"And the US, which pressed Khartoum hard to honour the 2005 comprehensive
peace agreement and allow the south the secede, has cynically withheld
previously dangled rewards, failing to lift economic sanctions and provide
debt relief. This American double-dealing is not the product of sound
policy thinking but of a craven disinclination to take on the evangelical
right and the Darfur "genocide lobby" in Congress"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/29/south-sudan-oil-rows
The South Sudan dream is turning sour
Rows over oil … Khartoum attacks on rebels with suspected Juba links … US
double-dealing. Independence is proving tough
- Simon Tisdall
- guardian.co.uk, Sunday 29 January 2012 10.13 EST
It is now a year since the people of South Sudan voted overwhelmingly for
independence from Khartoum. But the vision of a new era of peace and
co-operation between north and south, endorsed at the time by President
Omar al-Bashir and the southern leader, President Salva Kiir, is fading
fast amid deepening disputes over oil revenue-sharing, cross-border
conflict, and looming famine. These multiple crises combine to pose a
fundamental question: can South Sudan survive as a viable state?
The row over oil produced in the south but exported via the north's
pipelines and Red Sea terminal has been rumbling on since South Sudan
seceded in July last year. Despite ongoing mediation efforts by the African
Union (AU), there is no agreement on transit fees. After Khartoum began
confiscating oil in lieu of payment, the government in Juba took the
dramatic step last week of shutting down oil production.
Pagan Amum, the south's lead negotiator, told the Sudan expert and AU
adviser Alex de Waal that his government would not bow to pressure from old
enemies in Khartoum. "This is a matter of respect. We may be poor but we
will be free," he said. De Waal suggested the move was "suicidal" because
oil money comprises 97% of the south's budget.
"South Sudan has set off its economic doomsday machine. The shutdown of
wells is already beginning and within a week the oil companies will begin
flushing the pipeline with water, so the oil it contains does not jam and
turn into a 600-mile asphalt tube. After that, the best case would be six
months' work to reopen exports," De Waal wrote.
Head-of-state talks this weekend on the periphery of the AU summit in Addis
Ababa attempted to end the oil stand-off. But analysts are sceptical any
deal will stick. Juba meanwhile has announced an ambitious agreement to
build an oil export pipeline via Kenya. Even if it gets off the ground,
this project could take years to complete.
Khartoum is far from blameless in the oil dispute, unhelpfully linking its
resolution to simultaneous progress on intractable border, security and
debt issues. In particular, Bashir's government claims rebels loyal to the
Sudan People's Liberation army (SPLA) in the south but based in the
northern states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile are being directed from
Juba. Ali Ahmed Karti, Sudan's foreign minister, made the point forcefully
in an interview earlier this month.
"Nobody can hamper us from taking our right. This is our entitlement,"
Karti said, referring to oil confiscations. "If you are hosting rebels,
preparing them against me, supporting them by munitions, by salaries, by
everything, by training, by giving them all facilities, what shall I wait
for? I'm waiting for war."
As usual, Khartoum's over-strong rhetoric undermines sympathy for its
position. But it does have a point. Juba's claim that it has nothing to do
with the SPLA-North rebels is unconvincing. Sudan's economy has suffered
serious contraction since oil revenues dried up. And the US, which pressed
Khartoum hard to honour the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement and allow
the south the secede, has cynically withheld previously dangled rewards,
failing to lift economic sanctions and provide debt relief. This American
double-dealing is not the product of sound policy thinking but of a craven
disinclination to take on the evangelical right and the Darfur "genocide
lobby" in Congress.
Tensions are being exacerbated by what looks like an escalating bombing
offensive by Khartoum's forces targeting rebel bases, which usually entails
attacks on refugee camps. The latest incident came this week at a
UN-assisted camp at Elfoj in Upper Nile
state<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/24/southsudan-bombing-idUSL5E8CO2LL20120124>,
South Sudan, six miles from the border, that left 15 people wounded or
unaccounted for. A settlement at Danfona on the northern side was also
attacked, reportedly by helicopters. Juba blamed the north for the violence.
The apparent, rapid disintegration of north-south relations comes against
the backdrop of a major famine alert in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, where
half a million people are reportedly in need of food aid. Khartoum has
played down the issue and restricted aid agency access, ostensibly because
of the security situation. The problems there were highlighted last week by
Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN and a long-standing critic, who
accused Khartoum of a "deliberate policy" of blocking outside help.
"If Sudan does not allow immediate, meaningful humanitarian access to the
conflict zones in southern Kordofan and Blue Nile so life-saving
humanitarian assistance can be provided to civilians in need, we will
likely see famine conditions," Rice
said<
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/17/rice_sudan_is_deliberately_preventing_aid_to_civilians_affected_by_crisis_and_near_>.
Valerie Amos, the UN chief aid co-ordinator, has applied similar pressure.
But in Khartoum, such apparently well-meaning statements are viewed with
suspicion, a legacy of the Darfur controversy. Humanitarian intervention is
seen as a possible pretext or prelude for intervention of a more muscular
nature, as in neighbouring Libya.
Lack of trust, old enmities, weak and self-seeking leadership, chronic
under-development, internal tribal unrest in Jonglei state, international
meddling and disingenuousness, and now a self-imposed cut-off of its main
source of income: this is the poisoned inheritance of South Sudan as it
struggles to translate hard-won independence into a sustainable future.
American critics of Khartoum, such as Professor Eric Reeves of Smith
College, are convinced the north is deliberately attempting to strangle the
south at birth. Khartoum "continues a pattern of sustained, intense and
destructive economic warfare against the south … The purpose is not only to
destabilise the south but to provoke actual military confrontation and
create a casus belli for a new war," he said.
A fairer assessment might conclude that, despite appearances, neither the
north nor the south has fully renounced their generations-old conflict,
which both are continuing by other means. Only renewed, committed and
even-handed international engagement, reinforcing the AU's efforts, has a
chance of breaking these deeply ingrained behaviour patterns.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter
_at_commentisfree<
http://twitter.com/commentisfree>
----[Mailing List for Eritrea Related News ]----
Received on Mon Jan 30 2012 - 10:25:24 EST
