Of course, there will be no American oil companies exploiting the oil of Sudan before a regime change (or a change of mind of the present government). But that makes it even more imperative for the West (Americans, French) to secure friendly governments in Chad and Sudan in order to get to the oil.

At the moment, as you mention yourself, the French are sitting near N’Djamena as gatekeepers for future governments. The French let Deby get into power in 1990 and they still support him in spite of his human rights record and lack of even distribution of wealth based on the oil. What are their interests else?

And the Americans are developing their influence on the South of Sudan through different kinds of aid programs for the SPLM Goverment. It is in South Sudan, that the major part of the Sudanese oil is. Having troubles in Darfur (supported by Chad) could be another leg of this wider strategy of putting pressure on the Sudanese government in order to have a regime change or - alternatively - a change of mind. Sudan is a country where you often can see strange changes of political direction within the same government. Look at Nimeiri as a good example. And even Omar El Beshir has changed direction now and then…

If we look to Iraq we will see the US fighting a war which is not excactly based on concerns for Human rights. So, as I see it, the human rights issue is often in focus when convenient and when not - forgotten.

I do not see the American (or French) strategy in the region as just a Christian crusade supporting human rights and good goverment. It is finally a struggle for ressources - here mainly oil. The Americans did not comment much on the human rights record in Sudan under Nimeiri. And CIA was at the same time supporting Hissene Habre’s rebels from bases in Darfur and later his government army from bases in Chad together with the French with the aim of containing Khaddafi’s expansionist dreams in Chad. Also, Hissene Habre did not have the best human rights record according to what I know.

So, we have to take the struggle for raw materials into consideration too, when we analyze the political developments in this part of the world. And, maybe, it rules the political aganda if we dig deep enough. Apparently, this is the same analysis the Sudanese governement is suscibing to. But does that make it less valid?

across Africa and the Middle East, it is likely that the majority of people see American and French interests in Sudan and Chad through the lens of economic and geo-political self-interest. They are aware of the long history of foreign powers cynically exploiting African resources and using African countries as proxies to further their interests. The upsurge in anti-western feelings that we see among many ordinary Sudanese reflects this, and–whether or not it is founded in reality–these sentiments are an objective reality that have to be factored into the calculations of those trying to respond to the crisis. And we see “the same old formula” of mutual destabilization between Sudan, Chad and Libya at work.

My own belief is that the role of oil in driving American policy on Sudan is secondary to other political factors, notably the strong domestic lobbies that pushed for support to the Christians in the South and are now demanding tough action on Darfur. No U.S. oil company could do business in Sudan without facing a huge public backlash in America. (But ExxonMobil continues to pump oil from Chad of course.)

From the military point of view, Idriss Deby hinted as a guest of Europe 1 that the absence of military strongholds in many parts of the country helped the penetration of the rebels and “let us hope that the Chadian government will be able to correct this territorial defense error.”

I have a question:

As I see it, it is an old scenario with Darfur being used as a stepping stone for opponents of some N’Djamena government. It was a receipe used by Hissene Habre in the 80s supported at the time by CIA having an office in Darfur and it was used by Deby in 1990, supported by Omar El Beshir’s Islamic government.

At the time in the beginning of the 80s Sudan had a strong pro-western government led by Jaafar Nimeiri. And later from 1989, the new Islamic government with strong nationalistic and anti-western inclinations had the same interest because of Chad’s position as the soft hinterland of Darfur.

But seen from the perspective of Western interests in the area, the US was sitting heavily on the comprehensive oil fields of Sudan until the end of Nimeiri’s regime. The new Islamic government turned towards Osama Bin Laden and his Afghan veterans and provoked the Americans to put Sudan on its list of terrorist countries. And consequently, China took the chance and entered Sudan as its main oil field developer. And today, China is sitting heavily on the oil of Sudan as the major importer of Sudanese oil. So, the influence of the Americans in Sudan has been diminishing.

Could it be that the Darfur crisis is a reflection of the Western powers’ attempt to destabilize the non-cooperative Islamic government in Sudan in order to get its hands on the oil again? (And of course get rid of a difficult Islamic government) In this way the Darfur crisis could be seen as a Western tool in destabilizing Sudan, now using Chad as a stepping stone. And in this way the table has turned and the West is using the “other side of the formula” so to say, compared to the “good old days” of Nimeiri?

This model would explain Sudan’s support for the rebels trying to conquer the presidential palace in N’Djamena and the French (and European) support for the Deby government in Chad as long as he is cooperative along the lines of Western attempts to destabilize Sudan.