origin who have crossed to their prewar dry-season grazing grounds in rebel-controlled territory for the first time since 1983. There is universal relief that aerial bombardment has stopped, but also widespread skepticism about the durability of peace. People here aren't asking for food: not one person, among scores interviewed in the course of a week, even mentioned it. Their message to the international community is this: "You forced this peace through. Now take the government militias away - or see peace fail." Throughout the war, the Khartoum government used ethnic militias to divide and rule, denying any hand in the resulting mayhem. "Tribal trouble," it said, as it says now in Darfur. The CPA was negotiated, and signed, only by the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). The militias had no involvement in it. And in Northern Upper Nile, around Payuer, they are not fading away. Far from it: they are recruiting - at government urging, defectors say - training and attacking. Not quite as before, it's true. But attacking nonetheless. Since the CPA was signed, government-supported Southern militias have attacked two SPLA positions around the oilfields near Payuer and displaced Southern civilians from a number of villages. The government has responded by promoting the militia leaders, confirming local people in the belief that the attacks were government-inspired. Militiamen who have chosen to join their kin in SPLA-controlled territory have paid a heavy price: their villages have been attacked and looted, and their families displaced. The people of Payuer see a short-term and a long-term goal in the continued activation of the militias. Both involve oil, an industry currently worth more than a billion dollars a year to the Khartoum government. In the short term, they say, the government means to keep oil flowing, in ever greater quantities, by forcibly removing any people who still live in its way; in the long term, Khartoum will use the militias to fight against the separation of the South (and its oil) if Southerners vote for separation in a referendum in six years' time. The war in Southern Sudan was fought for 21 years and took more than a million lives without ever reaching the UN Security Council. Darfur was raised at the Security Council in May 2004, barely a year after the rebellion there began. The oil war that has raged in Southern Sudan from 1998 onward never captured international imagination, and indignation, in the way that Darfur has. But it was every bit as terrible. Villages were burned, civilians slaughtered, women and children raped and mutilated. Most of the oil discovered in Sudan is located in the South, and to exploit it the government first had to capture the land under which it lay. Hundreds of thousands of Southerners were displaced and remain displaced. Negotiations over oil were among the most difficult in the discussions that led to the CPA. Under the agreement, existing contracts remain valid, but can be reviewed in the event of environmental or ecological problems. New contracts will be negotiated and approved by the National Petroleum Commission, a joint government-Sudan People's Liberation Movement (which controls the SPLA) body which will be the industry's regulatory body. The GoSS will get 50 percent of net revenue from oil produced in the South. But here's the rub: the CPA does not give a categorical definition of the South. It defines the border as the border which was in place at independence in 1956. But even this border was controversial, and there is already disagreement over where the giant Heglig oilfield belongs, with some SPLA officials accusing the government of altering its administrative boundaries to shift it from South to North. If the government sets Southerner against Southerner to try to hold onto oilfields like Adar, or if it seeks to play the boundary card, the SPLA will have only itself to blame. In the weeks before peace, the SPLA signed a number of seemingly illegal deals unilaterally granting oil concessions in the South. Khartoum has challenged the agreements as violations of the CPA - and leading industry analysts agree. As a particularly trenchant critic of SPLA "greed" says: "We have a government which doesn't yet exist - the "Civil Authority of New Sudan" - handing out oil licenses, the rights to which it doesn't own, to so-called oil firms which no one has ever heard of and which appear to have none of the technical, financial, management or operational requirements to take on the Sudd," the Nile swamplands which are at the center of the disputed leases. "If this is the way the South is going to approach the postwar environment, rather than accepting 50 percent of oil revenues and a role in the negotiation of any new oil licenses, then the whole peace agreement will fail. We'll be back to another decade or two of war and the petroleum will stay in the ground for another century."