The Plundering of South Sudan

US AFRICOM, Israel, and Uganda's Dictator-for-Life Yoweri Museveni set up in South Sudan, inflame conflict, push out China and prepare to take over oil. 

January 9, 2014 (LD) - RT's report "Who is to blame for the crisis in South Sudan?" gave a succinct background on the warring factions inside the new "nation" of South Sudan and the Western genesis of the conflict. The report would state: 

The SPLM has received support from the US and Israel throughout the duration of the civil war fought between southern rebels and Khartoum, which has historically had unfriendly relations with the West and has moved very closely to China in recent times to jointly develop the country’s oil wealth prior to the separation. Romantic notions for self-determination did not motivate the West to support southern secession; the objective was to partition Sudan and deprive Khartoum of economically relevant territory in the south where most of the oil fields lie. In exchange for the financial, material, political, and diplomatic support received from the West, the new government in Juba endorsed a ‘Faustian pact’ with its sponsors to open its economy to international finance capital and multinational interests. The government in Juba even applied for IMF membership before it had even officially gained independence from Sudan.

The piece would continue by laying out the current dilemma for the West: 

Despite supporting the South’s independence with diplomatic muscle and military aid, the United States has been unable to gain a foothold in the country’s oil sector; Juba’s crippled economy remains dominated by Asian companies, primarily from China. South Sudan must rely on pipelines that run through Khartoum to export its oil, and the two countries produced around 115,000 barrels of oil per day in 2012, less than half the volume produced in the years before South Sudan's independence. Both sides have nearly gone to war over disputed oil fields that straddle a poorly demarcated border. Judging from the poor economic performance of both countries since the partition and the dramatic loss of the life in the ongoing crisis, the experiment of South Sudanese independence is failing. 

Image: Violence predictably is centered around currently 

Chinese-controlled oil infrastructure. The goal is to have 

violence drive the Chinese out just as was done by NATO 

in Libya.

The piece would go on to note that peace deals reached leaving Sudan intact could have avoided the deadly conflict now raging - and that of course is correct. However, peace is not and never was the goal of the West and its involvement in Africa - economic gain is.

Precisely because China still maintains extensive holdings in Sudan and South Sudan's oil infrastructure, the conflict will be brought to a fevered pitch - and unsurprisingly the conflict's epicenter corresponds with South Sudan's primary oil producing regions. If and when the Chinese are pushed out of South Sudan, the West will continue either across the border to establish routes for exporting their newly gained oil wealth from the landlocked country, or proceed through Kenya with or without the current government in Nairobi's backing.

The BBC would report in their article, "China's oil fears over South Sudan fighting," that (emphasis added):

The stakes could not be higher for China, the largest investor in South Sudan's oil sector, as fierce fighting continues between forces loyal to President Salva Kiir and those of his former deputy. 

Some of the largest oil fields China operates are in areas controlled by fighters backing Riek Machar, the country's vice-president until he was sacked in July. 

Oil production has already dropped by 20% since the onset of the conflict three weeks ago and more than 300 Chinese workers have been evacuated. 

The spectre of their Libyan experience also weighs heavily on the Chinese minds - project after project now lies deserted because of heavy fighting during the Arab Spring uprising of 2011, inflicting huge losses on China.

Most telling of all is the BBC's reference to Libya - another nation destroyed by Western military aggression that saw both Russian and Chinese interests crumble overnight and replaced by Western corporations. While South Sudan's chaos is being orchestrated more covertly by the West, the final goal of pushing out the Chinese and taking over is the same.

Similar covert destabilization can be seen all across what the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute's report "String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China's Rising Power across the Asian Littoral" calls China's "String of Perals." This includes US-backed militants attempting to carve off the province of Baluchistan from Pakistan where China has established a port at Gwadar and at another Chinese port in the state of Rakhine, Myanmar that has been the scene of brutal, genocidal violence carried out by "democracy icon" Aung San Suu Kyi's "saffron monks" against Rohingya refugees.

