Let me get this right: that South Sudan is a puppet of Britain and France because she decided to protect her oil resources from a predatory regime in Khartoum? Do these writers really know what they are really talking about? They have not even made the slightest attempt to ascertain the facts of the matter. The following are some of the basic facts:
1. South Sudan decided to shut down oil production because Khartoum has confiscated about 8 million barrels of the oil in the name of transit fees.
2. Khartoum is apparently bent on stealing millions more by divirting the oil through a pipeline built secretly without the knowledge of Juba.
3. With respect to transit fees, Juba is on record that it has been paying Khartoum the transit fees all along. But what is at issue is Khartoum's insistence that South Sudan pay it $36.00 per barrel of oil, a demand which Juba considers extortionate. Juba argues that pipeline fees should be comparable to those paid by other countries situated. For example, Chad is said to pay Cameroon about $0.45 per barrel, and Georgia pays Armenia and/or Turkey $0.69 per barrel. But Khartoum remains admant about $36.00, at least for now. They believe that without it their economy would collapse
4. Aware of the damage of its scession caused to Khartoum's economy (because South Sudan took with it 75% of the oil reserves), South Sudan has offered $2.6 billion to help Khartoum tidy up any resulting economic shocks. But Khartoum is too proud to accept this from its yestryear's "slave."
5. In addition to all of this, Khartoum refuse to agree on a raft of post-secession issues, including on demarcation of boundaries, the issue of referendum on Abyei as agreed to in the Comprehensive Political Agreement (CPA) 0f 2005.
Having said that, South Sudan is in the process of deciding whether ot not to build a pipeline to Djibouti and/or Lamu in Kenya. The decision will probably be made within a few weeks. Now, how does all this make South Sudan into a puppet of France and Britain? The underlying argument seems to be that only by exporting oil through Sudan will South Sudan demonstrate its Pan-African credentials. Should the decision be that a pipeline be built to Djibouti or Lamu, would South Sudan by that demonstrate something less than a Pan-Africanist stance? Why? Are the economic interests of Khartoum any more important for the Pan-Africanist cause than those of Djibouti and Kenya? The article sounds so silly/studpid, let alone being suspicious, that ink should be wasted writing it up!
Abannik
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Abdul Bangura <theai@earthlink.net> wrote:
--
AfricanConstitution.Org
AfricanConstitution.Org © 2012
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
Dr. Abannik O. Hino
Associate Professor of History
Wingate University
ahino@wingate.edu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment