The Displacement of Truth: Amnesty International, Oil and Sudan
The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London
Date of Publication: 1 June 2000
On 3 May 2000, Amnesty International published a report entitled Sudan:
The Human Price of Oil. This report claimed to examine human rights
abuses in the oil-producing areas of south-central and southern Sudan.
It stated that "[t]he pattern of human rights violations includes
atrocities and the forcible internal displacement of large populations
of local peoples". The report further stated that it sought to focus on
the displacement of populations "living in oil fields and surrounding
areas" and to "make clear the link between the massive human rights
violations by the security forces of the Government of Sudan and various
government allied militias." (1)
A central flaw of Sudan: The Human Price of Oil was that the report
ignored the pivotal fact that it takes at least two sides to go to war.
Given that the conflict in and around the oil producing areas is largely
between Sudanese government forces and those of the Sudan People's
Liberation Army (SPLA), the report's almost exclusive focus on
allegations of government involvement in this conflict was evidence of
deliberate or unwitting distortion of the reality of conflict in these
areas of south-central and southern Sudan. Amnesty International was
seemingly unable to analyse the circumstances in which war has now been
visited upon the oil- producing areas and their environs.
The sequence of events is clear. The SPLA identified the oil industry as
a strategic target, especially once oil began to be pumped and exported.
The SPLA clearly decided to inflict as much damage on the oil industry
as possible, and they chose to become militarily active in the oil-
producing areas in question. This has led to attacks, including the
bombardment of towns in these areas, which has in turn led to military
confrontation between government forces and the SPLA. And, as is the
case in every war, large numbers of civilians have chosen to leave the
war zone. The oil concession areas have been in existence for several
years: population displacement was only really reported once these areas
became war zones. While the report correctly stated that "[t]he primary
cause of the internal displacement in Sudan is direct armed attack, or
threat of armed attack on civilian populations" (2) it chose not to
examine the SPLA's central involvement in the war within the oil-
producing areas. This omission has fatally flawed the credibility of the
report, and reflects badly on Amnesty International.
Amnesty International states that it is "independent of any government,
political persuasion, or religious creed ... Amnesty International is
impartial. It does not take sides in political conflicts." (3) It also
claims "principles of strict impartiality and independence". (4)
However, it is evident that this report has demonstrably undermined
Amnesty's claim to professionalism and "principles of strict
impartiality".
I: Amnesty International, Oil and Civil Wars: A Double Standard?
In the first instance, it must be stated that Amnesty International's
focus on the Sudanese oil industry is somewhat jarring given that
Amnesty has been remarkably silent with regard to instances where there
has been a demonstrable link between oil, civil war and massive, on-
going human rights abuses. Angola provides a key example. Both Sudan and
Angola have an oil industry. Angola's is a long-standing business, and
Sudan's has only just begun. While Amnesty International produced this
report, focusing on the oil industry's involvement in Sudan, and the
alleged effect that oil have had in exacerbating the Sudanese civil war,
Amnesty has shown no such concern about the Angolan oil revenues which
do so clearly fund the devastating Angolan civil war. Not one of
Amnesty's six special reports on Angola, nor any of its eleven news
releases on Angola have focused on "the human price of oil" in
Angola.(5)
It is also a matter of record that while Britain and 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, in responding to a Parliamentary 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".(6) The Angolan Government receives at
least $10 million per day in oil revenues: eighty percent of its budget
is spent on the war. The Bishop of Luanda, Damiao Franklin, has openly
stated "Much of Angola's wealth goes on weapons." (7)
Amnesty International appears to be deliberately selective as to which
oil revenues fuel which conflict. It would appear to turn a blind eye to
the Angolan oil industry.
Amnesty International's unprofessional approach in Sudan: The Human
Price of Oil was also demonstrated by its methodologically questionable
attempt to link oil revenues to arms purchases. The report stated that:
"There is a clear connection between the new-found oil wealth and the
government's ability to purchase arms. On the first day of the export
shipment of the first 600,000 barrels of oil, and import shipment of 20
Polish T-55 tanks arrived in Port Sudan." (8)
This is an extraordinarily crass statement for a supposedly reputable
group such as Amnesty to have made. One would have expected a somewhat
more rigorous examination of any claimed linkage between oil revenues
and arms. The above claim by Amnesty would be more at home in a third-
rate newspaper. Other bodies clearly apply more rigorous standards and
criteria. 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". (9) The British
Government has also stated that the Khartoum authorities have promised
transparency with regard to how the oil revenues are spent. The British
Government has made several such responses to similar Parliamentary
questions. It should also be noted that the British Government is no
friend of the Khartoum authorities.
