To All:
Interesting post on AOL
Subject: Threats Against Arakis !!!
Date: Mon, Nov 10, 1997 00:37 EST
From: THOTH 65
Message-id: <19971110053701.AAA04772@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Found this on Sudan.net message board.
More threats against Arakis,this time directed at shareholders.
Oh Brother ! Whats next ?
-------------------------------------------------
<< An Open Letter to Arakis Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Sudan.Net Notice and Discussion Board ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by John Ohisa Oyemu on November 09, 1997 at 15:00:25:
For Immediate Release
Contact: John Ohisa Oyemu
An Open Letter to Arakis Shareholders
Dear Arakis Shareholder:
The African Sudanese Canadians Action Network writes to express concern over remarks made by Lutfar Rahman Khan, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Arakis, while chairing a conference call on May, 1997, to update investors on the progress of the Sudan project, because those remarks are at variance with known facts about the political and military situation in the present-day Sudan. Most of what he said, in essence, were fabrications, and we believe that
you need to know the facts. Here then is the conversation that took place between Khan and the investors and our response.
Bob Cohen, Brownsfeld Securities, posed the following question to Khan: "Is it true that there was a peace treaty between the Sudan government, with Carter present, and the majority of rebel groups and is this positive news?" Khan's response: "Yes, the government of Sudan has accepted the right of self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan.:
Our response: The so-called Sudan Peace Agreement which was signed on April 21, 1997, between the de facto government of Sudan and the misnamed South Sudan Independence Movement (SSIM) and its associates is meaningless and is of no consequence in terms of resolving the Arab-African conflict in Sudan. It is meaningless because the signatories to the so-called agreement have no quarrel whatsoever with one another. The SSIM, which is composed mainly of
collaborators, self-servers, and stooges, is a spent force; it capitulated to the National Islamic government since 1991. It therefore has no mandate to speak on behalf of the people of Southern Sudan. Moreover, the NIF regime can no longer assert sovereignty over the territory of Southern Sudan. So how can it enforce the so-called Sudan Peace Agreement? Indeed the NIF and its lackey, Riak Machar, the leader of the SSIM, have colluded to perpetrate
a sick joke on the people of Southern Sudan. Take, for example, the issue of the right to self-determination for the people of Southern Sudan. Clearly the de facto government of Sudan does not recognize it. The evidence is in the so-called agreement itself. Section B. General Principles, item one, of the Sudan Peace Agreement states:
The general principles contained in the Political Charter signed in Khartoum on the 10th April 1996 shall be part of this agreement and shall guide and explain its provisions.
And the Political Charter of 10th April 1996 under item two states:
The unity of the Sudan shall be secured against all internal and external dangers. The two parties shall endeavor to keep peace, justice, and supremacy of values of right, goodness, and virtues.
Equally important, most Southern Sudanese in the diaspora and those embattled in Southern Sudan have condemned this so-called agreement, calling it a sell-out; the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army/Movement has also dismissed it as a sham and has vowed to bring down the NIF regime. Similarly, the Inter-governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) countries-Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda-who are involved in finding a peaceful solution to the
Sudanese conflict, have rejected it because it deviates from the IGAD Declaration of Principles, which form the basis for peace negotiations between North and South.
Anthony Jack-Appel, private investor, directed this question to Khan: "What type of security are there for a major pipeline like you plan to build?" Khan's response: "This area is has never been in trouble. This is a perfectly secure area. it is about 300 kilometers from Ethiopia and Uganda borders. There has never been a security problem in this area."
Our response: Here again, Khan is being duplicitous on the real security situation in the area. Since March this year (Khan is aware of this), the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) has scored successive military victories against the Sudan government troops, most of whom have been decimated and others have been routed. The SPLA has now liberated most of the territory of Southern Sudan, though major Southern Sudanese towns such as Juba, Malakal,
and Wau are still under occupation. We understand that these towns will fall soon. More importantly, the SPLA is now within reach of Bentiu oil fields, and military action is expected there soon. When that happens, the following scenarios are a distinct possibility: In order to deprive Southerners of their oil wealth, the NIF troops, before evacuating the area, may decide to torch the oil-wells, causing environmental and ecological damage on a
magnitude never seen before. It should be remembered that during the Gulf War, Iraqi troops set ablaze Kuwait's oil-wells. It took the most advanced technology and expertise from the West to put out the fires. The cost to Kuwait: over one billion dollars. Southern Sudan does not have the resources to combat such a catastrophe. It is also possible that the SPLA may attack Arakis' oil installations and personnel in the area like it did to Chevron in
the 1980s. As for the building of the pipeline, it is wishful thinking. It will never happen. So why invest in a project that is doomed?
Sheila Tandy, private investor, posed this question to Khan: "Do you have any relationship with the Sudanese government and who is the group that you represent in the company?" Khan's response: "I have no relationship with the Sudanese government. I don't have a group. These are other friendly investors in various of my project and I cannot give you names. They keep investing money when they think it suits them."
Our Response: We have irrefutable evidence that Khan has a close relationship with the Sudanese government. The people that Khan referred to as "other friendly investors in various of my project and I cannot give you names" are, indeed, members of the inner circle of the Sudanese regime-personalities like Osman Khalid, member of politburo of the NIF, Abdel Rahim Hamdi, former Sudan Minister of Finance and currently director of Faisal Islamic Bank of
Saudi Arabia and an official of Arakis Energy Corporation, and Al-Sheik Mahjoub, director of the Central Bank of Sudan. These are the same individuals who were instrumental in helping Khan buy State Petroleum, a government monopoly for selling gasoline in Sudan. Besides that, there is a family relationship between Khan and Abdel Rahim Hamdi: Khan's son is married to Abdel Rahim Hamdi's daughter.
What does this mean in terms of Arakis continuing its Sudan oil project after the demise of the NIF regime (which is certain)?
The Sudan, as we know it, is finished. Arab chauvinism has been defeated. By de facto, the country is now partitioned between African Sudan and Arab Sudan, whether one likes it or not. As the institution binding the majority of African Sudanese and enshrining their aspirations, the SPLM is now the new authority in New Sudan. Whatever arrangements Arakis had with the genocidal-racist regime of the NIF now is null and void. Anyone interested in
investing in the Bentiu oil but Arakis should talk to the SPLM. No doubt, the people of Southern Sudan hold Arakis responsible for helping the de facto government of Sudan carry-out genocide in Southern Sudan and the Nuba Mountains. Therefore, we call on all investors in the Arakis Sudan project to divest NOW>> |
