By Keith Harmon Snow

February 7, 2007

Part Three

In fact, the oil connection gets deeper still, and anyone with any research skills at all can find this out… if they want to.

In September 2006, two Norwegian watchdog groups called Norwatch and the Norwegian Council for Africa discovered that a U.K. firm called Rolls Royce Marine (a subsidiary of Rolls Royce U.K., whose directors are British and American) had sold millions in diesel motors and pumps to the Chinese National Petroleum Company (CNPC). The CNPC owns concession "Block 6," which protrudes deep into Darfur. Some excerpts from the Norwegian groups’ reports:

"While the Norwegian government has agreed to send 170 Norwegian soldiers to Sudan, the Bergen-based company Rolls-Royce Marine is sending engines in order to pump up oil in the area. "We are not engaged in politics", the company claims."

*

"After having rejected for several days to comment on detailed information from Norwatch and the Norwegian Council for Africa, Rolls-Royce Marine at last confirmed their involvement on the doorstep of Darfur. According to the company, deliveries are now to be made to the border area between Darfur and Kordofan. According to Human Rights Watch, even the border is considered as part of the larger conflict zone. The deliveries will take place "in the course of a few months" and are worth "just above ten million dollars".

*

"Egbert Wesselink at European Coalition on Oil in Sudan in the Netherlands says that they are aware that Rolls-Royce has supplied equipment to Sudan. Wesselink is not pleased about the silence of the international oil companies with regard to their activities in Sudan. "The lack of frankness in Sudan’s oil industry is a great problem. This is very politically sensitive in Sudan", he says. "We know that Block 6 extends into Darfur and that oil is being extracted in Darfur. In the situation now developing in Sudan nobody can work and at the same time keep silent."

Another article elaborates, noting that Darfur’s oil is being stolen through oil infrastructure physically located outside of Darfur’s boundaries. The article is titled "New, Secret Oil Installations in Darfur."

Darfuri rebels earlier have attacked oil installations on both sides of the regional border with Kordofan. The reason is that Block 6 also taps into oil resources on Darfuri soil, although most installations are within Kordofan.

Some sources claim thousands of Chinese troops are stationed in the country to protect Beijing's growing interests in Sudan. The conflicts in Sudan have by some analysts been described as a mini-war between the US and China over the country's immense oil resources. Booming China is the world's fasting growing oil importing nation and is seeking independence from Washington's control over the world's oil resources."

No oil in Darfur? A mini-war between the US and China over Sudan’s immense oil resources?

"I don't understand Eric Reeves' adamance on this point," said David Morse, responding to the question of why Dr. Eric Reeves denies the oil factor:

"…but I don't attribute anything diabolical to it. He thinks our interest in oil skews our perception of the problem. To some extent he may be right, in that it is all too easy for our readers to latch onto that commonality with other parts of the world—from Nigeria to Costa Rica—and fail to understand the local complexities of history, ethnicity, land-use, water, etc…"

Maybe that’s because most global conflicts revolve around Big Oil and most global conflicts revolving around Big Oil involve the U.S. military? War in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Iran, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sudan… Who, exactly, fails to understand what?

"The oil in southeastern Darfur seems to me pretty well documented, and that is where it can probably be safely said that people have been driven from their homes to make way for the pipeline and drilling, as they have been in [ Sudan’s] Kordofan, Unity and the Upper Nile regions."

What David Morse suggests above is that Eric Reeves may be intentionally deflecting attention from the Darfur oil story so as to maximize his capacity to mobilize public support for his agenda. This is expedience, and it is a practice of the mainstream American news organizations, who often change their tune to suit public opinion, or—more important to recognize—to leverage their own corporate interests or the interests of the powerful companies and individuals that their corporate enterprises rely upon.

We have no way of knowing why Dr. Eric Reeves says what he says, or why he does what he does. All we know is that Dr. Eric Reeves is adamant that oil is not involved in Darfur, and that he has stated this publicly, and that he is clearly manipulating the truth to serve some political means; he is also adamant about overthrowing and replacing the Government of Sudan by any means necessary. And he has pressed his "no oil in Darfur" and "regime change in Sudan" line in international debates, not only in small town newspapers in hometown Northampton, Massachusetts.

On 27 October 2006 the BBC posted an exchange of views, on the issue of Darfur, by Dr. Eric Reeves, Massachusetts, USA and Gamal Nkrumah, Cairo, Egypt, the foreign editor of Al-Ahram, the leading Egyptian newspaper. The two men debated what action the international community should take over the worsening conflict and humanitarian crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.