Setting Up Shop in South Sudan 

Old Dog, Old Trick: US, Saudis, Qatar Attempt "Arab Spring" Retread in Sudan

Protests are smokescreen for unfolding US-Saudi-Qatari backed violence seeking regime change in Sudan.

September 28, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - The Associated Press reveals that recent and ongoing "Arab Spring-style" unrest in Sudan's capital of Khartoum is led by Sudan's Western-backed opposition, the National Umma Party, and the various faux-NGO's and "independent media" organizations created by the West to prop it up. This reveals yet another Western-engineered uprising designed for regime change in favor of a new, Western friendly client regime.

The AP article, "Sudanese protesters demand the regime's ouster," first claims: 

Activists acknowledge they have no unified leadership or support from political parties but express hope the spontaneous nature of the current round of protests means they're gaining momentum.

However, AP then admits [emphasis added]: 

One of Sudan's most prominent opposition leaders, Sadiq al-Mahdi of the National Umma Party, told worshippers at a mosque in the district of Omdurman that al-Bashir has been spending the state's budget on "consolidating power" and failed "to lift the agony off the citizens' shoulders."

After the sermon, protesters marched through the district, a longtime opposition stronghold, chanting "the people want the downfall of the regime," the slogan heard in Arab Spring uprisings that began in late 2010 and have led to the ouster of the leaders in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen.

Clearly, the "activists" indeed have a leader - Sadiq al-Mahdi of the National Umma Party who was literally leading the protesters out into the streets. And while comparisons to the "Arab Spring" invokes images of peaceful "pro-democracy" protests - AP admits that the protesters are already turning to violence: 

Angry protesters torched police and dozens of gas stations and government buildings, and students marched chanting for al-Bashir's ouster.

AP, perhaps hoping readers would not bother researching the matter further, also quotes "local blogger and journalist Reem Shawka" to bolster their narrative. Shawka is a columnist at Sudan's 500 Words Magazine. While 500 Words maintains that it is "a Sudanese independent online magazine," it proudly advertises in the right column of its website an upcoming US Institute of Peace "Sudanese and South Sudanese Youth Leaders Program." Like Thailand's deceitful US-funded propaganda front Prachatai, 500 Words is most likely directly funded by the US government, and is most certainly in tune with the US State Department's agenda and talking points regarding Sudan.

Image: Sudan's "independent online magazine," 500 Words proudly advertises for the US Institute of Peace on its website (right-hand side), exposing the predictable ties between its support for Western-backed opposition inside of Sudan and the US State Department through the National Endowment for Democracy and others, who most likely funds the online propaganda front. 

....

Indeed 500 Words' editor-in-chief, Moez Ali, has his own page on "Open Democracy" - funded by convicted criminal George Soros' Open Society Institute, the Oak Foundation, the Sigrid Rausing Trust, TIDES, and many others.

It should be mentioned that the US Institute of Peace - advertised for on 500 Words - has played an instrumental role in the Western-engineered "Arab Spring," where it literally crafts the constitutions and structure of proxy regimes the West plans to create once targeted nations have been overthrown. 

Who is Opposition Leader Sadiq al-Mahdi?

Western Geopolitical Blitzkrieg in Sudan

Sudan: Protests and the Politics of Regime Change

Eric Draitser 

Stop Imperialism

July 23, 2012

(Images & captions added) 

The protests that have broken out in Sudan are, on the surface, the manifestation of legitimate grievances.  Portrayed in the Western media as a direct response to austerity measures implemented by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, these protests indicate a strong current of dissatisfaction among the people of the country.  However, seen from a broader, more critical perspective, the demonstrations are the tangible fruits of a carefully constructed destabilization campaign incorporating opposition political parties, civil society groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Hollywood celebrities and Western financiers.  These powerful forces have aligned against the government in Khartoum in order to execute the geopolitical agenda of the imperialist ruling class in the West.