*Amnesty International: An Accessory to American Foreign Policy?
Amnesty Internal must also be careful to not be seen as an accessory to
United States foreign policy. The timing of the publication of this
report was poorly chosen, almost coinciding with similar anti-oil
campaigns and activities by partisan anti-Sudanese and Christian
fundamentalist bodies. Amnesty's oil report was published on 3 May.
Shortly afterwards, the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom, a federally-funded organisation identified with
American foreign policy objectives, also publicly focused on the
Sudanese oil industry in hearings before the United States Senate. (10)
And, later that same month, a major anti-Sudanese campaign was launched
in the United States with a national focus on Washington-DC.(11) It
would be difficult to persuade some observers that Amnesty International
was not in some way party to a broader anti-Sudanese agenda.
II: Amnesty International and Sudan: Very Questionable Methodology
*Amnesty International: Why No Official Visit to Sudan?
The first point which should be made regarding the methodology of its
report is that while Amnesty International chose to visit Sudan
illegally, at least in part to interview SPLA commander Peter Gadet, it
chose not to accept several Sudanese government invitations to visit
Sudan officially.
Following the publication of the Amnesty International report, the
Sudanese government disclosed that Sudan has on several occasions
invited Amnesty International to visit Sudan "to see for itself".(12)
The Government stated that Amnesty was first invited two years ago and
then most recently again in September 1999 at a meeting between the
Sudanese Minister of Justice, Mr Ali Yassin, and the Acting Deputy
Secretary-General of Amnesty International, Mrs Ann Burly. The question
asked of Amnesty by the Sudanese Government, "Why has it turned down
repeatedly the invitation of Sudan government to visit the country,
while it keeps reporting negatively about it?" is a valid one. The
question is all the more relevant given the fact that Amnesty
International chose to visit Sudan illegally, at least in part for its
interview with Gadet.
* The Use of Questionable Sources
It is of immediate concern with regard to the report's methodology that
the report uses terms such as "allegations" or "allegedly" ten times and
"reportedly" twice. When dealing with such serious issues it is simply
inappropriate to merely repeat "allegations". This tendency is made all
the worse by the report's choice of sources.
It is very surprisingly indeed, for example, that Amnesty International
chose to unreservedly and unquestioningly cite SPLA rebel commander
Peter Gadet as a source for the alleged forced displacement of civilians
from the area of the oil fields. The report states that "shortly after
he split from the forces of Paulino Matip, Commander Peter Gadet
confirmed that the government had arranged for Paulino Matip's forces to
clear the local population from the area of the oil fields". Given that
Gadet was a rebel commander, who had recently defected from the forces
of Paulino Matip, he would hardly be the most reliable source to use as
"confirmation" of claims made by the SPLA. He would have a vested
interest in presenting the worst possible picture of his enemy, the
Sudanese government. Common sense would dictate considerably more
caution in examining partisan allegations from one side in a war than
that exercised by Amnesty.
Yet Amnesty International cites Gadet on three separate occasions as a
source for serious allegations made against the Sudanese government and
oil companies. The SPLA's reputation for disinformation is well known.
Dr Peter Nyaba, a SPLA national executive council member, described the
SPLA's "sub-culture of lies, misinformation, cheap propaganda and
exhibitionism" vividly:
"Much of what filtered out of the SPLM/A propaganda machinery...was
about 90% disinformation or things concerned with the military combat,
mainly news about the fighting which were always efficaciously
exaggerated." (13)
The Amnesty report also chose as sources for its claims, journalists
such as Julie Flint. The Reuters news agency confirmed that:
"Amnesty was apparently citing a report in the London Observer newspaper
for its information on the alleged atrocities." (14)
That article was written by Julie Flint. She is footnoted in the report.
(15) However, Ms Flint's reporting on Sudan has consistently indulged
in sensationalist and unproven allegations. These have included claims
that the Sudanese government has used chemical weapons in contested
areas of Sudan. The sum of her evidence for such serious allegations was
that the SPLA said that a pig fell down a crater and died. One would
have expected Amnesty International to have chosen its sources for
equally serious claims somewhat more carefully. (16) Flint's articles
have also been remarkably selective about which abuses she deemed worthy
of attention. There was no mention of rebel human rights outrages,
despite the fact that these systematic abuses are all too well
documented.(17) Amnesty International appear to have closely followed
Flint's lead.
III: Amnesty International: Turning A Blind Eye to Human Rights
Violations
*Amnesty International and Child Soldiers
Of particular concern is that Amnesty International's report appears to
have turned a blind eye to human rights violations amounting to war
crimes. Amnesty devotes a considerable section of its report to
"reports" that local Sudanese forces defending the oil pipeline were
using child soldiers. Amnesty states:
"There is increasing evidence that those who provide security to the oil
companies have child soldiers in their employ. A former commander in the
forces of rebel leader Paulino Matip, which were employed by the
government to protect oil installations, informed Amnesty International
that child combatants are commonly used as fighters." (18)
Despite mentioning "increasing evidence", it is clear that the "former
commander" is the best source that Amnesty can provide. Once again, such
claims from such sources are innately questionable. Amnesty should have
exercised considerably more caution before citing this above, unnamed,
source. On the basis of this "evidence", the report takes up one page in
addressing the issue of the government, oil companies and child
soldiers. The report also goes on to include the issue of child soldiers
in its concluding section. Under Amnesty International's
Recommendations, the report calls on the Sudanese government to "bring
an immediate halt to the deployment of child soldiers". (19)
Given this level of interest in child soldiers within the oil areas, it
is very surprising, therefore, to note that Amnesty makes no mention
whatsoever of clear, independently-documented instances of child
soldiers within the ranks of the very SPLA commander Amnesty has chosen
to use as a source.
In February 2000, for example, Reuters correspondent Rosalind Russell
was one of a group of journalists who visited SPLA positions on the
periphery of Sudanese oil-producing areas. She interviewed Peter Gadet,
the SPLA commander in the area, and the person cited in Amnesty
International's report. Ms Russell personally observed that the ranks of
the rebel forces had been "swollen by shy boy soldiers". (20) Even if
for some reason Amnesty Canada had not been following international
coverage of the reporting central to their report, The National Post,
the Canadian national daily, also reported the presence of SPLA child
soldiers. Reporting from Tabanga in southern Sudan, National Post
journalist Charlie Gillis unambiguously stated that most of the SPLA
"soldiers" in one location he visited were:
"adolescent boys, carrying...machine guns too big for their hands." (21)
The dictionary definition of "adolescent" is "between childhood and
manhood". (22) Anyone interested in balance must ask why it was that
Amnesty chose to go public with claims of "child soldiers" "defending"
oil installations, unproven claims made by clearly questionable sources,
why ignoring the credibly reported presence of child soldiers amongst
forces "attacking" oil-producing areas?
The absence of any comment on the above clear evidence of child soldiers
can be explained in one of two ways. Either Amnesty International was
not aware of the above prominent international and Canadian press
coverage of issues central to their report Sudan: The Human Price of
Oil, or Amnesty was aware of these independently verified reports of
child soldiers and chose not to address them in the report. If the
former is the case, then Amnesty International can only be seen as an
ill-informed and ill-prepared organisation clearly unable to produce
such a report. If on the other hand, they knew about the above reports
of SPLA ranks "swollen by..boy soldiers", and chose not to address this
issue, then Amnesty International's reputation for impartiality and
accuracy in its reporting is clearly undermined. One can even claim that
this issue is a clear example of how skewed Amnesty's Sudan: The Human
Price of Oil report actually is.
It must be further documented that Ms Russell also took photographs of
the child soldiers she had seen. One photograph appeared with the
following caption: "Sudanese Child Soldiers Guard Rebel Military
Headquarters". The report and the photograph were distributed around the
world by the Reuters news agency. It is inconceivable that Amnesty
International would not have seen them. Why did Amnesty then ignore the
contents of an article containing material central to its Sudan: The
Human Price of Oil report?
It should also be pointed out that the Statute of the International
Criminal Court makes it clear that the use of child soldiers is a war
crime:
"Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into
the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in
hostilities." (23)
Amnesty International states that it visited Wicok village in October
1999 and interviewed Peter Gadet.(24) One must further ask why Amnesty
sought out a man guilty of keeping child soldiers? To what extent does
Amnesty International normally rely upon claims made by a war criminal?