In the exchange segments below, note how Dr. Eric Reeves hammers away at a few singular points, while Gamal Nkrumah challenges these while, definitively, underscoring the supreme western hubris he is confronted with in Dr. Eric Reeves. Indeed, in denying that the U.S. has any interest in Darfur’s oil, and underscoring the power that China has over oil in Sudan, Dr. Eric Reeves perforates his own argument.

Reeves : In the face of rapidly accelerating genocidal destruction in Darfur, and given the ongoing collapse of humanitarian operations in vast areas of this devastated region, the international community should issue an ultimatum to the National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) regime in Khartoum: Immediately accept the robust force stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 1706 (31 August, 2006) or face non-consensual deployment of the forces required to protect civilians and humanitarians.

Nkrumah : The phrase "international community" is often used as a euphemism for the United States and other Western powers' political agendas. Non-consensual deployment of foreign, non-African troops is a non-starter. It is an act of aggression that infringes on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sudan.

As Gamal Nkrumah notes, Dr. Eric Reeves’ position is extremely offensive, a "non-starter" based in aggression: it comes from an American whose government is at war with people all over the world, either overtly or covertly. Yet Dr. Eric Reeves cannot see this, because aggressors do not see their aggression as aggression; instead they couch it in terms of necessity, human rights, humanitarian emergencies, or rogue governments committing genocide. But the Dr. Eric Reeves position, which mirrors that of leading "Save Darfur!" advocates, is unequivocally the position of bully on the block.

*

Nkrumah : I suspect, though, that oil and not human rights are the main motivation behind the heightened interest of US President George W Bush in Sudan. It is Sudan's oil, like Iraq's oil, which fuels American interest in Sudan. Moreover, it is oil which is strengthening Sudan's international position. UN Security Council permanent member China, for example, which imports 6% of its oil from Sudan, will veto any anti-Sudan sanctions. The Sudanese authorities capitalise upon Chinese support.

Reeves : Critical to understanding the issues of oil development and revenues in Sudan is the country's geography: all current oil development, exploration, and production occurs in southern Sudan or along the traditional North/South border.

Moreover, the concession rights for oil development are virtually all sewn up by Asian companies and TotalFinaElf of France. The effort to suggest that oil interests in Darfur—where there is no present oil production or exploration—are what lie behind Western diplomacy is deeply misleading.

In fact, there is no credible evidence that Darfur has significant oil reserves.

As has been suggested, what is of real significance is that China, Khartoum's primary diplomatic ally at the UN, dominates the two major producing consortia in southern Sudan and southern Kordofan province.

If we want to understand why the National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) feels so emboldened in defying the international community, and in pursuing its genocidal counter-insurgency warfare in Darfur, we should look not to Western but to Chinese oil interests.

Those damned Chinese! First Tibet, now this Darfur nightmare! In fact, the sentence above shows that Dr. Eric Reeves is unable to comprehend the pivotal role that he plays in furthering a very aggressive U.S. foreign policy which see the U.S. and its allies as universally good, with a few bad apples, and a Abu Ghraib torture scandal now and then, and maybe an Iraq quagmire here and there; on the flipside are the U.S.’s supposed ideological enemies—Chinese, Arabs, Islamists, Malaysians, Libyans, towel-heads, and even those damned French—who are generally cast as universally evil. These are the themes of the "war on terror," which is an economic war propagated by mass hysteria, and they are used by the media over and over to manipulate and control the Western news-consuming populations. In the worldview of Dr. Eric Reeves, it is as if the absence of U.S. control over oil in Sudan were evidence of disinterest in that oil by the United States, rather than being—as is always the case—the underpinning reason for the conflict at hand.

Nkrumah : Chad, Darfur's neighbour to the immediate West has huge oil reserves, there is no doubt that there are oil reserves in Darfur itself. The Chinese and TotalFinaElf of France know all too well that the potential for exploiting Darfur's oil in commercial quantities is tremendous.

The US is most concerned about the Chinese, other Asian and French monopoly of Sudanese oil. Darfur is of great strategic importance it straddles Libya, Egypt, Chad, and the Central African Republic.

Sudan has accepted African Union peacekeeping troops in Darfur. So it is best for all concerned if AU troops are deployed to keep the peace in Darfur.

