Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

John Laughland: Sudan About Oil

Expand Messages
  • World View
    The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war: Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan John Laughland Monday August 2, 2004 The
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      The mask of altruism disguising a colonial war:
      Oil will be the driving factor for military intervention in Sudan

      John Laughland
      Monday August 2, 2004
      The Guardian

      If proof were needed that Tony Blair is off the hook over Iraq, it
      came not during the Commons debate on the Butler report on July 21,
      but rather at his monthly press conference the following morning.
      Asked about the crisis in Sudan, Mr Blair replied: "I believe we have
      a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any
      means that we can." This last phrase means that troops might be sent -
      as General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the general staff,
      immediately confirmed - and yet the reaction from the usual anti-war
      campaigners was silence.
      Mr Blair has invoked moral necessity for every one of the five wars
      he has fought in this, surely one of the most bellicose premierships
      in history. The bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998, the
      74-day bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999, the intervention in Sierra
      Leone in the spring of 2000, the attack on Afghanistan in October
      2001, and the Iraq war last March were all justified with the bright
      certainties which shone from the prime minister's eyes. Blair even
      defended Bill Clinton's attack on the al-Shifa pharmaceuticals
      factory in Sudan in August 1998, on the entirely bogus grounds that
      it was really manufacturing anthrax instead of aspirin.

      Although in each case the pretext for war has been proved false or
      the war aims have been unfulfilled, a stubborn belief persists in the
      morality and the effectiveness of attacking other countries. The
      Milosevic trial has shown that genocide never occurred in Kosovo -
      although Blair told us that the events there were worse than anything
      that had happened since the second world war, even the political
      activists who staff the prosecutor's office at the international
      criminal tribunal in The Hague never included genocide in their
      Kosovo indictment. And two years of prosecution have failed to
      produce one single witness to testify that the former Yugoslav
      president ordered any attacks on Albanian civilians in the province.
      Indeed, army documents produced from Belgrade show the contrary.

      Like the Kosovo genocide, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as we
      now know, existed only in the fevered imaginings of spooks and
      politicians in London and Washington. But Downing Street was also
      recently forced to admit that even Blair's claims about mass graves
      in Iraq were false. The prime minister has repeatedly said that
      300,000 or 400,000 bodies have been found there, but the truth is
      that almost no bodies have been exhumed in Iraq, and consequently the
      total number of such bodies, still less the cause of their deaths, is
      simply unknown.

      In 2001, we attacked Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and to
      prevent the Taliban from allegedly flooding the world with heroin.
      Yet Bin Laden remains free, while the heroin ban imposed by the
      Taliban has been replaced by its very opposite, a surge in opium
      production, fostered by the warlords who rule the country. As for
      Sierra Leone, the United Nations human development report for 2004,
      published on July 15, which measures overall living standards around
      the world, puts that beneficiary of western intervention in 177th
      place out of 177, an august position it has continued to occupy ever
      since our boys went in: Sierra Leone is literally the most miserable
      place on earth. So much for Blair's promise of a "new era for

      The absence of anti-war scepticism about the prospect of sending
      troops into Sudan is especially odd in view of the fact that Darfur
      has oil. For two years, campaigners have chanted that there should
      be "no blood for oil" in Iraq, yet they seem not to have noticed that
      there are huge untapped reserves in both southern Sudan and southern
      Darfur. As oil pipelines continue to be blown up in Iraq, the west
      not only has a clear motive for establishing control over alternative
      sources of energy, it has also officially adopted the policy that our
      armies should be used to do precisely this. Oddly enough, the oil
      concession in southern Darfur is currently in the hands of the China
      National Petroleum Company. China is Sudan's biggest foreign

      We ought, therefore, to treat with scepticism the US Congress
      declaration of genocide in the region. No one, not even the
      government of Sudan, questions that there is a civil war in Darfur,
      or that it has caused an immense number of refugees. Even the
      government admits that nearly a million people have left for camps
      outside Darfur's main towns to escape marauding paramilitary groups.
      The country is awash with guns, thanks to the various wars going on
      in Sudan's neighbouring countries. Tensions have risen between nomads
      and herders, as the former are forced south in search of new pastures
      by the expansion of the Sahara desert. Paramilitary groups have
      practised widespread highway robbery, and each tribe has its own
      private army. That is why the government of Sudan imposed a state of
      emergency in 1999.

      But our media have taken this complex picture and projected on to it
      a simple morality tale of ethnic cleansing and genocide. They gloss
      over the fact that the Janjaweed militia come from the same ethnic
      group and religion as the people they are allegedly persecuting -
      everyone in Darfur is black, African, Arabic-speaking and Muslim.
      Campaigners for intervention have accused the Sudanese government of
      supporting this group, without mentioning that the Sudanese defence
      minister condemned the Janjaweed as "bandits" in a speech to the
      country's parliament in March. On July 19, moreover, a court in
      Khartoum sentenced six Janjaweed soldiers to horrible punishments,
      including the amputation of their hands and legs. And why do we never
      hear about the rebel groups which the Janjaweed are fighting, or
      about any atrocities that they may have committed?

      It is far from clear that the sudden media attention devoted to Sudan
      has been provoked by any real escalation of the crisis - a peace
      agreement was signed with the rebels in April, and it is holding. The
      pictures on our TV screens could have been shown last year. And we
      should treat with scepticism the claims made for the numbers of
      deaths - 30,000 or 50,000 are the figures being bandied about - when
      we know that similar statistics proved very wrong in Kosovo and Iraq.
      The Sudanese government says that the death toll in Darfur, since the
      beginning of the conflict in 2003, is not greater than 1,200 on all
      sides. And why is such attention devoted to Sudan when, in
      neighbouring Congo, the death rate from the war there is estimated to
      be some 2 or 3 million, a tragedy equalled only by the silence with
      which it is treated in our media?

      We are shown starving babies now, but no TV station will show the
      limbless or the dead that we cause if we attack Sudan. Humanitarian
      aid should be what the Red Cross always said it must be - politically
      neutral. Anything else is just an old-fashioned colonial war - the
      reality of killing, and the escalation of violence, disguised with
      the hypocritical mask of altruism. If Iraq has not taught us that,
      then we are incapable of ever learning anything.

      ยท John Laughland is an associate of Sanders Research Associates




      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.