|
The search for oil
and natural gas is taking oil companies and their investors to the far
ends of the planet, including those countries with considerable
political risk. Along these lines, Sudan has it all – ethnic
cleansing, a war between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds, competition
between the West and China, the ineffectiveness of the United Nations,
famine, disease and oil. Sudan has had a history of military regimes,
civil wars and border disputes since its independence from the UK in
1956. Despite the stark imagery from the famines of the 1980s and recent
Darfur crisis, Sudan, Africa’s largest nation by size, is well endowed
with large areas of cultivatable land as well as mountain ranges, swamps
and rain forests. Apart from oil, Sudan is also rich in gold reserves.
Sudan’s proven oil reserves are less than 1bn barrels, however that
number could rise dramatically as capital is invested in exploration.
Indeed, this is what is attracting a growing group of international oil
companies to the country.
Not
Exactly Axis of Evil, But…
While
not important enough to be part of the “axis of evil”, Sudan is
definitely in the cross hairs of the Bush administration. Most recently,
the Sudanese government, dominated by Northern Arabs, has been accused
of genocide against its own black population by former Secretary of
State Colin Powell and the U.S. Congress. Washington also sees Sudan,
with its deeply Islamic regime, as a breeding ground for Islamist
terrorists. Recently, Sudanese nationals were among those apprehended in
Iraq for insurgent activities. America’s last direct commercial
interest in the Sudan was closed down as far back as 1984 with the exit
of Chevron due to security reasons during the North-South civil war.
Meanwhile,
America’s friends, as well as its competitors, continue to do business
in Sudan. Some of the countries that filled the void left by Chevron
include Canada, Malaysia, Qatar, Sweden, Austria, France, China and
India. While Canada’s Talisman Energy left Sudan in 2002, France’s
Total SA still maintains ownership of some of the largest oil fields in
Sudan.
A
Country of Fault Lines
Sudan’s
North-South divide has its roots at least as far back as 1898 when
Britain and Egypt began their joint administration of Sudan. Until 1946,
the two halves of the country were ruled independent of each other. The
predominantly Muslim North, with its historical ties to Arab lands to
the North and East, was the focus of economic and infrastructure
development. The South was of little use to anyone but was open to
Christian missionaries thus resulting in a sizable Christian population
along with the native animist population. When the British decided to
integrate the North and South ahead of independence in 1956, it caused
great resentment among Southerners who felt underrepresented and
unorganized politically to match the North.
The
first civil war was sparked by mutinous Southern army officers before
independence and lasted until 1972. The second civil war began in 1983
and has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and displaced over 4
million Southerners. Oil, which was discovered in the South in 1978, has
played a major role in the second civil war. In order to control the oil
producing areas, the government deliberately armed militias (Murahleen)
of the Baggara, who are Arab speaking nomads, to force southerners off
their ancestral lands through intimidation and murder. The opening of a
new 1500 km pipeline in 1999 made by the Greater Nile Petroleum
Operating Company (GNPOC), whose current partners include CNPC (China),
ONGC (India), Petronas (Malaysia) and Sudanese government further
escalated the humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Southern region. This new
pipeline has made previously hard to reach fields within easy reach of
transportation to Port Sudan on the Red Sea.
Peace
talks between the government and the southern rebels have progressed
well in theory but not in application. The two sides signed a peace
agreement on January 9, 2005, under which the South will enjoy autonomy
for six years followed by a referendum on secession at the end of this
decade. During the interim period, oil revenues would be shared equally
between the government and the rebels. However, this arrangement has
already been tested many times and has compounded the legal hurdles
facing companies willing to do business in Sudan. After Total stopped
producing at its giant oil field (the size of Greece) in Southern Sudan
over twenty years ago, it continued to pay royalties to maintain its
right to come back one day. It also made sure it updated its deal with
the central government before the peace agreement was signed in January.
