When International Oil Firms Are Implicated in War Crimes

Not too long ago, Sudan's oil-for-peace program, negotiated and instituted by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) in Europe, was heralded as an effective program for incentivizing demilitarization and nonviolence where child armies and genocidal rampages were once the names of the game.

However, a new report by the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (ECOS), which is "working for peace and justice in Sudan," released this week charges that the very oil now used to make peace was the cause of its lapse in the first place, implicating a European oil consortium in the process and with a strong parallel to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

According to the new 100-page report, a consortium of oil exploration and exploitation companies led by Swedish Lundin Petroleum and its partners including Petronas Carigali Overseas from Malaysia, OMV Exploration from Austria, and the Sudanese state-owned oil company Sudapet, are at least partly to blame for war crimes committed in Sudan between 1997 and 2003. The report was prepared in collaboration with the European Union-funded NGO-network Fatal Transactions.

"The start of oil exploitation set off a vicious war in the area. Between 1997 and 2003, international crimes were committed on a large scale in what was essentially a military campaign by the government of Sudan to secure and take control of the oil fields in Block 5A," it charged. Amazingly, this is close to exactly the course of events that took place during the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, with the difference that  exploration had already given way to exploitation. Yet implications in war crimes of U.S. oil companies have hardly gained any international traction.

The crimes committed in Sudan included widespread "killing of civilians, rape of women, abduction of children, torture and forced displacements," and were mainly committed by the Sudanese army and its primary foe, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The root of the problem, according to ECOS, is that no guarantees or measures were agreed to with the government in Khartoum before oil development started, setting in motion a domino effect that ended in genocide, with suffering and deaths continuing to this day. The parallel continues with the U.S. government.

The home governments of the oil companies involved "failed in their international obligations to prevent human rights violations and international crimes," according to the report, as did the U.S. in Iraq. In this light, the ecologically devastating BP Oil spill in the Gulf is acting as a giant smokescreen to these other, ongoing human catastrophes, quite literally since they are setting it ablaze. "We strongly feel that our activities contributed to peace and development in Sudan," wrote Chairman Ian Lundin, denying all wrongdoing. Sound familiar?

The precarious peace between Sudan’s government-controlled north, backed by Arab tribes, and the semi-autonomous south controlled by rebel Black tribes, overcame a major challenge last year when oil-rich lands between them were divided equitably according to each. The settlement, acclaimed by both sides and their supporters with some detractors, is also another major victory for the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, Netherlands, and is often called an oil-for-peace plan.

Oil-for-peace, it turns out, can be likened to using knives for pleasure and plainly covers up a root cause of war crimes, confusing a problem with its solution. Yet, the fact that it seems to be working at least in part so far presents a conundrum for peacebuilders of gargantuan proportions, especially as it may apply to other oil-fueled conflict zones, like Iraq.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons