The West Wants to Take the Rest of Sudan's Oil
by Glen Ford
http://www.globalresearch.ca/coverStoryPictures2/30457.jpg
<
http://www.globalresearch.ca> Global Research, April 23, 2012
Less than a year ago, Sudan was split in two after decades of U.S. support
for the secessionist South. Newly independent and deeply impoverished South
Sudan has now seized much of what remains of the North's oil fields. The
South refuses to return to its borders, despite widespread international
denunciation - a boldness that is inconceivable without the connivance of
the United States.
The campaign to chop away more territory from the African nation of Sudan is
in full swing. South Sudan, which comprised one-third of the country until
becoming independent, last year, seized the oil town of Heglig on the
northern Sudan side of the border and is refusing international calls to
withdraw. The region around Heglig contains half of Sudan's remaining oil
fields. Most of the country's oil went to South Sudan when the country was
partitioned. But the Heglig fields indisputably belong to northern Sudan,
having been awarded to the Khartoum government by a Permanent Court, in
2009. Nevertheless, South Sudan refuses to return to its borders, and its
generals are talking about marching all the way to Khartoum.
The European Union describes the South Sudanese seizure of northern
territory as "completely unacceptable," and United Nations Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon expressed his "grave concerns" directly to South Sudanese
President Salva Kiir.
But President Kiir, who wears a signature cowboy hat given to him by
President Bush in 2006, shouted back at the UN chief, "I am not under your
command."
So, who does have influence on South Sudan? That would be, overwhelmingly,
the United States, which supported South Sudan's secessionist movement for
more than a generation and steamrolled African and international opinion
into accepted the dismemberment of what had been the continent's largest
country. It was an especially bitter pill to swallow for that African Union,
whose predecessor, the Organization of African States, in 1964 declared that
national boundaries left by colonialists should be left alone. The founding
statesmen of Africa feared that tampering with borders would expose the
continent to foreign intrigues, as Europeans and Americans stirred up
secessionist movements for their own.
That time has fully arrived. No sooner had South Sudan declared itself
independent, than President Obama devised an excuse to move U.S. Special
Forces into the country - one of the poorest on Earth, if you don't count
the oil. Green Berets now operate in South Sudan and neighboring Uganda,
Congo, and the Central African Republic.
American money keeps the Sudanese army equipped and paid. And President Kiir
met with Obama only two weeks ago.
The official press release on their talks said Obama had expressed concern
about the tensions between North and South, and "emphasized the importance
of...reaching an agreement on oil."
Well, it looks like Obama and the cowboy-hatted President Kiir reached their
own agreement: to seize the North's oil fields. South Sudan is a U.S. client
state that owes its independence to the U.S. and Europeans and Israel, which
was deeply involved in the Sudanese civil war. It is inconceivable that
South Sudan would defy the United Nations and the European Union to invade
North Sudan and seize half of its oil reserves without the connivance of the
United States. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, who has been calling
for the head of Sudanese President al-Bashir since George Bush was in
office, will pretend that she is "concerned" with the fighting between the
two Sudans, and so will Obama. But U.S. client states like South Sudan don't
invade their neighbors without Washington's blessing.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at
<
http://us.mc1613.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Glen.Ford_at_BlackAgendaReport.c
om> Glen.Ford_at_BlackAgendaReport.com.
----[Mailing List for Eritrea Related News ]----
Received on Mon Apr 23 2012 - 23:37:59 EDT
