CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
by Missé Nanando, Chad, December 1999
THEME = DEVELOPMENT
Echoes of a Byzantine quarrel
On 9 November 1999, Chad's oil minister, Abdoulaye Lamana, announced to the nation over national radio, that Shell and Elf had decided they would no longer participate in financing the oil project at Doba (southern Chad). This news came as a relief to some Chadians and disappointment others. For the first time, issues concerning the country's natural resources, divided the people of Chad into four opposing ranks: those holding power; the Opposition; civil society; and those living in the oil producing zone.
It should be recalled that during the 1996 presidential campaign, the President made the question of oil production his pet hobbyhorse. Today, he's trying to keep to his word. There's been a number of gatherings organised to prove that one day the President's vow of seeing Chad's "black gold" flowing, will be fulfilled. In October and November 1999, there was a whole string of meetings and subsequent press communiques supporting the Head of State in his intentions, giving the impression that Chad was in the throes of an election campaign. Socio-professional groups, political parties, tribal clans, individual villages, all came out in favour of the immediate exploitation of the Doba oil fields.
However, it is clear that some Chadians are against the oil project or at least have some reservations about it. Shell and Elf's withdrawal from the consortium is discouraging for the government, which sees in it some kind of victory for the opposing camp, who do not want the project to go ahead. The Information Minister, Moussa Dago, calls opposition action: "Cowardly and an attempt to put stoppers on the project by placing the government in difficulties vis-à-vis public opinion." It's clear, then, that oil issues are effectively dividing Chadians.
That such divisions exist was made clear during discussions between the Government, the World Bank and civil society at Bébéja on 30 October 1999. Mr Serge Michaïlof, director of the Chad-Cameroon pipeline project was present. Likewise Mr Beassoumnda, spokesperson for more than 20 Non- Governmental Organisations (NGO)s and human rights associations. Mr Beassoumnda declared: "We are not against exploiting the country's oil resources, so the government has no right to attack us. We're all for the project on condition that the environment and human rights are respected, and that guarantees are given as to how the revenues are administered". This position was made public in a memorandum signed by the NGOs and the human rights organisations, in which environmental questions, compensation for those who are going to be disturbed by the future pipeline, and especially matters dealing with the administration of the oil revenues, were pinpointed.
Listening to certain Chadians, one can well believe that the preoccupations of civil society are fully justified. In fact, corruption, financial impropriety on a grand scale and appropriation of the financial and economic structures by an oligarchy, have already caused the collapse of companies such as the Sugar Company of Chad (SONASUT ) and the Chadian Cotton Company (COTTONCHAD )
NGO s and the human rights organisations are surely wondering about the question of an equitable distribution of the oil revenues. Organisations such as The Youth and Action Association (AJAC ), the Chadian Association for the Advancement of Human Rights (ATPDH ) and the Churches and Evangelical Mission Entente (EEMET), are all hesitant about the future acceptable administration of the oil revenues.
Opposition political parties are also calling for a healthy management of the oil revenue. Opposition members say that "the way Chad's government is pressuring public opinion by organising support marches and meetings plus the Washington meeting, are nothing more than attempts at pure manipulation of national and international public opinion." The 13 political parties who signed the above declaration have warned the World Bank about what's happening.
According to Member of Parliament Ngarleji Yorongar, it's all to do with the way in which any revenue would be administered. According to him, expenditure entered into by Elf has actually been pocketed by the country's leaders: Safrane and Laguna cars are being "distributed in huge numbers to those close to the powers-that-be".
And what about those living in the oil pipeline zone? They're divided among themselves into politicians and civil society. The development associations of the Western Logone (oil-bearing region) have also made their position felt. Those associations closest to the government or established by government "big shots" coming from that region, are all for the immediate exploitation of the crude oil. This is the position held by the Association for the Development of Western Logone (Adelor). Their spokesman, Bassa Djidengar, who also happens to be a convinced militant of the Patriotic Movement (MPS), the party in power, calls for a general mobilisation to encourage the exploitation of Chad's "black gold".
Most people living in the oil-producing area (EPOZOP) agree that they oppose the government's position. The Bébéja meeting made it clear that as far as participants are concerned, the government is incapable of respecting the recommendations of the Donia seminars concerning the oil project. The meeting also condemned the fact that people living in the oil zone, are not adequately represented in the decision- making body for allocating study grants linked to the oil project. Also, the percentage of future revenue (5%) allocated to the region for development, is inadequate. If all these preoccupations are not taken into consideration, then there is no question of exploiting the oil, because the area might be damaged - as has already happened in the Niger Delta, in Nigeria, where the Shell company has been systematically exploiting the region.
Over and above all these petty quarrels, what exactly do Chadians want? Why, before it is even running, does the "black oil" of Doba become a bone of contention? What is certain is, that petrol, whether in Chad or elsewhere, is always a highly politicised matter. According to the Opposition and those who are calling for good governance, any profits from the oil exploitation must be used to establish a viable political alternative in the country. Why? Because Chad's present regime is "noteworthy for misappropriation and embezzlement of the country's meagre financial resources". That's why the term "sound administration" appears in all the official statements and national opinions on this matter.
We're still far from a national consensus. The demonstration organised by N'djamena's city council on 16 November 1999 to protest against the withdrawal of Shell and Elf from the oil consortium, was unable to present itself as representing all bodies of opinion. It appeared simply as a government-sponsored affair. People want unity of purpose but the oil war is dividing the nation. According to some unofficial sources, the government is actually listing those who are against the project. Already, at the beginning of October 1999, the Prefect of Western Logone had called a meeting of the region's leaders of public opinion plus the NGOs, in order to threaten them publicly. He berated them: "If this project is blocked, the government will take political measures." Many see here a barely disguised threat.
The present atmosphere resembles a kind of Chadian style "Dreyfus Affair", where all those who dare ask questions about the exploitation of this national wealth, are classified as belonging to the enemy. In this crusade for oil exploitation, Shell and Elf's decision to pull out of the consortium is the joy of some and the sorrow of others. When all is said and done, it's the country's development which is being held to ransom because of these Byzantine quarrels.
END
ENGLISH CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
PeaceLink 2000 - Reproduction
authorised, with usual acknowledgement