Oil, power and a sign of hope. Klaus Stieglitz
Sign of Hope’s work to publicize violations of human rights in Southern Sudan.
*
At the end of 2007, problems with drinking water were brought to the attention of Sign of Hope. The German organization was told of the contamination being found in the water available for drinking in certain regions of Southern Sudan. The initial tests made of the water confirmed the assumption that this contamination stemmed from the extraction of oil. Sign of Hope commissioned the conducting of a comprehensive, scientific study.
It found that this connection in fact existed. This book tells the story of Sign of Hope’s attempts to get the oil companies to adhere to internationally-applicable standards. The story tells the chronology of the organization’s push to enable the 180,000 affected residents to assert their human right to have clean water to drink. Another thrust of this push is the attempt to conserve one of the world’s largest wetlands and its unique biodiversity. This book will also depict the mechanisms employed by a newly-founded state to rule. These mechanisms have turned the country’s oil reserves into a curse for its population. This chronology also reveals, by way of contrast, something gratifying. There are buttons for outsiders to push. And pushing them can in fact affect the decisions reached by the liable parties—if the pushing is undertaken on a lasting and thoroughgoing basis.
2008
A Suspicion
For more than 20 years, Southern Sudan has been the focus of Sign of Hope’s work. The rendering of assistance in an area repeatedly roiling with crises requires the careful selection of partners, ones capable of pursuing projects even in times of great difficulty. South Sudan (which was formerly part of the country of Sudan) is one of the poorest countries in the world. As such, it requires a wide variety of assistance: in helping supply its people with food, potable water, medical treatment (via “bush” clinics and other parts of a dedicated infrastructure) and education. Requisite to set up a resilient organization is the dispatching of own staff to the region. They then work with local players. Sign of Hope accordingly has deployed up to 80 staff members to South Sudan. Their jobs include the facilitation of mother-children projects, of the building of village day care centers, and of the operation of two bush clinics.
*
Sign of Hope received at the end of 2007 an alarming message from Southern Sudan. It stated that a trustworthy person living in the region had been receiving over the past few weeks and months ever-more frequent and disturbing reports of there being something wrong with the water found in the vicinity of the oil rigs ringing Thar Jath. Worried mothers were complaining about its bitterness. It was being said that the water was so salty that children were immediately vomiting after drinking it. Cases of stomach aches and diarrhea were reported to have become more and more common. Along with children, the elderly and the weak were suffering from this. Livestock were dying in unusually large numbers. According to the herders, this was due to the bad water. The people in the region viewed the cause of the water’s contamination as being the wastes produced by the oil industry. The wastes contained chemicals that were probably being deposited in the ambient environment. As the message stated, there were no hard facts. Our contacts in the region issued a desperate plea. They had neither funds nor any ways of conducting an investigation. So they were asking Sign of Hope to do such. The organization was surely capable of helping from its base in Germany?
*
The staff working for Sign of Hope’s Sudan Project are equally as alarmed. Access to safe water has become in any case a main concern of many of the world’s human rights activists. On December 23, 2003, the 58th General Assembly of the United Nations called “Water for Life” into being. This was to be an International Decade of Action.1 The Decade commenced on March 22, 2005, which was World Water Day. The Decade was to end on March 22, 2015.2 The Decade was to be employed to make the world’s decision-makers and the general public aware of the importance of water. A thrust of this program was pushing to ensure that commitments made were lived up to.3 The program’s objective was to halve by 2015 the number of people that do not have access to safe water and to appropriate sanitary facilities.4 Another objective: putting an end to unsustainable ways of using water.5
The right to consume clean water still hasn’t been officially approved and to thus take legal force. The world is, however, increasingly aware of the water-related emergencies facing its peoples—and of the ever-more apparent ramifications of these. This awareness is yielding action. Such human rights organizations as Sign of Hope regard the human right to have clean water as being indisputable.
No one knows what we at Sign of Hope will discover in the Sudan. Perhaps the reports of bad water are nothing more than unfounded rumors. That has been known to happen. Speaking against this is the verdict rendered by our contact, who enjoys our complete trust. He regards the situation as being very serious. That is why there is only one decision to be reached. We have to see whether or not the fears are in fact based in fact. But how are we to go about this? We could takes samples from the oil fields, to see if they are contaminated. We are currently preparing our next trip to the Sudan. Its purpose is to ascertain the state of human rights. We have put the areas of oil extraction on our itinerary. Sign of Hope has never gathered samples of water. Our operating maxim also, however, applies to this case: anything practical will be done.
The first step is easy. Klaus Stieglitz is friends with a staff member of a water testing laboratory. It is located in the vicinity of the Lake of Constance. Stieglitz’ friend shows him to gather samples of water, and how to perform quick tests of it. He also instructs him in the preparation of the samples for being investigated in laboratories. Another laboratory—also located in the same region—is to be commissioned with the carrying out of the requisite further analyses. Bottles for the transporting of samples are then provided to the organization, which drafts forms to be used in the forthcoming collection of samples.
→ Further information:
The South learns how to assert its interest
A land experiencing a chaotic disruption, one caused by the strife among its groups and interests: that is the general picture of the Sudan. Contradicting this depiction of a country tearing itself part are the clearly-established guidelines that have been established in the Sudan. They apply to the handling of oil reserves. These guidelines mandate this processing’s conforming to societal and environmental principles. Due to these, no one can claim lack of awareness of the perils arising from the failure to adhere to these.
While the peace talks were being conducted between the conflicting parties, a meeting held in Kenya in January 2004 had established that the exploitation of Sudan’s natural resources would observe standards of sustainability. The Basic Memorandum signed on January 7, 2004 would go on to become Chapter III of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005.6 Subscribed to by the parties, the Memorandum’s Point III. 1.10 stated that the sharing of prosperity would be the principle informing the responsible treatment of the resources available. The Point stated: “that the best-known method of the sustainable utilization and control of natural resources shall follow.”7 What this meant: the exploitation of the country’s natural resources was to adhere to international standards.
The principles governing the utilization of oil resources were listed discretely in sub-point 3 of this Memorandum. Precisely-formulated requirements were created. They were designed to make the oil exploration and exploitation environmentally and socially compatible. As this shows, representatives of the government and of the rebels were aware at this time of the drilling for oil’s being associated with especially-grave disruptions in the habitats in which flora and fauna live—and of the need to keep this in mind. According to this agreement, the preservation of national interests and public welfare were to be given highest priority when prospecting for and extracting oil8. To be accorded the same importance were to be, in addition, the interests of regions involved9 and of the local population10. The listing of the principles also included the preconditions governing the reaching of all further decisions, the need to adhere to national environmental regulations, the