The Development of the Protests

The immediate impetus for the protests, which broke out in recent weeks in and around the capital of Khartoum, was the announcement of the removal of fuel subsidies.  This troubling development, coupled with other austerity measures such as the reduction of government jobs and the devaluation of the currency, were designed to mitigate the effects of soaring inflation in Sudan.  However, because of the integral role of fuel prices in the Sudanese economy, the move seemed to spark mass indignation.  In a country already dogged by high unemployment and rampant poverty, these difficult decisions inflamed already high tensions throughout the country.

 

Image: Areas in red are either being destabilized, already wrecked (Libya), while areas in blue include areas of American influence, or in Iraq's case, recent occupation replaced with a covert presence. Sudan is amongst them, and on US Army General Wesley Clark's list of nations the Pentagon sought to overthrow since at least 2001 - part of a larger agenda of achieving global hegemony.

....

  

Reports from inside Sudan suggest that a small group of female demonstrators gathered outside dormitories at the University of Khartoum and began protesting the fuel subsidy cuts, among other issues. This was the first in what became a series of daily demonstrations against a whole host of grievances.  Central among these was the feeling, widespread among particularly young people, that the government in Khartoum was punishing the people while continuing to spend “lavishly” on defense.  Many groups directly involved in the protest movement, groups such as Sudan Change Now and the popularized twitter moniker #SudanRevolts, have used the demonstrations as a springboard for a much broader and, it could be argued, more opportunistic agenda, one that is directly in line with the geopolitical interests of the United States and the Western imperialist ruling class: regime change.

This is, of course, not to diminish the genuine grievances of many of the demonstrators. Instead, it is important to maintain a critical understanding of the way in which these sort of movements are hijacked or otherwise cynically manipulated through a variety of means by those in the West for whom power and hegemony are the goals above all else.

The Wizards Behind the Curtain

In order to understand the way in which the protests in Sudan, and movements like them all over the world, are manipulated, influenced, or otherwise controlled by Western powers, we must first examine the major players and the often deliberately obscured connections between them, western intelligence networks, and international financiers.

In Sudan, we’ve seen an extraordinary proliferation of western-financed NGOs that have entrenched themselves in the civil society of the country, particularly in an urban center such as Khartoum.  Organizations such as Sudan Now and the Enough Project (the latter of which is directly connected to George Clooney, the US State Department and George Soros) indicate the degree to which humanitarian concerns and NGOs are utilized by the US imperialists as cover for their geopolitical agenda.  In fact, in the case of Clooney and the Enough Project, we see the presence of John Prendergast, head of the organization and former Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.  His participation, not to mention his close relationship to UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and the International Crisis Group of George Soros, should illustrate the degree to which this and other organizations working inside Sudan are either directly or tangentially part of the US intelligence establishment.

The Enough Project is also significant because of its ability to sell a Western-constructed narrative of Sudan to an unsuspecting and generally ill-informed public.  George Clooney who, along with Council on Foreign Relations member Angelina Jolie, has cultivated an image as a politically progressive humanitarian, is able to construct a particular discourse in the American public’s imagination: Bashir is a monster and the United States must act decisively including possibly using force, to remove him from power.  Such a dominant narrative, once entrenched in the public discourse, becomes difficult, if not impossible, to deconstruct.

The Enough Project and other humanitarian organizations alone are not the whole story, however.  Important players inside the country are also playing an integral role in the attempt at regime change in Sudan.  One such important individual is Dr. Hassan al-Turabi, head of the opposition Popular Congress Party (PCP), one of the leading factions within the often-fragmented political opposition.  Turabi, a longtime “progressive Islamist”, is not merely a major player in Sudanese politics.  In fact, he’s one of the leading “experts” on Sudan with long-standing connections to the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED).  In fact, as recently as 2008, Turabi was one of the keynote speakers at the NED in Washington DC where he presented on, among other things, how to bring about regime change in Sudan.  Though the usual covers of “democracy promotion”, “transparency”, and other such high-minded abstractions are utilized by Turabi and the NED, these are merely the rhetorical devices used to obscure the obvious goal of such a conference.