The AU troops, however, must have financial and logistical support from the UN and Western powers as well as oil-rich Gulf Arab countries. Only then will peace prevail in Darfur.

Reeves : There is no evidence of oil in Darfur. Reserves in more westerly parts of Chad tell us nothing about Darfur; there is no geologic evidence, no seismic data—nothing that indicates there is oil in Darfur.

But there is a terrifyingly great deal of evidence about the scale of human destruction that will ensue if we do not respond urgently to the acute lack of human security.

With or without Khartoum's consent, the international community must uphold its "responsibility to protect civilians" in Darfur—civilians not simply unprotected by the National Islamic Front/National Congress regime—but targets of an ongoing genocidal campaign orchestrated in Khartoum.

Such "responsibility to protect" supersedes claims of national sovereignty. This principle was the explicit conclusion of the UN World Summit Outcome Document, paragraph 139, unanimously adopted in September 2005.

The AU is simply incapable of being transformed into a force that can take up this responsibility with sufficient urgency; it cannot possibly become the force contemplated in UN Security Council Resolution 1706.

To pretend otherwise is the treat with a scandalous moral carelessness the lives of more than four million conflict-affected Darfuris.

Dr. Eric Reeves is obtuse: "There is no evidence of oil in Darfur." The "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine is merely the latest instrument of hegemony crafted by and for predacious western interests. If the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine had any reasonable basis in application it would first and foremost be applied against the United States for [1] its military campaigns and [2] its neoliberal economics and [3] its global "environmental" policy rather than by the United States and its allies. Gamal Nkrumah responds accordingly, and appropriately.

Nkrumah : The interests of the US should not be confused with the interests of the international community. It is clear that the aggression against Iraq was a pretext to control the vast oil reserves of that country.

Human rights and democratisation had nothing to do with the Bush administration's aims.

Abu Ghraib and numerous other atrocities committed against the people of Iraq clearly demonstrated that the US is not interested in the welfare of the people of Iraq. Neither is the Bush administration interested in the welfare of the people of Darfur.

The main goal of the Bush administration, with its extensive oil interests, is to challenge Chinese oil interests and economic clout in Sudan.

The so-called "international peacekeeping force" is a euphemism for foreign military intervention which is destined to have disastrous repercussions for the people of Darfur and Sudan as a whole.

The US must stay out of Darfur.

Reeves : To invoke Iraq and Abu Ghraib when the issue clearly is saving lives in Darfur is disingenuous.

That Iraq was a terribly misconceived debacle that will haunt U.S. foreign policy for years could not be clearer; but this doesn't diminish in the slightest the extraordinarily urgent need for international protection of the more than four million human beings the UN estimates are affected by genocidal conflict in Darfur and eastern Chad.

Just as urgent is the protection of those aid operations upon which this vast population grows increasingly dependent: humanitarian access shrinks almost daily, with many hundreds of thousands of Darfuris completely beyond the reach of food and medical assistance, living without adequate clean water or shelter.

Khartoum continues its large military offensives in North and West Darfur, and in such a context the African Union force currently deployed, even if augmented, is simply incapable of providing protection to the civilian and humanitarian populations.

Gamal Nkrumah misses the point when he suggests that the Bush administration is after the oil of Sudan, just as Dr. Eric Reeves misses the point when he suggests, as he has, that the Bush Government is complicit in the "genocidal atrocities." It is not about the Bush government: the underpinning strategy of the "Save Darfur!" movement runs deeper than just the "Bush Government"—into the territory of deeply conflicted elite interests in the U.S. and its European and Israeli partnerships. However, Gamal Nkrumah sees a clear strategy, either way, by powerful Western interests designed to undermine the sovereignty of Sudan and get at the country’s oil. And, if we are to believe he is sincere, Dr. Eric Reeves sees only humanitarian good will and moral virtue in the Western "humanitarian" aid apparatus and the Western military apparatus it is both dependent on and complicit with.

There is no mistaking this: the conclusion that can easily be drawn, if we reduce the Darfur situation to the simplest terms, is that it is about oil, the Chinese and Arabs have it, and we want it. Who is "we"? While some powerful corporate factions connected to the Anglo-American-Israeli power structure are cooperating with the Government of Sudan, others are excluded from the profits to be made on oil and, as we will see, other things.

So how do powerful corporations excluded from a piece of the Sudan pie get at that pie? Divide and conquer. Covert operations. Psychological operations. Unwittingly obtuse English professors jumping up and down and screaming, "atrocities, atrocities, atrocities."

