«Human Rights Watch Brussels London New York Washington, D.C. Copyright © 2003 by Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Printed in the United ...»
1582 European Commission, “EU-Sudan relations: EU prepares for the possible resumption of development assistance,” January 31, 2002, MEMO02-001EN, http://europa-eu-un.org/article.asp?id=1117 (accessed June 20, 2002).
The Presidency on behalf of the European Union, however, joined in the chorus of condemnation of the government of Sudan helicopter gunship killings in February 20, 2002 in Bieh, Western Upper Nile/Unity State.1583 European civil society began to weigh in on Sudan policy, however. In May 2000, a broad coalition of European NGOs formed the European Campaign on Oil in Sudan (ECOS) to lobby the E.U., European governments, and European companies involved in the oil business in Sudan. ECOS urged these companies to pull out of Sudan because of the Sudanese government's gross human rights abuses.
In April 2002 ECOS published a report on continued displacements from Blocks 5A and 4, citing testimonies of people displaced in 2001 and up through the end of February 2002.1584 The Council of Ministers1585 met on June 17, 2002, and concluded that, as the continuation of the conflict and continuing human rights violations constituted the main obstacles to development, the European Union should make its contribution to the peace process a priority. It endorsed the continuation of existing E.U. policy toward Sudan, with the main priorities being: support for the IGAD peace process, the Declaration of Principles, and other international efforts; promotion of respect for human rights and humanitarian law; promotion of the rule of law; encouragement of the transition to democracy; and support for the process of economic and social development, subject to progress towards a peace settlement.
Despite the gripping testimonies of deliberate displacement of civilians from the Block 5A concession where the European companies Lundin and OMV were invested, the Council of Ministers in its 1583 Declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on bombings of civilian targets in Sudan, press release 6773/02 (Presse 58-G), P 27/02, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2002.
1584 “Depopulating Sudan’s Oil Regions.” 1585 The Council of Ministers is responsible for defining and implementing the common foreign policy of the European Union.
resolution did not refer once to the relationship between oil and war and human rights abuses in Sudan.1586 E.U. Leadership at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights This movement toward resumption of normal relations despite Sudan’s worsening human rights record underscored the E.U. trend to separate itself from U.S. leadership with regard to Sudan policy. This trend had been growing at least since the August 1998 U.S. bombing of the pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum. Indeed, in some diplomatic arenas the U.S. no longer sought to lead its European allies regarding Sudan.
This was most remarkable from a human rights perspective when, in 1998, the U.S. mission to the U.N.
did not, as in all previous years starting in 1993, draft and present the annual resolution by the General Assembly condemning human rights abuses in Sudan. The E.U. took no action, believing the U.S. would eventually shoulder the burden, but that did not happen. As a result, there was no General Assembly condemnation of human rights abuses in Sudan that year, despite the gross abuses associated with the 1998 famine and the continuing war.
At the March-April 1999 session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the E.U., under the leadership of the German presidency, undertook to draft the resolution on Sudan, with an eye to continuing the mandate of the special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan, renewable yearly. The special rapporteur’s mandate was first approved in the 1993 session. The resolution had previously been drafted and backed by the U.S., and voted on by the commission.
The E.U. draft resolution for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was different, however, in that the E.U. undertook to have the consent of the Sudanese government to the resolution. It believed that it 1586 “General Affairs,” 2437th Council meeting, Luxembourg, June 17, 2002, 9717/02 (Presse 178), items approved without debate, p. III-V, http://ue.eu.int/pressData/en/gena/71044.pdf (accessed June 20, 2002).
could thereby gain the commitment of the Sudanese government to uphold human rights, particularly in the specific areas mentioned in the resolution. The Sudanese government negotiated the content of most of the resolution with the E.U., but did not finally agree to it until the E.U. threatened to withdraw its resolution and let a stronger U.S. alternative resolution proceed. Among other things, the U.S. resolution condemned Sudan for slavery, a charge the Sudanese government regarded as untrue and offensive. The E.U. draft did not use the word “slavery,” but referred instead to “abductions.”1587 This word change came despite the special rapporteur’s specific findings on “slavery.” This consensual drafting process has since become the pattern at the U.N. human rights commission for Sudan and other countries as well. The E.U. continued to draft resolutions on Sudan, until the U.S.
resurrected its diplomatic profile on Sudan. The mandate of the special rapporteur was continued—one of the primary objectives of the E.U. as well as the U.S.—but the condemnations of the Sudanese government were watered down, while those against the SPLM/A, which is not afforded participation in the consensual process, became sharper. For instance, in the 1999 resolution on human rights in Sudan, the government was not “condemned” for any human rights abuse, but the SPLM/A was, for the killing of four humanitarian workers near Pariang, Western Upper Nile/Unity State, in March 1999.1588 In 2000, neither was “condemned,” but the commission expressed its concern about the “conditions imposed by the [SPLM/A] on humanitarian organizations working in southern Sudan” and about the “murder of, attacks on and use of force against United Nations as well as humanitarian personnel, in particular by the [SPLM/A].”1589 1587 Ralph-Joseph Taraf, counselor, German Foreign Ministry, Human Rights Watch interview, Bonn, Germany, May 13, 1999.
1588 U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Commission on Human Rights adopts resolutions on situation of human rights in Nigeria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and Sudan,” Geneva, HR/CN/99/55, April 23, 1999 (“Ibrahim Ibrahim (Sudan) said it noted with great appreciation that the draft resolution was the product of work between Germany on behalf of the European Union and Sudan.”);
“Situation of human rights in the Sudan,” E/CN.4/RES/1999/15, April 23, 1999, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.1999.15.En?Opendocument (accessed July 18, 2002).