Turabi’s association with the NED and the US intelligence community is not only significant in demonstrating the role that those institutions are playing in destabilizing Sudan.  It also demonstrates the way in which the US imperialists have long-standing ties with so-called “Islamists”, a conclusion made ever more apparent by the ascension of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the deployment of Al Qaeda and other religious militants in Libya, Syria, and elsewhere.  In this way, a clearer understanding develops of just how the Western imperialists are able to utilize a variety of means, many of which are “Islamist” in nature, to destabilize regimes they deem to be unfriendly.

International Subversion

Aside from having to deal with powerful forces engaged in the internal struggles in Sudan, Bashir’s government has also been faced with extraordinary international pressure.  Not only has Bashir himself been accused by the ICC (itself an arm of US-NATO power projection) of being a war criminal for his purported role in the conflict in Darfur, he has also watched as the United States and other Western powers fomented a brutal civil war, only to then partition the country, carving out South Sudan, and create the conditions for the current situation.  Essentially, Bashir has had to try to maintain his grip on the country in the face of a multi-pronged effort to destroy his regime and the Sudanese state.

The conflict with South Sudan has taken a heavy toll on the Sudanese economy.  Because of the loss of an estimated 75% of total oil reserves located in the South, inflation has dramatically increased and Khartoum’s revenue from trade with China and other major oil importers has decreased sharply.  Additionally, the skirmishes and other armed conflicts between North and South have focused Bashir’s attention to the Abyei Province and other border areas and, consequently, away from other pressing concerns inside the country.  This was precisely what the Western powers intended when they began pushing for the partition of the country a few years ago.

The imperialist aggression against Libya was an indication to many keen observers that the imperialist ruling class had every intention of completely consolidating control over all of North Africa by removing any vestiges of nationalism and any leaders who might pose a challenge to AFRICOM and the neo-colonial agenda.  Gaddafi met his barbaric end at the hands of a vicious lynch-mob or, as they’re called in the West, “freedom fighters”. They and their NTC masters such as Mahmoud Jibril, now the head of the so-called Libyan government, were merely puppets of the West, supported for purposes of economic exploitation of natural resources and to create a safe haven for terrorists to then menace the rest of the region.  Likewise, Bashir is on the target list and, without taking precautions, could meet the same fate.

What Do They Want?

The United States and its western partners have a number of goals in seeking regime change in Sudan.  As is the case in so many other conflicts around the world, the main objective is to block Chinese economic development.  The Chinese have, for years, been the biggest importer of Sudanese oil and, other than Angola, Sudan was its main supplier on the continent. Aside from oil however, Sudan had become one of the main markets for Chinese economic investment.  In fact, by 2002, Sudan was China’s fifth biggest source of revenue and had become a major player in the power generation and other markets.  For these reasons, China began to pose a threat to US hegemony in East Africa and, from the perspective of the imperialists, had to be checked.

 

Image: Cutting China off from the Middle East, as well as destabilizing and peeling off nations along its so-called "String of Pearls," its sphere of influence throughout the Pacific and Indian Ocean, has been a geopolitical agenda of the West for nearly two decades.

Aside from China, the United States has other geopolitical and economic reasons for destabilizing Sudan.  Washington seeks to consolidate control over East and Central Africa and, in order to do so, must eliminate one of their biggest obstacles, Sudan.  The US has gone to painstaking lengths to maintain compliant puppet governments in Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and elsewhere.  In so doing, the US is able to keep Central and East Africa under their thumb, at least to some degree. By destroying the Bashir regime, these imperialists believe they will be able to project US hegemony forward for the foreseeable future and, as a result, secure unfettered access to the wealth of raw materials in the region.

There is also an element of opportunism to this plan.  The West looks to capitalize on the still viable discursive construct of the Arab Spring as a means to their end.  So long as this idea can inspire masses of disaffected youth to take to the streets, the United States and its partners can continue to impose their will in the region. However, as the conflict in Syria has unequivocally shown, without such mythological pretexts, it becomes impossible for the imperialists to achieve their goals.