Here’s the scenario.

First: create instability and chaos that gives the appearance of Arabs fighting Africans (it’s always those other people over there killing each other). Second: wage a media campaign that focuses a laser beam of public attention on the rising instability. Third: whip up public opinion and fury among a highly manipulated Western population who will, quite literally, believe anything. Fourth: make sure the devil—this time it’s the Janjaweed—comes on horseback. This latter point underscores the tight, unwavering narrative of good versus evil. Fifth: demonize the "enemy" [read: dirty A-Rabs] and their partners [Chinese oil companies]. Sixth: onward Christian soldiers and their "humanitarian" armies; enter "Save Darfur!" and, voila!, a movement is born. Seventh: continue to chip away the power of the enemy by chipping away at their credibility. Eighth: under the banners of high moral approbation, and with full support of a deeply caring Western public, overthrow the malevolent forces [of Islam and the Orient] and instill a benevolent, peace-loving, pro-democracy government. Last: wipe away the sanctions, no longer needed, and bring much-needed "development" to another backward country. And there you have it: yet another civilizing mission to conquer those barbaric Arab hoardes, and those starving, helpless, uneducated, diseased, tribal, Africans.

And it is out of the very goodness of our hearts that we do it. America, Oh beautiful, for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain…

Let’s explore the realities .

What David Morse, Mel Middleton, and Dr. Eric Reeves hold in common with so many others is the belief that oil in South Sudan is the driving force behind the conflict in South Sudan (and both Morse and Middleton hold the same ideas about Darfur). This writer shares that belief. The difference comes in understanding and evaluating the powerful forces that seek to gain control of the oil in Darfur, and in Sudan, and to gain control of the other resources. The various voices so far have articulated the point that the U.S. State Department, White House and/or Central Intelligence Agency have mostly invalidated, rather than validated, the genocide claims, and stalled, rather than acted, in halting genocide. They have indicated that the reasons they believe this to be true are due to the voracious, immoral appetites of big petroleum corporations, and due to the Bush Administration’s fears about ruffling the feathers of China, Malaysia or the Arab states. They have indicated that these corporations are Chinese, French, Malaysian… even British, but never U.S. corporations. And they further indicate that U.S. companies, barred from doing business in Sudan, are merely disinterested observers unable to get at Sudan’s oil, and therefore are not in any way culpable in the cataclysm we now know as Darfur.

Let’s look at some of the replies from Mel Middleton of Freedom Quest International. Mel Middleton originally wrote to me complaining that I was helping to whitewash the genocide being committed by the Government of Sudan. He had read the opinion piece I wrote, "Wake-Up and Smell the Oil," and he was furious. "Wake-Up And Smell the Oil" was admittedly composed out of fury, when I found out that Nicholas Kristof—a New York Times columnist and leading "Save Darfur!" advocate—was speaking locally at Amherst College. When my article appeared on Al Jezeera Mel Middleton and others of the "Save Darfur!" movement were "disgusted and furious."

I responded and we attempted to maintain a dialog, but it was impossible: in the eyes of the other we are both intransigent and stubborn about our beliefs. In answering some of my questions, Mel Middleton wrote to me:

"Who says it’s not about oil! It is just not the USA! They are not the ones at fault this time. Try China, Canada, Germany, U.K., and every fascist Arab state going. [Emphasis added.] This is one instance—perhaps the only one—where the USA doesn't have blood on its hands. To blame the Bush administration of calling Darfur ‘genocide’ merely to get at the oil makes for good sounding propaganda, but its entirely and demonstrably untrue."

I think it’s important here to ask exactly what Mel Middleton means by "every fascist Arab state going." Would this be the same laundry list of terrorist Islamic states targeted by the "War on Terror"? Is Israel a fascist state? What about Canada? Is Indonesia? Texas? Is there a deeply ingrained xenophobic or racist bias at work here? Is every Arab state going a fascist state? Presumably he is taking about: Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Lebanon…almost all of which are targeted by the U.S. for sanctions, covert interventions or overt warfare.

"I agree that oil is a factor in both [South Sudan and Darfur] wars. But it is a factor because the Khartoum government wants to ensure that it is able to control the reserves and use those resources for its own genocidal political aspirations. Those oil companies that comply are definitely complicit since they are well aware of this."

