Oil, power and a sign of hope. Klaus Stieglitz
the investments made in this area.46 Also planned by the company is a return to Formula 1. But efforts to do such run into a number of bumps.47 The return does have its impact upon standard models: silver is the favorite color of the Mercedes purchased.48
*
While all this was going on, the exploitation of the oil found in the Sudan was being pursued. The regime in Khartoum and Chevron concluded agreements foreseeing the marketing of oil from the country by 1984. The attack by rebels on Chevron facilities—resulting in the death of several of the company’s staff members—caused the postponing of such plans.49 Many in Southern Sudan viewed Chevron as being an ally of the Khartoum-based repressive regime. It, in turn, distrusted Chevron, and didn’t accept its reasons for halting the exploitation.50 The regime’s assumption was that Chevron welcomed the rebels’ attack, as it gave them an excuse not to have to live up to its commitments in a time of falling oil prices.51 The regime’s assumption was that the Americans actually intended to wait until the exploitation of oil in Sudan returned to making business sense.52 Once Chevron ran out of reasons to delay production and upon Khartoum’s increasing of the pressure to live up to agreements, the US oil giant ceased all activities in the country. This was expedited by the lack of support forthcoming from the USA for the company’s activities in Sudan.53
Chevron’s withdrawal from the country causes the regime in Khartoum to divide the concession. Created are several “blocks”—areas of oil exploitation and production. The licenses to develop these are awarded on individual bases. The regime in Khartoum’s experience with Chevron leads to its striving to attract smaller-sized oil companies to the country.54 The idea is that such companies are more interested in forging personal relationships, and that, through these, the government can exert more control over them.55 Khartoum’s plans meet with enthusiastic response. Oil companies from Canada and Europe are joined by those from Asia—including the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and Malaysia’s Petronas (Petroliam Nasional Berhad)—in striving to enter what they view as being Sudan’s promising oil industry. The Canadians rapidly shelve such plans. One key reason is the public pressure ensuing from the link between doing business in Sudan and being involved in the violation of human rights there.56 The regime in Khartoum has proven itself willing to do anything to remove obstacles that would prevent foreign companies from making investments in the country. The regime has employed violence to drive the population from regions in which oil fields are to be exploited.
Documented in detail has been what happened in “Block 5A”. This area of concession is located in Unity state. It contains the Thar Jath57 oil fields. To provide unimpeded access to them and to thus expedite their exploitation, thousands of persons were killed and tens of thousands forced to flee. A large-scale investigation subsequently confirmed the suspicion such non-Sudanese oil companies as Sweden’s Lundin Oil, the Malaysian government’s Petronas and Austria’s OMV were not only prepared to accept these forced flights, but that, in fact, it was these investors that actively pressured the regime in Khartoum to pursue them.58 One fact is apparent. Such oil companies immediately benefited from the “scorched earth” policy implemented by the regime in Khartoum against Southern Sudan, a policy yielding so many refugees.59 The especially close relationship between Khartoum and this Malaysian company is also no doubt due to both countries’ being Islamic.60 Petronas’ involvement in Sudan comprises its participation in consortia that are exploiting oil fields. The Malaysian company also maintains gas stations in the country. It is, further, the main supplier of the kerosene used by the country’s civil and military aviation sectors61. Petronas has also built a refinery in the country. This investment has come to a billion dollars.62 Petronas is an ambitious company. To realize these ambitions, it has selected Sudan to be its venue of operation outside Malaysia.63
*
The decades of conflict cause the deaths of some 50% of the people in Sudan as a whole, and the flight of four million refugees since 1983.64 The countryside has been ravaged. This applies to fertile regions whose cultivation would have the potential to feed the entire nation. The millions of refugees are housed—often under miserable conditions—in camps. The refugees are dependent upon the assistance provided by international organizations.
*
The Comboni friars have been operating missions in Sudan for all of the last 150 years. This longevity makes the friars important sources of contacts and counsel to and major partners of the relief organizations setting up shop in the Sudan. The founders of the Comboni congregation developed a depiction of humanity that still informs their work today. This “mission statement” also guides the assistance supplied by organizations in the country that are not religious in nature. One of the organizations providing assistance and helping protect human rights in Sudan is “Sign of Hope”. This interdenominational NGO is headquartered in Konstanz, a city located in southwestern Germany. The thrusts of its work are the protection of human rights and the provision of assistance.
*
At the beginning of June 1994, Reimund Reubelt, staff member of Sign of Hope, traveled to Southern Sudan, which was being racked by a civil war in those days. He arrived in a small airplane. It was full of assistance supplies that Reimund had procured in Kenya. The airplane’s pilot was nervous. This was because he didn’t know—the rebels or the government’s forces—who controlled the airstrip at which they were going to land. He said: “If people start running at us, that’s a bad sign. We will have to immediately take off again.” The tall and haggard people waiting at the airfield approached the airplane in a slow and dignified pace.
The event, which took place more than 20 years ago, marked the beginning of Sign of Hope’s work in the country, in which more than 75% of the people cannot read or write, and in which more than half live below the poverty level. Since that time, Sign of Hope has organized and carried out on a regular basis transports of humanitarian goods to the dangerous, crisis-ridden region. One first step was the forging of working relationships with on-site clerical partners.
Klaus Stieglitz is also a staff member at Sign of Hope. He can still clearly recall the details of a meeting with an elderly gentleman during one of Stieglitz’ frequent visits to Southern Sudan. This took place a couple of years after Reubelt’s visit. Reimund Reubelt’s colleague Stieglitz says: “The man was dressed in clothing that looked worse for wear. He had bright white hair. He was old, and a former teacher. He recounted tales out of his life, and we listened attentively. After a while, he asked us where we came from. He said that he knew Germany well from radio broadcasts. For many years, he had listened to the short wave broadcasts of the BBC to keep abreast of what was going on in the world. Something that had made him especially sad was the building of the wall throughout Germany in 1961. This was because it would separate the people living there. He prayed since that event every day for the fall of the wall, even though he had never seen it. This came to pass in 1989. Although living in one of the most remote corners of what is today South Sudan, this man was able to show us that the injustice symbolized by this wall had moved him. And that he had done whatever he could to stand up for his fellow human beings in Europe. He had prayed. At this moment, we felt ourselves to be loved deeply by this man. It was a moment that, once more, conveyed the import of our personal credo to us: We help people. We work with them, and we protect their rights.”
Over the following decades, our rendering of humanitarian assistance in Southern Sudan was joined by the conducting of development projects and of missions to protect human rights. This joint thrust—when carried out in crisis regions— generates tension: This is because helping people assert their rights automatically means raising your voice against the powers that be. As is the case in other countries run by potentates, it is precisely those in power that get to decide whether or not you will be allowed to speak with the people. Notwithstanding this, Sign of Hope places importance on supplying people with food, water, medicine and education (through the building of schools)—and on attacking the roots of their problems—the lack of respect of their human rights. Klaus Stieglitz and Reimund Reubelt share the conviction that “our wish to form on-site true partnerships of respect with the disadvantaged requires our ensuring their getting their rights. What’s at stake: protecting human dignity.”
*
In 2006, Sign of Hope was accorded consultative status by