In examining the situation in Sudan, it is important to keep in mind that a critical, anti-imperialist perspective does not mean that one absolves Bashir of any wrongdoing.   In fact, it should illustrate the ways in which Bashir and his government have contributed to creating the climate that breeds such protests.  However, by analyzing this uprising and investigating simultaneously the positive and insidious forces at work within it, we can begin to apply a broad understanding to the issue and, in so doing, work to prevent the Western imperialist ruling class from destroying yet another sovereign state.

....

Read more of Eric Draitser's work and listen to his weekly podcast covering geopolitics on StopImperialism.com. 

Carnage & Crisis Aversion in the Sudan

Sudan: West Promoting War, Israel Providing Arms, Bankers Peddling "Human Rights"

Nile Bowie

Nile Bowie.blogspot.com

May 8, 2012  

Following the United Nations’ recent approval of Resolution 2046 threatening the nations of Sudan and South Sudan with sanctions [1], the success of international attempts at conflict aversion in the region appear to be in question. Hostilities between the two nations have climaxed since South Sudanese forces captured the region of Heglig, an oil-producing site 70 kilometers into Sudanese territory [2]. South Sudanese forces have also maintained a presence in the long disputed border region of Abyei in Southern Kordofan, where Juba has recently vowed to withdraw its personnel from [3]. Although Khartoum has agreed to comply with the United Nations resolution, it has vowed to continue military operations against South Sudan’s troops as long as they remain within the territory of Sudan, “Sudan has declared its commitment to a United Nations resolution calling for an end to military operations, but the other side’s troops still remain on our territory; they have occupied two districts and have not stopped their hostile actions” [4]. 

As Juba denies Khartoum’s claims of occupying Sudanese territory, South Sudan’s newly released official map includes the Heglig region and six areas that are “contested and occupied” by Khartoum [5]. Amid the escalating regional tension, China has recently offered South Sudan an $8 billion development package set to allocate funds for road construction, hydropower, infrastructure and agricultural projects following South Sudanese President Salva Kiir’s visit to Beijing [6]. China has traditionally been a key partner to the government in Khartoum, but has steadily increased its influence in South Sudan since its independence in 2011, primarily through investments via state-owned Chinese oil companies China National Petroleum and Sinopec. As inflation rates in Sudan reportedly rise to 21% following increased military expenditure since clashes erupted with Juba in late March 2012 [7], China’s extensive economic engagement in the region offers the leverage needed to potentially play the role of a mediator in the Sudanese conflict.  

The emergence of South Sudan as an independent state came at a heavy price for Khartoum, as an estimated 85% of the country’s oil production came under Juba’s control. Although South Sudan holds a majority of oil reserves, Juba has relied on the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline for its oil exports, a pipeline operated by the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) extending to Port Sudan on the Red Sea via Khartoum [8]. Under a barrage of economic sanctions, Khartoum sought to implement oil transit fees for the use of the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline, by charging Juba around $36 per barrel; Juba holds over $11 billion in oil transit debt and has refused the figures proposed by Khartoum, prompting Juba to suspend its oil production [9]. Juba has accused its northern neighbor of launching air strikes on its territories, while both sides also accuse each other of backing rebel militia, claims that Khartoum has denied [10]. Following the fiery rhetoric espoused by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir describing Juba’s ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement as “insects,” Bashir now concedes, "We look with wisdom and foresight to well-established relations between us and the people of South Sudan" [11].

As a climate of uncertainty persists beneath irresponsibly bellicose exchanges, the implementation of a campaign to unseat Omar al-Bashir and bring down the government in Khartoum has long been underway. A recent Op-Ed published in The New York Times by Dr. Gérard Prunier entitled “In Sudan, Give War a Chance” reflects a predominately Western political school of thought which favors the prospect of full scale war to bring about regime change in Sudan. Prunier laments, “The international community has called for a cease-fire and peace talks, but the return of violence is not necessarily a bad thing,” before concluding “an all-out civil war in Sudan may be the best way to permanently oust Mr. Bashir and minimize casualties” [12]. Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir is the first sitting head of state to be charged with genocide by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity conducted in Sudan’s western Darfur region; ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo accuses Bashir of keeping millions of refugees in an environment resembling a “gigantic Auschwitz” [13].

