Leveling the Debate on Compensation

 By Henock Bayu

Carl Blidt is a poor advertisement for the defense of human rights in Africa.

Oil is a major factor in the Sudanese civil war, the destruction of lives and property and gross human rights violation. Western oil companies have played a major role in the destruction of human lives and property. Prominent among which is the Swedish Oil Company Lindin Oil AB, which formed the Lundin consortium with Petronas from Malaysia and OMV (Sudan) from Austria. However, the main culprit in the atrocities committed against the local population in Sudan is Lundin Sweden. By signing a contract with the government of Sudan for the exploitation of oil in the concession area called Block 5A in 1997, the oil company helped to initiate a new war in the country. As documented by the European Coalition for Oil in Sudan/ECOS/, there are indications that the Consortium provided material support to Sudanese security agencies that were involved in gross human rights abuses.

Lundin Sweden provided both the reason and the means to wage a brutal war against innocent civilians. Lundin did not only empower the government of Sudan to wage war against its people but it also facilitated ruthless military campaigns and gave a stimulus to government army and its actions. These included indiscriminate attacks and intentional targeting of civilians, burning of shelters, pillage, and destruction of objects necessary for survival, unlawful killing of civilians, rape of women, abduction of children, torture, and forced displacement. Thousands of people died and almost two hundred thousands were violently displaced.

The actual perpetrators of the reported crimes were the armed forces of the government of Sudan encouraged, assisted and empowered by the Swedish oil company Lundin Oil AB. This happened at the time when Carl Blidt, current foreign minister of Sweden, was member of the Board of Directors of Lundin Petroleum. He knew his company was a major player in blood oil, but he failed to act to prevent the risk of complicity in the international crimes perpetrated in Sudan. In July 2001 Carl Blidt admitted oil is part of the conflict in Sudan. Now, as a prominent politician in Sweden he seems to be interested in human rights and justice in Africa. First things first: the leaders of the oil companies are yet to account for their involvement in human rights abuses and their governments for their failure to act. It was not uncommon for oil companies in Sudan to provide logistical support to the government’s security forces and allied militias.

A number of recognized experts have claimed that financial support by oil companies to Sudan Armed Forces/SAF/ and militia was not uncommon in Sudan. What is uncommon is when the former chair of these companies appears to become a champion of human rights.

Africa’s regional organizations should call for an investigation into the role of the Lundin Oil Consortium in the civil war in Block 5A, and present the case for compensation for the victims. This is a prerequisite for peace and justice in Sudan. Besides, Sudan’s CPA and Interim National Constitution/INC/ establish a specific rights to compensation for people whose rights have been violated by oil contracts, but no adequate compensation has been received. The Mbeki Panel should request for compensation from the Lundin oil company and its government. And the AU should also call upon Western oil companies and their governments to play a key role in facilitating and expediting this process. A compensation process that will do justice to the people of Southern Sudan and is designed to create the conditions for reconciliation and forgiveness would bring crucial peace dividends and contribute to conflict resolution and peaceful transition in Sudan.

The international guarantors of the CPA must take urgent initiatives to ensure implementation of the right to compensation as established by the CPA. Many would probably have great respect for Carl Blidt as a politician. But his recent foray into human rights is strangely offensive and wrongheaded. This is an anachronism because he is involved in human rights posturing while his oil firm violated those rights.

His actions obviously contradict eachother: if his oil firm wanted to make profit through war and devastation of human lives, why would he ever wish to be in a human rights crusade where he would quickly become a joke. This is out of step with human rights and justice. Or does it mean sometimes human rights have to be subordinated to oil profit? For Carl the notion of defending human rights whether in Europe or Africa is anathema. When the victims of Lund Oil are fully compensated, the wound heals, and the memories of trauma fade, perhaps the credibility of his words could also be increased. But for now compensation and redressing the injustices is the only viable option. Carl Blidt is a poor advertisement for the defense of human rights in Africa.