In 1995, Equatorial Guinea, a tiny and tremendously poor West African nation was considered one of the most impoverished and miserable economic situations on the planet. So much so in fact that the U.S. closed down its embassy for cost-cutting reasons. However, only a few weeks later, oil and natural gas deposits were discovered under the waters of this tiny nation. This triggered the West African oil rush and led ExxonMobil, Tirton Energy, Samedan Oil, CMS Energy and Vanco to invest nearly $5 billion since then. The day and night change shocked the nation and sent it into an economic boom even though most of the labor came from outside Equatorial Guinea’s small population of 400,000.
In this case the United States got lucky. However, in Sudan the situation is not so bright. Darfur, a western province of Sudan, is home to what has been called the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis” and even “genocide.” Putting legal terms aside for a moment, the harsh reality on the ground is that 30,000-50,000 people are dead according to the UN deputy secretary general for humanitarian affairs. About 1.2 million people have been forced from their homes during the 17 months of conflict. About 200,000 have taken refuge in neighboring Chad, which borders on the Darfur province.
The numbers do not begin to echo the horrors which are taking place on the ground and outside involvement is necessary to ease the suffering of crying mothers and hungry children.
The question that came to my mind was why Sudan and why now?
The New York-based International Rescue Committee reported in 2001 that 2.5 million people had died as a result of the three-year-old civil war in neighboring Congo. Also in neighboring Uganda tens of thousands have been killed, mutilated and beheaded by rebel groups and 1.6 million have been displaced.
The crisis in Darfur is undoubtedly part of a larger picture. Sudan has been experiencing a 21 year civil war which had come close to resolution after the recent and historic agreements signed by the government and rebel groups in the south. The United States began to play a role in the brokering of this agreement only recently, as much of the hard negotiating work was done by other African states. Sudan was on terrorist lists; it was home to a bloody civil war, and didn’t have anything to offer to the United States. Then, in 1999, significant oil deposits became accessible from southern Sudan. This would set Sudan aside from Uganda and Congo. Suddenly the United States found enough cause for humanitarian concern.
An end to the civil war could lift sanctions from Sudan and open its oil market to the United States. This was perhaps not a major concern until Sudan’s oil production nearly doubled, making it a more worthy prize. Sudan’s energy minister estimates a production of 500,000 barrels per day in 2005. Now take that number and multiply by about 49 cents a barrel and you get millions of reasons to care about the suffering in Darfur.
In October of 2002 President Bush signed the Sudan Peace Act, which would promote a resolution to the 21-year-old conflict. Then in May of 2004, as the world was condemning the Sudanese government for funding deadly militias in Darfur, the United States removed Sudan from a list of nations that aide al-Qaeda. This move puts them closer and closer to lifting sanctions.
But why the rush? Sudan’s oil is not going to make an immediate impact even though it has a promising future. The reality is that the U.S. is looking to jump into the game late. Major competitors in the global arena for energy resources have beat the United States to Sudan. After a Canadian company sold its share to Sudanese oil due to pressure from humanitarian groups, Sweden became the only remaining western nation that had a piece of Sudan’s crude pie. Among the rest of the nations in the ring are China and India, two major competitors with growing populations and economies. The Russians have also jumped into the game recently as Stroitransgaz (a Russian corporation) won a bid this past spring to a 12-month project to construct a new 367 kilometer pipeline. An Indian corporation also won a bid to build another pipeline, this one a 741 kilometer/16-month project through Sudan. China, which uses Sudan as the base of its African oil projects, owns 40 percent of the Greater Nile Petroleum Company, the main international consortium extracting oil from Sudan.
China, India and Russia, major competitors, are all getting a piece of the pie and the U.S. is left behind in this battle. The policy makers in Washington are seeing black in Sudan, but not because they are eyeing the Darfuris. Once again Washington is ashamed of its realism and slips back into its politically hypocritical shell.
Yousef Munayyer is a Collegian columnist.