Violence and infighting in Sudan has traditionally been a product of tension along ethnic lines, more so than religious differences. Although the modern Sudanese state has been divided along ethno-religious lines with the religiously Islamic and ethnically Arab government in Khartoum split from the ethnically African and religiously Christian government in Juba, tribal minorities such as the ethnically African and religiously Islamic Fur and Zaghawa groups in Sudan’s western Darfur region have long demanded reparations for the marginalization they’ve experienced from Khartoum [14]. In a recent report issued by Amnesty International entitled “Sudan: No End to Violence in Darfur,” the organization attributes China, former Soviet Union countries and Belarus for selling arms to the Government of Sudan. Amnesty International’s report omits any mention of Israel, who has reportedly provided heavy military logistical support to the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Darfur's most powerful armed rebel group [15].

Although the United Nations does not recognize the conduct of the Sudanese government in Darfur as “genocide” [16], mass media campaigns publicizing the alleged violence in Sudan have been embraced by celebrity personalities such as George Clooney. TIME magazine warns of the increased prospects for genocide in South Kordofan’s Nuba Mountains region, as rebels affiliated with South Sudan’s ex-rebel militia, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) take up arms against Khartoum once again [17]. Clooney has recently partnered with John Prendergast of The Enough Project to produce a promotional video depicting ethnic Nuba villagers displaying English language placards calling for the establishment of a “No-Fly Zone” and the prosecution of Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court [18]. The Enough Project was co-founded by US State Department Distinguished Service Award recipient John Prendergast and launched in 2007 under the Center for American Progress [19], an organization sponsored by billionaire investor George Soros and Peter Lewis of Progressive, a Fortune 500 insurance company, among others [20]. John Podesta, who heads the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm representing the interests of weapon-manufacturers Lockheed Martin and oil conglomerates such as British Petroleum [21], also chairs the Center for American Progress [22].

In 2006, the Sudanese government barred 20,000 UN troops from running peacekeeping operations in Darfur, as then-Presidential Advisor Mustafa Osman Ismail argued that the UN mandate’s goal was the implementation of "regime change" in Khartoum [23]. The sources of weaponry and covert assistance received by rebel groups in Sudan are rarely a subject of speculation among religious and political organizations who have long supported the international campaign to pressure Sudan. In 2007, the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum launched a “Save Darfur” coalition, which gained the support of adherents to intervention in Iraq, such as right-wing evangelical Christian groups and major organizational affiliates of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) [24]. According to The Jerusalem Post, the Save Darfur coalition launched a high-profile advertising campaign that included full-page newspaper ads, television spots and billboards calling for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Darfur with financial assistance the Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, United Jewish Communities, UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs [25]. 

While the blame for violence in Sudan is laid squarely on Khartoum's shoulders, Israeli-led foreign elements have contributed to the training, financing, and arming of rebel militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese government within Sudan. Since 1969, Israel has reportedly trained recruits, shipped weapons, and offered support to South Sudanese SPLA rebels [26]. Prior to South Sudan’s independence, Israel relied primarily on a flight route to Entebbe, Uganda to supply SPLA with weapons [27], however Tel Aviv now transfers missiles, military equipment, and even mercenaries to Juba quite openly [28]. As Israel covertly operates in East Africa immune from international criticism following their bombing of Sudanese convoys in 2009 [29], the influence of Israeli think tanks such as The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) toward the creation of AFRICOM, the US Africa Command, remains a significant indication of the foreign policy directives being taken by Tel Aviv and Washington in Africa [30].