However, the new provisional authority in the South proceeded to
allocate rights to the same oil field to another company – White Nile
Ltd, which is incorporated in the UK. Contract disputes such as these
could cause the collapse of the entire peace agreement and lead to
further bloodshed and misery for the people of Sudan.
And
Now Darfur
The
more recent conflict in the Darfur region of Western Sudan has now
become the focus of the world’s attention. The Darfur conflict came
out of concern among the non-Arab natives of that part of Sudan that
they had been sidelined in the peace agreement with the South. Since the
government had deployed most of its army in the South and many of the
Darfur based soldiers were natives of the region, the government used
aerial bombardment and yet another Arab militia, now the Janjaweed, to
put down the rebels. Unlike the earlier North-South civil wars, the
Darfur conflict is between Muslims, Arabs and non-Arabs. The
rebels started the conflict by attacking government installations, but
it was not long before the better armed Janjaweed were able to drive
more than a million natives away from their homes. As many as 100,000
refugees ended up in Chad, pursued by the militia, leading to a clash
between the Janjaweed and Chadian soldiers in April 2004. Despite a
deadline and other threats from the UN Security Council – Resolutions
1556 and 1564 – as well as an accord to establish a no-fly zone over
the area, the Janjaweed and the government have not stopped their
onslaught against the non-Arab population of the region.
Economic
sanctions from the Security Council are unlikely due to China’s
economic ties with Sudan and veto power in the Council. While the
African Union, supported by U.N. and E.U. funds as well as U.S.
logistics support, has taken the lead role in solving Sudan’s problems
(by providing a token peace keeping force), the U.S. has been the most
vocal foreign power against the Sudanese government’s behavior in
Darfur. The U.S.’s recent relationship with Sudan has been mixed.
Since 1993, Sudan has been on the State Department’s list of countries
supporting terrorism and the US government has voted against Sudan in
all international lending institutions. Post September 11, 2001, the
Sudanese government, keen to escape the wrath of the US due to its
earlier refuge to Osama Bin Laden, has made a show of accepting some of
the US’s conditions for normalizing relations and has cooperated in
anti-terrorist actions. Thus, this relationship is not much different
from that of the US’s relationship with Syria.
Oil:
A Wasted Resource
Most
of the people of Sudan have not seen any benefit from its oil industry.
On the contrary, oil money has enabled the central government to update
its military that to a large extent has been used to subdue it own
people, first in the South and now in Darfur. Moreover, the Chinese
dominated GNPOC consortium, which produces most of Sudan’s oil, has
not even made a major effort to train many local Sudanese, instead
relying on legions of imported Chinese labor. Thus, far from being a
boon, oil to date has been the reason and the enabler of mass suffering
in Sudan.
Sudan
represents part of the ongoing challenge in extracting oil from Africa.
On one hand, the country probably holds far greater hydrocarbon reserves
and could make a contribution to the world energy supply. If there
was any accountability on the part of the Sudanese government, oil could
also make a positive contribution to developing the nation.
On
the other hand, the Sudanese government has misused oil revenues.
Instead of money going to train accountants, doctors and teachers –
all necessary human capital for providing a better business environment
(not to mention quality of life) – it has gone to financing genocide,
a sad commentary. Moreover, the weak nature of the government and
its inability to police a rule of law have left the issue of contracts
in limbo as reflected by the experience of Total. No doubt Sudan
will continue to attract oil business – countries such as China and
India are driven there by rising consumption – but the massive inflow
of foreign capital needed for the country to reach its true potential is
going to lag while a civil war rages. Other countries, including many in
West Africa and North Africa have much more to offer and are making the
effort.

© 2005 Rohit Sethi,
Contributor
for KWR International, Inc.
Archived Editorials
Contact
Information
For more information on KWR International
and its client services, please contact:
KWR
International, Inc.
website
New York, NY 10023
Phone: +1.212.532.3005
Fax: +1.212.685.2413
Email

|