So, the Khartoum government wants to ensure that it is able to control the [oil] reserves and use those resources for its own geopolitical aspirations. Substitute " USA" for " Khartoum" and we have US foreign policy all over the world. Given the not-so-slick U.S. oil policies and pursuits all over the world is it unreasonable to assume that U.S. oil interests have targeted Darfur’s oil by any means necessary?

"My gut feeling is that there is far more oil in Sudan than any of the oil companies are admitting publicly. ‘Official’ information—i.e. oil consulting firms’—states that there are an estimated 2.62 billion barrels of oil reserves in Sudan. But I've also seen other unofficial estimates that put the figure into the 180 billion barrels figure. At today's oil prices, 180 billion barrels is enough money for most CEOs to sell their soul to the devil for. And some are definitely doing it."

So, oil company executives would sell their souls to the devil to get at Sudan’s oil? Hmmm. I wonder what that means? Does it mean that those quick-draw petroleum companies that beat out competitors to stick their derricks in the oil in Sudan would sell their souls to the devil—Arabs on horseback—to get at the oil? Does it mean that those slow-draw petroleum companies that were left dangling their derricks in the wind will sell their soul to the devil—lying, cheating, stirring up insurgency, arming madmen, screaming "genocide" like so many wolves disguised as sheep?

In fact, the most powerful entities in America may be supporting those who are screaming genocide ("Save Darfur!"), on the one hand, while actively engaging the culprits (the Government of Sudan) in business, on the other. It doesn’t seem to cross anyone’s mind that there might be competing business interests at work, from within the United States, Europe and Israel, and that these even involve Arab and Asian interests, including Taiwan, Japan, India and South Korea, and that these competing business interests are jockeying for control of Sudan.

In this business-conflict model, which has been shown previously to have some precedence in the world, one faction or group of companies and interests may be supporting Khartoum, while the other faction or group of companies and interests may be opposing it. But the duplicity of the most powerful business interests in the Western world may be such that they are actually working together, in some ways, while appearing to be in conflict, in others, to gain the ultimate advantage: the domination of the Sudan and the access to its markets. Of course, Sudan is but one of the stumbling blocks to Western multinational domination on all spheres.

We have already seen the reference indicating that Dr. Eric Reeves is advocating regime change by any means necessary. What if the "Save Darfur!" movement were being driven by these hidden but competing business factions? In this scenario, the "Save Darfur!" movement is used as a wedge—an international campaign to stop genocide—to be driven into Sudan to cripple the Government of Sudan, and its allies, by forcing divestment from a small number of companies that, in the pursuit of raw profits, are propping up the regime through economic, political or military alliances. U.S. oil companies like Exxon-Mobil, BP-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco, that have been sidelined by the U.S. economic sanctions instituted in 1997, would be the winners, while those companies that were forced out of Sudan by hostile divestment campaigns, backed by moral approbation and the oh-so-sacred mantra—"never again"—would be the losers.

Is there precedence for this kind of politico-economic-military warfare driven by the call for "humanitarian" action to stop atrocities? Yes.

Let’s look more closely at the various maps of petroleum concessions in Sudan.

First there is the USAID map on the home page of Dr. Eric Reeves’ web site. What is remarkable is that this map shows that petroleum concession demarcated "Block 6" extends quite far into South Darfur: how can Dr. Reeves conclude that the Darfur conflict has nothing to do with oil? The map’s key indicates that the China National Petroleum Company (CNPC) holds rights to "Block 6."

The USAID map greatly oversimplifies the oil picture. Two other maps that have been publicly revealed show quite a different picture of the petroleum resources of the Sudan. Both of these alternate maps suggest that the petroleum reserves of Darfur are potentially much more significant, and that those of northern Sudan are greatly understated in the public realm, and certainly understated by the USAID map on the web site of Dr. Eric Reeves.

One of these is a full-size map of Africa showing petroleum concessions throughout the continent. It was produced by Petroconsultants s.a., International Energy Services, Geneva, Switzerland, copyright May 1997. The map shows all of the standard oil blocks typically represented in maps that show oil operations in Sudan (such as the map on Dr. Eric Reeves’ web site) which are denoted as Total, or CNPC, etc., but it shows additional concessions or "Blocks" labeled blocks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Block 12 is northern Darfur, the entire region, and like the other blocks (7-15) it is denoted "Block Offered", meaning it was not yet a contracted concession secured by any corporation back in 1997. This map is basically in agreement with another map that establishes that there are vast concessions in the Darfur region, and that is the map cited above by the European Council for Oil in Sudan.