The Sudan exists as sub-Saharan Africa’s third largest oil producer with over 6.6 billion barrels of proven oil reserves [31]; an estimated 85% of those reserves have been ordained to Juba, in the Republic of South Sudan [32]. As China exists as Sudan’s largest trading partner by purchasing 40% of Sudan’s oil with the excess majority largely designated to Asian markets [33], reordering and monopolizing Sudan’s vast oil fields and mineral wealth is the capital incentive behind the unwavering support for the secession of South Sudan shown by US, EU, and Israeli officials. Members of the Sudanese opposition and various rebel separatist groups often visit Tel Aviv, Sudan’s main SPLA opposition even opened an office in Israel to promote its “policies and vision” in the region [34]. In reflection of Israel’s active support for the Southern opposition, South Sudanese citizens were seen waving Israeli flags during their Independence celebrations in July 2011 [35]. For the likely guarantee of support, the South Sudanese government in Juba applied for IMF membership in April 2011 before it had even officially gained independence from Sudan [36].
 

As Israel and Washington offer their support to the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) in Darfur and various rebel militias opposed to the Sudanese government, China’s interests in the region come under direct attack from these very rebel groups, most prominently in JEM’s October 2007 attack on the Greater Nile Petroleum Company in Defra, Kordofan [37]. The World Bank has recently warned that South Sudan may collapse by its two-year anniversary, due to the ramifications of halting production of at least 75% of the regional oil in frustration with Khartoum's claims on oil-transit debt and revenue [38]. Apparently, authorities in Juba are either unprepared politically for independence or lacking the appropriate guidance to effectively manage its internal affairs. In a recent meeting between Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping and Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Ahmed Karti, China urged the warring neighbors to settle their differences and negotiate [39].

As China would prefer to align with its traditional approach of non-interventionist diplomacy, Beijing has an opportunity to exploit its influence in the region to not only further its own interests, but to defer criticism from parties loyal to Washington who credit China with sponsoring bloodshed through its business interests [40] and political positions [41]. By pursuing the role of a mediator, China can preserve its interests by overseeing negotiations on trade regulations, citizens rights, demarcation and territory status between the neighboring Sudans’. As Juba depends on oil exports for 98% of its income [42], it must negotiate with Khartoum to settle its debts and agree on a mutual per-barrel fee for its use of the Greater Nile Oil Pipeline, as construction of a new pipeline from oil fields in South Sudan to a theoretical end point at the Kenyan port of Mombasa would take years to construct. While the current US Vice President Joseph Biden once called on the US to exert military force against Sudan [43], it remains crucial for the leaders of both Sudanese nation states to come to an agreement regarding the status of the Heglig region and other disputed areas claimed by both sides, lest peacekeeping forces internationally administer these contested zones.

Any attempts at imposing an arms embargo throughout the Sudan would be entirely disregarded by both sides, which are already adequately armed. While attempts to rally public support behind Western intervention in Sudan rely on emphasizing the human rights violations of Khartoum, claims of 6,000 people being slaughtered by Gaddafi used to justify NATO intervention in Libya remain unverified [44]. Given the distinct ethno-religious differences of South Sudanese society and long history of striving for autonomy, their existence as a nation state is warranted. It is irresponsible to deny both Khartoum’s unwarranted and brutal treatment of civilians within its territory and the US-Israeli policy of inflaming national and regional antagonisms in Sudan by arming rebel militias, to the benefit of corporations seeking to control and develop oil fields and mineral deposits. 

While the allied powers in Washington and Tel Aviv would prefer to advocate aggressive policy to ensure against the survival of the regime in Khartoum, the institutional influence of Russia and China in the UNSC provides an opportunity for emerging powers to exert an alternative model of non-aggressive crisis aversion. China may thinly support future economic sanctions on the Sudans in hesitation to involve itself in the domestic issues of other nations, however Beijing could best exercise its influence by urging Khartoum to meet with tribal leaders to guarantee a ceasefire and develop a true federal system that would allow for local autonomy. As the Sudanese leadership in Khartoum projects itself as an Islamic nation, it should recall the final great address of the Islamic Prophet at Mount Arafat, who called for the rejection of social distinctions based on ethnicity and color.