What is Amnesty International's policy on meeting with war criminals and
relying on them as "evidence"? Why did Amnesty seek out and choose to
cite as a source, a man actively engaged in waging war on civilians, of
bombarding towns in southern Sudan? Why did Amnesty International not
mention the child soldiers, despite there being clear photographic
evidence of this abuse of children? Did the Amnesty International
interviewing team see any child soldiers? Does Gadet's use of child
soldiers within oil-producing areas not deserve to be considered as
"human rights violations committed in the name of oil"? Why turn a blind
eye to independently documented accounts of child soldiers as reported
by Reuters while choosing to accept unverified "reports" by rebels with
a vested interest in presenting negative images?
*Amnesty International: Double Standards and Hypocrisy
While itself turning a blind eye to ample first-hand evidence that the
very people it was interviewing and citing as sources were guilty of war
crimes including the use of child soldiers, the Amnesty report states
that Amnesty "believes many foreign companies tolerate violations by
turning a blind eye to the human rights violations committed by the
government security forces or government-allied troops in the name of
protecting the security of the oil producing areas." (25) Amnesty
returned to this theme, stating:
"Silence on the part of companies implies a tolerance of human rights
violations and fosters a climate of impunity." (26)
Such a position on the part of Amnesty, given its uncritical use of
Gadet, can only but be described as deeply hypocritical. To paraphrase
Amnesty International, silence on the part of Amnesty International
implies a tolerance of human rights abuses and fosters a climate of
impunity. Amnesty International has turned a blind eye to war crimes
involving young children.
IV: Amnesty International: Further Contradictory Positions
*The Presence of Foreign Forces?
The Amnesty report states that the Sudanese government has been
recruiting forces from local ethnic communities:
"The pursuit of control over the oil territory provides a powerful
incentive for assembling forces based on ethnic origin."
It would clearly make a lot of sense for the government to recruit local
Nuer and Dinka forces to defend the oil areas from rebel attack. Any
yet, while having mentioned this "powerful incentive", Amnesty then
proceeds to contradict itself. It can be said that Amnesty appeared to
be desperately seeking any allegations, however questionable, for
inclusion in the report. One example of this "shotgun" approach involves
claims that there was a foreign military presence in the oil-producing
areas. Amnesty was seemingly unable to resist throwing in some second or
third hand claims that "Mujahedin fighters from Afghanistan and Malaysia
have been reportedly used to protect the staff and property of companies
involved in building the oil pipeline." (27)
Quite what use Afghan and Malaysian "mujahedin" would be in a Nuer or
Dinka area is a question Amnesty seemingly did not bother to ask itself.
Any such foreigners would not be Arabic speakers, and they would
certainly not be able to speak Nuer or any of the dialects spoken within
the oil areas. Amnesty then cites allegations that "Iraqi" soldiers are
also active in the oil areas.(28) Amnesty provided not the slightest
shred of evidence for such claims. One can only but point to previous
examples of claims of foreign involvement in the Sudanese civil war.
Donald Petterson, a former American ambassador to Sudan, commented on
"Reports...in the media that hundreds, even thousands of Iranians, many
of them Revolutionary Guard military and security police advisers, had
come to Sudan...The reports were based in part on information provided
by Egyptian intelligence sources, which were conducting an assiduous
disinformation campaign against Sudan." (29)
Given that Amnesty International was unable to present any evidence
whatsoever for its claims, there is every chance that Amnesty has
repeated similarly fanciful claims with regard to Afghans, Malaysians
and Iraqis, claims made as part of an equally assiduous disinformation
campaign. In any instance there would appear to be no shortage of
Sudanese citizens willing to fight in southern Sudan. (30)
V: Displacement Within War
Allegations of displacement are central to the Amnesty International
report. In the chapter of the report entitled 'Human Rights Violations
Committed in the Name of Oil", Amnesty states
"Tens of thousands of people have been terrorized into leaving their
homes in Western Upper Nile since early 1999. Government forces have
used ground attacks, helicopter gunship and indiscriminate high-altitude
bombardment to clear the local population from oil-rich areas."
Amnesty also states that "[t]here have been reports that government
troops clear the area around the town of Bentiu using helicopter
gunships." Amnesty does not provide any sources for these general
claims.