1589 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 56th session, Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan, E/CN.4/RES/2000/27, April 18, 2000, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2000.27.En?Opendocument (accessed July 18, 2002).
515Human Rights Watch
The report of the special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan of April 19, 2000, specifically mentioned displacement of Nuer populations by the government “with the purpose of ensuring military control of oil industry operations in Upper Nile.” He expressed concern “at the use of oil industry airstrips for military purposes” and hindering relief assistance particularly in Western Upper Nile/Unity State mainly by restricting and denying flight access. He was convinced that the oil issue in Western Upper Nile/Unity State “lies at the heart of the conflict and believes that it is not fair for the civilian population to be once again the most affected target in this scenario. Oil exploitation has resulted in the exacerbation of the war.” He recommended that all efforts be made to facilitate the return of displaced people to their place of origin, and that the use of oil facilities for military purposes come to an end.1590 The commission, however, did not mention oil development specifically in its resolution of April 18, 2000 (adopted by 28 votes to none, with 24 abstentions).1591 The U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Sudan, Leonard Franco (of Argentina), resigned in late 2000 and was replaced on December 28, 2000, by Gerhart Baum (of Germany, an E.U. country), who visited Sudan in March 2001.
Baum in his oral remarks to the commission on April 27, 2001, noted that he had gathered further evidence that “oil exploitation leads to an exacerbation of the conflict with serious consequences on the civilians.” 1592 He detailed destruction of certain villages by name, and said, “It seems that, under the conditions of the on-going war, oil exploitation is often preceded and accompanied by human rights 1590 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, “Situation of human rights in the Sudan, summary of the draft report of special rapporteur,” Geneva, E/CN.4/2000/36, April 19, 2000, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2000.36.En?Opendocument (accessed June 21, 2002).
1591 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 58th session, “Situation of human rights in the Sudan, Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/27,” E/CN.4/RES/2000/27, Geneva, April 18, 2002, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2000.27.En?Opendocument (accessed June 21, 2002).
1592 Gerhart Baum, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, oral statement at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 57th session, 19 March – 27 April 2001, http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/NewsRoom?OpenFramsSet (accessed July 18, 2002).
violations, particularly in terms of forced displacement.... Government officials... assured me that displaced individuals are compensated accordingly.”1593 Human Rights Watch knows of no such cases of individual compensation in the south.
Baum also appealed to the oil companies operating in Sudan “to fully comply with their corporate responsibilities with a view to minimizing any negative impact of their operations, particularly before planning new ones. The link between oil exploitation and human rights abuses should continue to be monitored intensively,” he stated.1594 The commission resolution of April 20, 2001, finally expressed “deep concern” at the “forced displacements of populations, in particular in areas surrounding the oilfields....”1595 The resolution also expressed concern over the “widespread and indiscriminate aerial bombardments by the Government of the Sudan,”1596 in contrast to the 2000 resolution, which did not specifically mention the culpability of the Sudanese government in bombardment.
In the resolution-related press release of April 20, 2001, the commission highlighted its deep concern at forced displacements in oilfield regions.1597 The E.U. and the commission resolution, however, did not did not follow the lead of the special rapporteur with regard to his findings about the link between oil development and human rights abuses.
1595 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 57th session, “Situation of human rights in the Sudan, Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/18,” Geneva, Operative Clause 2(a)(viii). E/CN.4/RES/2001/18, April 20, 2001, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2001.18.En?Opendocument (accessed June 20, 2002).
1596 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 57th session, “Situation of human rights in the Sudan, Commission on Human Rights resolution 2001/18,” Geneva, E/CN.4/RES/2001/18, April 20, 2001, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2001.18.En?Opendocument (accessed June 20, 2002).
1597 U.N. press release, Geneva, April 20, 2001.
517Human Rights Watch
The special rapporteur, however, did not relent. In his January 2002 report to the commission, he stated that “oil has seriously exacerbated the conflict while deteriorating the overall situation of human rights.” He also said that he had received information that “oil exploitation is continuing to cause widespread displacement....” 1598 Again, the commission resolution in April 2002 mentioned oil development but did not link oil development with the increase in human rights abuses. Specifically, the resolution expressed the concern of the commission at the “ongoing plight of internally displaced persons in Sudan, in particular women and children, and their lack of access to protection and assistance, including in areas surrounding the oilfields.” 1599 The resolution, however, did reauthorize the mandate of the special rapporteur.
This Sudan resolution, weaker than the special rapporteurs’s report, in fact passed by only one vote at the commission.1600 This was the closest the commission had ever come to defeating a resolution on human rights in Sudan and to not renewing the mandate of the special rapporteur. In the 2002 session, African states bridled at the proliferation of special rapporteurs assigned to monitor human rights in African countries, and determined as a body to vote against extending their mandate—in the context of human rights criticism of Zimbabwe by the developed countries. The only African country at the commission to vote in favor of the Sudan human rights resolution was Uganda, with South Africa abstaining.1601 1598 Report of the special rapporteur, Gerhart Baum, to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 58th session, “Situation of human rights in the Sudan,” E/CN.4/2002/46, January 23, 2002, Geneva, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/64639579934bf6dcc125669d002cfbcd?opendocument (June 20, 2002).
1599 U.N. Commission on Human Rights, 58th session, “Situation of human rights in the Sudan,” Geneva, E/CN.4/RES/2002/16, April 19, 2002, http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.16.En?Opendocument, (accessed July 18, 2002), p. 3.
1600 Ibid.: “adopted by a recorded vote of 25 votes to 24, with 4 abstentions.” 1601 “UN rights body narrowly adopts motion condemning Sudan,” AFP, Geneva, April 19, 2002.
518Foreign Corporate Complicity, Foreign Government Support