Notes

[1] U.N. Resolution Threatens Sanctions Against Sudan and South Sudan, The New York Times, May 3, 2012

[2] Sudan mobilises army over seizure of oilfield by South Sudan, The Guardian, April 11, 2012

[3] South Sudan police to withdraw from Abyei, Sudan Tribune, April 29, 2012

[4] Sudan refuses to stop fighting with South Sudan, Russia Today, May 5, 2012

[5] New official S. Sudan map to include disputed border region, Russia Today, May 5, 2012

[6] China 'offers South Sudan $8bn for projects', Al Jazeera, April 29, 2012

[7] Sudan inflation up by 21% in Q1 2012, Sudan Tribune, May 4, 2012

[8] Focus on diplomacy and Sudan, APS Diplomat News Service, August 15, 2008

[9] Sudan inflation up by 21% in Q1 2012, Sudan Tribune, May 4, 2012

[10] Bashir says wants warm relations with South Sudanese, Chicago Tribune, May 6, 2012

[11] Ibid

[12] In Sudan, Give War a Chance, The New York Times, May 4, 2012

[13] Omar al-Bashir charged with Darfur genocide, The Guardian, July 10, 2010

[14] The Peoples of Darfur, Cultural Survival, 2010

[15] Sudan: Israel arming Darfur rebels, PressTV, February 2, 2009

[16] U.N. report: Darfur not genocide, CNN, February 1, 2005

[17] Darfur Redux: Is 'Ethnic Cleansing' Occurring in Sudan's Nuba Mountains? TIME, June 14, 2011

[18] George Clooney Witnesses War Crimes in Sudan's Nuba Mountains, Enough Project, March 14, 2012

[19] About Us, Enough Project, 2012

[20] John Podesta, Shepherd of a Government in Exile, The New York Times, November 6, 2008

[21] Hired Guns: The City's 50 Top Lobbyists, Washingtonian, June 1, 2007

[22] John Podesta, Center for American Progress, 2012

[23] Sudan says AU can stay in Darfur but not under UN, Sudan Tribune, September 4, 2006

[24] Darfur Advocacy Group Undergoes a Shake-Up, The New York Times, June 2, 2007

[25] US Jews leading Darfur rally planning, The Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2006

[26] Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), Global Security, 2012

[27] Israeli weapons 'bound for rebels' in southern Sudan: Arms may be destined for SPLA fight against Khartoum, The Independent, March 19, 1994

[28] Report: Israelis arming South Sudan with missiles, YNet News, April 5, 2012

[29] U.S. Officials say Israel Struck Sudan, The New York Times, March 26, 2009

[30] AFRICOM: Control of Africa, VoltaireNet, 2012

[31] BP Statistical Review of World Energy, British Petroleum, June, 2008

[32] The secession of South Sudan, Tehran Times, July 11, 2011

[33] Oil for China, Guns for Darfur, BusinessWeek, March 14, 2008

[34] Sudan’s SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel – statement, Sudan Tribune, March 5, 2008

[35] Israeli Flags at South Sudan Independence Celebrations, Al Jazeera, July 9, 2011

[36] South Sudan formally applies for IMF membership, Sudan Tribune, April 21, 2011

[37] Darfur rebels spurn Chinese force, BBC, November 2007

[38] South Sudan Experiment Headed Toward Failure, OilPrice, May 08, 2012

[39] China / Politics   Xi pushes for Sudanese talks, China Daily, February 29, 2012

[40] China defends arms sales to Sudan, BBC, February 22, 2008

[41] Hillary Clinton lambastes 'travesty' of UN veto on Syria, MSNBC, February 5, 2012

[42] Juba could face blackout in days - minister, Sudan Tribune, March 29, 2012

[43] Biden calls for military force in Darfur, MSNBC, April 11, 2007

[44] Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the “Clash of Civilizations,” Centre for Research on Globalization, October 11, 2011