U.S. pledges full support towards the young nation of South Sudan
80 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON — [b]The United States will drop sanctions on South Sudan after its independence on Saturday[/b] but expects more concrete steps from Khartoum to win its way off the U.S. terror blacklist, senior officials said on Thursday.
"The moment is approaching when a moment of peace is finally possible," the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, told a news briefing. "But let's be absolutely clear. This is a fragile and fraught moment as well."
Rice will lead the U.S. delegation to Saturday's independence celebrations in Juba, which will be South Sudan's capital, and [b]Washington is redoubling its efforts to ensure that the fledgling country quickly gains its economic footing.[/b]
She also urged the government in Khartoum, the capital of North Sudan, to reconsider its threat to kick out U.N. peacekeepers after July 9, saying there were too many dangerous issues unresolved along the tense border between the two sides.
"The United States has been using all of our diplomatic and other instruments, as have the other permanent member of the Security Council ... to try to persuade the leadership in Khartoum that it is not in their interest that the U.N. be compelled to leave abruptly or prematurely," she said.
Rice said technical work was under way to drop South Sudan from U.S. sanctions imposed on Khartoum since 1993, which could open the door to more economic help.
[b]Washington also will host an international conference in September to coordinate both public and private development projects for Africa's newest country[/b], which hopes to diversify its oil-dependent economy into other areas including agriculture.
[b]The United States pledged about $300 million in aid for South Sudan in 2010[/b] and will unveil new pledges at the September conference, where South Sudanese leaders are expected to outline their plans for governance, accountability and transparency, U.S. officials said.
South Sudan voted to separate from the north in a January referendum promised under a 2005 peace deal that ended decades of civil war.
LINGERING DISPUTES
U.S. diplomats worked to ensure that the referendum went off peacefully, offering Khartoum the prospect of improved U.S. relations and eventual removal from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism in return for cooperation on the vote.
Since then, however, the two sides have failed to permanently resolve a dispute over the border region of Abyei and seen fresh violence in South Kordofan state, another border flashpoint.
They also have not reached agreement on key issues including division of oil revenues and citizenship, any of which could be trouble in the future as the country divides into two uneasy neighbors.
Assistant Secretary of State Johnnie Carson, the State Department's top official for Africa, said Khartoum needed to follow through on all of these, as well as improve conditions in the western region of Darfur, before Washington could move on improving bilateral ties.
"We are working as hard we can with the authorities in Khartoum to make progress on these issues but we are not yet at the end of the line," Carson said.
[b]The United States has pledged full backing for South Sudan, and will elevate its consulate in Juba to a full embassy following independence, Rice said.[/b]
Washington is also working to free the new country from sanctions imposed on Khartoum, although it was unclear how this might apply to South Sudan's oil sector, which produces 75 percent of overall Sudanese production but which exports through northern ports and refineries.
Jon Temin, the director of the Sudan program at the U.S. Institute of Peace, said the lack of clarity about how the two countries will manage their joint oil industry may be keeping this element off the table for now.
"I imagine this is part of the conversation on the whole oil equation," Temin said. "The general uncertainty probably limits the U.S. ability to do something definitive on oil because the deal has not been struck."[/quote]
hell yeah
Always good to see more diplomacy.
I... Did not see this coming.
Cool.
That is nice
Very unexpected
$300 million aid for South Sudan, because the US in it's current state totally can manage without 300 million dollars.
I'd like this idea any time but now.
Quick question, does south sudan have oil or strategic locations?
[QUOTE=The golden;30998728]Neither did I. I would expect the USA to go in and rape and pillage the country looking for oil long before it ever offers assistance.[/QUOTE]
I've heard the internet does wonders for that ignorance you've contracted
[QUOTE=Destroyertf;30998977]Quick question, does south sudan have oil or strategic locations?[/QUOTE]
South Sudan has 80% of the old countries' oil, iirc.
[quote]War-related disputes still remain, such as sharing of the oil revenues as an estimated 80% of the oil in the nation is from South Sudan, which would represent amazing economic potential for one of the world’s most deprived areas[/quote]
yep
[QUOTE=ionuttzu;30998915]$300 million aid for South Sudan, because the US in it's current state totally can manage without 300 million dollars.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, we'll print more.
[QUOTE=Miskav;30998701]I... Did not see this coming.[/QUOTE]
Why not? It's a new country, legally ceded from its mother country by an overwhelming democratic vote.
[QUOTE=scout1;30999256]Why not? It's a new country, legally ceded from its mother country by an overwhelming democratic vote.[/QUOTE]
Because I thought the north had the oil, after some research I noticed I was wrong.
[QUOTE=Destroyertf;30998977]Quick question, does south sudan have oil or strategic locations?[/QUOTE]
What are you implying?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30999274]What are you implying?[/QUOTE]
Resources/Political Interest. You don't defend the desert for water. Keeping South Sudan on our good side allows for the United States to have Resource Interest, and it's closeness with other regions would allow for quicker mobilization of troops in the case of wars.
I love all the high and mighty people on FP. It's called politics, you protect people who can give you things you want. It's not nice, it's not charitable, but the world isn't charitable and if you show yourself to be vulnerable you will be devoured.
None of you people bashing the US for helping countries with strategic locations or oil would do any good at running a country of your own. You can't always be the nice guy.
[QUOTE=The golden;30998728]Neither did I. I would expect the USA to go in and rape and pillage the country looking for oil long before it ever offers assistance.[/QUOTE]
Why hasn't someone given you an award for "most knowledgeable in international politics" yet?!? You have literally opened my eyes to a new, oversimplified version of how countries execute foreign affairs.
Also, this is a move that doesn't surprise me, though why we haven't supported Somalialand is beyond me...
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;30999524]Resources/Political Interest. You don't defend the desert for water. Keeping South Sudan on our good side allows for the United States to have Resource Interest, and it's closeness with other regions would allow for quicker mobilization of troops in the case of wars.[/QUOTE]
I'd be more surprised if a country didn't want a resource-abundant nation on their good side. There's nothing wrong with it.
[QUOTE=melonmonkey;30999594]I love all the high and mighty people on FP. It's called politics, you protect people who can give you things you want. It's not nice, it's not charitable, but the world isn't charitable and if you show yourself to be vulnerable you will be devoured.
None of you people bashing the US for helping countries with strategic locations or oil would do any good at running a country of your own. You can't always be the nice guy.[/QUOTE]
It would seem that you are one of the few here that understand that, this is good for both the US and South Sudan. Both countries will benefit from this, there isn't a problem with it.
there'd be no reason to go in there if it wasn't mutually beneficial
I love this "New Country" thing- everything; maps, economies, sometimes beliefs, change. I especially like that pretty much every world map is wrong now.
The first new country created in this century.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;31000462]The first new country created in this century.[/QUOTE]
Haha no
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;31000462]The first new country created in this century.[/QUOTE]
Montenegro.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;31000795]Montenegro.[/QUOTE]
Haha no
[QUOTE=RBM11;31000843]Haha no[/QUOTE]
If we're talking countries with undisputed international recognision, then yes.
this is nice
we should invade
United States is getting on their good side before China can react.
This thread: armchair global politics analysis.
of course they pledge full support theyre prolly gunna end up stationing troops there...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.