Mel Middleton of Freedom Quest has suggested that these other maps might be forgeries produced by the Government of Sudan, or by the oil companies, or by the U.S. Government, to serve the hidden petroleum interests working behind the scene to derail the "genocide" claim. This makes no sense. The Petroconsultants map is authentic. We know that because it was not produced by or for Sudan, and it is not about Sudan: it shows all of the petroleum concessions held, and offered, as of 1997, in all of Africa. The map was produced using state-of-the-art remote sensing technologies which operate from satellite platforms and, today, are at the forefront of technologies used everywhere for minerals and petroleum prospecting. The Western intelligence and military apparatus controls the technologies that produce these maps, and the raw data they produce; unclassified maps (like this oil map) are generated from the classified mapping data that otherwise remains in the hands of the Pentagon. Specialty industries purchase or requisition specialty maps for specialty purposes: these might be oil, gold, natural gas, gorilla habitat, or refugee flows.

All these maps unequivocally show that Darfur is an oil rich area; two of the maps show that oil in Darfur is more than "substantial."

But Dr. Eric Reeves misperceptions and errors on Sudan do not end with his denials about oil, and if the work of Dr. Eric Reeves is to be taken as the omnipotent bench mark of authority or truth on the subject of Darfur, which of course is exactly how it is presented, represented, and presented again, then this does not bode well for the massive body of facts we are offered about Darfur, of for the people who offer them.

The more you look at what Dr. Eric Reeves has wrote, and compare it to facts that he apparently is unaware of, at least, or intentionally obfuscating, at worst, the more you can poke holes through his stories and see that the "Save Darfur!" mythology is easily unraveled.

For example, in 1998, Dr. Eric Reeves reportedly got his start as the American voice of Sudan after a conversation with the then executive director of Doctors Without Borders, Joelle Tanguy. In Reeves’ own words, as reported widely:

"We were lamenting the fact that Doctors Without Borders felt compelled to name southern Sudan the most under-reported humanitarian crisis of 1998," said Mr. Reeves. "Out of that conversation grew a very active and passionate, productive advocacy career [for Sudan]--that's really what I do."

However, the reality is that the most underreported humanitarian crises in the world was going down in Central Africa, with the U.S. backed invasions of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Dr. Eric Reeves’ own writings of the time were citing a death toll in Sudan of about 1.7 million from the beginning of the war in Sudan, in 1983.

In the U.S. State Department’s 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices the number of dead from Sudan’s ongoing "civil war" was 2 million. "The civil war, which is estimated to have resulted in the death of 2 million persons," it said, "continued into its seventeenth year."

FRONTLINE , a production of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a U.S. Corporation, not a radical or conspiratorial publishing venue or independent news source in any sense of the word, wrote in January 2005 that the death toll in Sudan was not more than 2 million people since the war in Sudan commenced in 1983.

One of the agencies that Dr. Eric Reeves often cites in his "research" on Sudan is the International Rescue Center, and it was actually the IRC who has put forth certain accountings of the dead due to war and war-related deaths from the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, Sudan’s southern neighbor. The IRC figure is quoted and cited widely, notwithstanding the fact that the choice or determination of the IRC’s figures appears to be politically motivated and—for Congo at least—greatly understates the mortality and suffering.

"The three previous IRC studies, conducted between 2000 and 2002, demonstrated that an estimated 3.3 million people had died as a result of the [DRC] war. Latest estimates from the 2004 study highlight how 3.9 million people have died since the conflict began in 1998.

First, the IRC’s study, if we take it as fact, or reasonable accounting, shows that the war in DRC led to some 3.3 million deaths between 1998 and 2000, the dates that the IRC offers as the beginning and ending of the war. A tenuous "peace" was negotiated through accords from 2000 and 2001, which led to the official end of the conflict, though it continues even to this day. However, taking at face value the IRC numbers, and recalling that this is an organization that Dr. Eric Reeves highly respects and widely cites, we have 3.3 million deaths in DRC a period or two to three years.

Clearly, at the height of the Congo war in 1998 and 1999 the mortality rates in DRC far exceeded those in Sudan that Dr. Reeves was concerned about, in 1999, as "the most under-reported humanitarian crises in 1998," because the numbers for Sudan at the time were between 1.7 and 2 million for the entire seventeen-year period and the numbers for DRC were all within a brief span of several years.

End of Part Three

Source: Global Research,