The Amnesty report also devotes a whole chapter to 'International
Standards on Internal Displacement'
What is very noticeable is that Amnesty does not mention any SPLA
activity whatsoever in these chapters. Yet Reuters provides reliable,
first-hand reporting of precisely the sort of activity by the SPLA which
leads to people being "terrorized" and leaving their homes. A Reuters
correspondent visiting SPLA positions personally witnessed
"a pillar of smoke rising from the besieged town of Mayom, subject to
daily bombardments by rebels as they try to advance eastwards to the oil
development." (31)
Similar daily bombardments of Juba by the SPLA in the early 1990s
resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians. (32) One must ask
Amnesty whether or not the daily bombardment of Mayom, presumably one of
several towns subject to this sort of action, did not result in large
numbers of civilians being "terrorized". Would such daily bombardment
not result in hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of
civilians leaving their homes as the rebels "clear the area around" the
towns and villages in which they live? If so, and Mayom would provide a
clear example of daily bombardment of a town, would this not qualify as
a "human rights" violation? If so why was there not the slightest
mention of this or numerous other examples of such activity and
behaviour by the SPLA? The Reuters report also clearly states that it is
the SPLA that is attempting to "advance eastwards to the oil
development". This would indicate that the SPLA were the aggressors in
the particular circumstances described by Reuters. Yet this does not in
any way feature in the Amnesty report.
Amnesty International's second or third-hand "reports" of massive
displacement in oil-producing areas such as Heglig are clearly
contradicted by reputable journalists who have visited these areas.
Canadian journalists and financial analysts who visited the Heglig oil
fields found no such displacement. Claudia Cattaneo, of The Financial
Post, reported:
"[A]t Heglig, the site of one of Talisman's major oilfields and
processing facilities, there is no evidence of population displacement.
Military presence is low key. Children are playing and going to school
near the oil wells. Western and Sudanese workers say thousands of nomads
are coming here to look for work, for medical assistance...or for
education." (33)
Had Amnesty International availed itself of the invitations to visit
Sudan and see the areas in question for themselves, they would have
seen, as many independent observers have, that much of the Heglig
concession is a flood plain upon which permanent habitation would have
been impossible.
Perhaps more than four million Sudanese, the majority of them southern
Sudanese, have been displaced as a result of the Sudanese civil war.
They have fled fighting between government and rebel forces. More than
two million of these southern Sudanese refugees live in and around
Khartoum: many more live in other parts of northern Sudan. The simple
fact is that displacement is the result of war, war between government
forces and the SPLA, and intra-southern Sudanese fighting. To read
Sudan: The Human Price of Oil would leave one with the impression that
the displacement of civilians in the oil areas was solely the result of
government action. This is demonstrably untrue. Such a skewed picture
presents a distorted picture of Sudan and the Sudanese conflict. This in
turn distorts international perceptions of the conflict and makes it
even more difficult for the international community to assist in the
resolution of the conflict.
VI: Conclusions
It is all too clear that Sudan: The Human Price of Oil is a poorly
drafted and unprofessional publication. While clearly seeking to bring
pressure to bear upon those oil companies involved in Sudan, the report
was not able to produce a single piece of evidence that any oil company
has been involved in human rights abuses. At the same time Amnesty
International chose to ignore ample evidence of serious human rights
violations by the SPLA within the oil-producing areas, violations
amounting to war crimes. Amnesty also chose both to rely on claims made
by a SPLA commander patently guilty of serious human rights abuses
including the use of child soldiers and to ignore the fact that he was
guilty of war crimes.
It must be asked why Amnesty International chose to ignore reputable,
first-hand accounts of events in the oil-producing areas, accounts which
included credible reports of child soldiers and the daily bombardment of
towns? It must also be asked why Amnesty chose instead to publish claims
made by rebel commanders and partisan journalists? And to what extent
does Amnesty engage in dialogue with war criminals?
For any human rights report to be credible the report must go out of its
way to be balanced, impartial and even handed, and to be seen to be
balanced and even handed. This report was neither. Sudan: The Human
Price of Oil was demonstrably unbalanced and demonstrably questionable
in its content, sources, analysis and conclusions. Amnesty
International's reputation can only but suffer as a consequence.
sudan.net |
