Double Standards? Oil and civil war in Sudan and Angola.
The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council
London, June 5
Starting on June 5 and lasting for several days a symposium is being held in Calgary
on "Corporate Responsibility and the Peace Process in Sudan". Amongst the
principal sponsoring agencies is the Inter-Church Coalition on Africa.
...
The Inter-Church Coalition on Africa states that it is deeply concerned with two
long-standing civil wars in Africa, Sudan and Angola. Angola is listed by itself on
the ICCAF website as a "speciality country", Sudan is one of four "Focus Countries".
Both Sudan and Angola have an oil industry. Angola's is a long-standing business,
and Sudan's has only just begun. There are Canadian companies involved in the
oil industry in both countries. While ICCAF has over the past year or so been
engaged in a ferocious campaign against the oil industry's involvement in Sudan,
and the alleged effect that oil revenues have had in exacerbating the Sudanese
civil war, it has shown no such concern about the Angolan oil revenues which do so
clearly fund the ongoing devastating Angolan civil war.
Not one of the ICCAF "Urgent Action Bulletins" on Angola refers to the Angolan
oil industry. Not one of the "Current Projects and Publications" relating
to Angola touches on oil or oil revenues. This is even more questionable
given that one of the groups affiliated to ICCAF, the 'Angola Peace
Action Network', whose Angola updates are carried on the ICCAF website,
has called "the government of Angola into account for using profits
from oil revenues disproportionately in funding the war effort rather
than meeting the humanitarian needs of its people." The Angola Peace
Action Network also suggested that pressure be put "on the Angolan
Government to be more transparent in its oil finances".
It is also a matter of record that while the international community has
not seen any evidence that Sudanese oil revenues are being used to
continue the Sudanese civil war, there is abundant evidence that Angolan
oil revenues are directly funding the Angolan conflict. In March 2000,
the British Government, for example, in reply to a Parliamentary
question about whether the Sudanese Government had used oil revenues to
purchase weapons, publicly stated that they did not "have any evidence
of such expenditure at present". The British Government has also
stated that the Khartoum authorities have promised transparency with
regard to how the oil revenues are spent.
The International Monetary Fund will be used to monitor how these funds are dispersed.
In the same month, in responding to a similar question about whether the Angolan
Government was using oil revenues to acquire weapons, the British
Government stated: "There is no doubt that oil revenues are used to fund
the purchase of arms". The Angolan Government receives at least
$10 million per day in oil revenues. The Bishop of Luanda, Damiao
Franklin, has openly stated "Much of Angola's wealth goes on weapons."
The ICCAF appears to be deliberately selective as to which oil revenues
fuel which conflict. While focusing on the Angolan civil war, and
declaring Angola to be a "speciality country", ICCAF has never so much
as mentioned the fact that Angolan oil revenues demonstrably perpetuate
that conflict - let alone take a stand on the issue. It would appear to
turn a blind eye to the Angolan oil industry.
Surely the ICCAF wishes to see an end to the misery and suffering within the Angolan conflict:
surely by its own argument, as used with regard to Sudanese oil
revenues, it should be campaigning to end international, and especially
Canadian, involvement in the Angolan oil industry. By way of comparison,
most of the "News and Articles" which are carried with regard to Sudan
on the ICCAF website, and which "serve as background information to the
Urgent Action Bulletins" relate to the Sudanese oil industry and
Canadian involvement within it.
One of the conclusions that might be drawn is that ICCAF's selective interest in the Sudanese oil industry
may be because Sudan is a Muslim country, and Angola is not. Or,
alternatively, perhaps the Coalition politically supports the Angolan
government, and therefore supports its continuing use of military force
to stay in power, and thus turns a blind eye to oil revenues directly
perpetuating war, deaths, misery and sickness. In either instance, ICCAF
betrays its stated commitment to justice, peace and human rights for all.
Full report:
sudan.net |
