It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why is Sudan an issue and what's in the future?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 04:58 AM
Before I start with this one, let me say I could be way off base. I could be overestimating America's interest in opening up mineral resources in Africa, I could be severely underestimating the ability of efforts by America and friends to break the stranglehold that the IMF and others keep on African nations, and there is a chance that India could use their relations with much of East Africa to hijack any progress there and deliver a good part of the benefits to themselves or even China if they so chose.
This scenario however works on a view of the future economic situation as a struggle by Western nations to remain competitive with China by manipulating trying to depress the price of raw materials and keep a steady flow of those resources to alternate producers such as India, Taiwan, Mexico, etc as opposed to China. I'm glossing over certain concerns (such as military interventions and peace keeping) for the most part to focus on the potential for a Western push to build an economic community in East Afica, but don't think that I don't realize how much time, effort, and money it will all take. I'm looking at a 100+ year outlook where those investments may be worthwhile. However plausible this idea is, and regardless of whether or not it is actually carried out, I do tend to see purpose when our attention is called to any given situation. Given the attention being drawn to Sudan, I tend to think that we have plans of some sort there, and the following is what I would be pushing for by way of military and financial assisstance if I were running the show for Western governments- especially the US.

I've long believed that colonialism in Africa is only over in name. The system works very much like it always did. The colonies export raw materials at the profit of a few wealthy rulers, who then turn around and spend their wealth on buying finished goods from the ruling power, with very little money remaining in the colonized nation or working to the benefit of the people there.
We have African nations growing tea and coffee instead of food because the wealthy there make more money on that- then they spend that money on buying products from us, since there isn't much being produced domestically. Of course this severely chokes the ability of the common man to eat, or of the nation to build infrastructure to increase production and thereby better the lot of the common man, but that's OK because it's easiest for the West and ensures the power of the ruling class in the nation in question.

That is changing though, and I think the fact that the West is paying any attention at all to the Sudan (especially America's recent warming up to the new government there) is an indication of the coming change. China can export more goods for less money than America, and this will allow China's to continue to dominate the world economy from the demand side no matter how many new resource markets the US manages to open up through it's covert activities and war efforts (such as the move we made in Afghanistan to open up the flow of Turkmenistan's natural gas).

America now must build local economies and strong diplomatic ties in resource-rich areas, thereby limiting China's ability to carry out the neo-colonial trade practices I described above, and thus keeping new resource markets (especially those in Africa) open and neuteral.

North-East Africa is a good place to start, and we are going to work our way right down the East Coast of the Dark Continent, all the way to Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and possibly South Africa. (South African participation in BRICS may make that tougher unless we can pull India and Brazil, as well as Brazils neighbors, more towards our side)

Our interest in Sudan could go one of several ways, but it seems the most likely may to be support the seccession of the 10 automous provinces in the south, as well as their acquisition of the Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces. Blue Nile is home to a hydroelectric grid which supplies more than half of Sudan's power, and Kordofan along with the rest of the South contain significant gas and oil reserves, possibly sufficient to meet all of Sudan's needs if fully exploited.
These areas will be dependent on Kenya, as well as Eritrea via Ethiopia for access to the sea, and they are far more likely than the arabized Islamic North to enjoy good relations with their neighbors to the South.

Our probable goal seems to be that once the media has drawn sufficient attention to Sudan, there will be a push to change the subject from Darfur to the South, gain independence for the South, and forge an economic community between Southern Sudan, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Uganda- hoping that economics will begin to overshadow ethnic rivalries.

With proper development of irrigation systems and entrepeneurship, Southern Sudan can more than supply food for itself and its more mountainous neighbors, with a little help from what arable land its neighbors do possess. Southern Sudan and Eithiopia also possess sufficient hydro-electric and thermal energy to help Kenya overcome it's power shortage and begin to industrialize Kenya's coast, which could potentially become a hub for trade with India.
With Southern Sudan being used as the granary of the region it will be necessary for transportation industries to be further developed in neighboring nations, especially the Northern area of Kenya and South Eastern Ethiopia- where mountains do not pose such an obstacle to movement.
Once the regional economy is providing sufficient food, contruction, and electricity, the battle is half won. It will be time to send in our companies to exploit their mineral wealth and get a return on the investment. This is where the move South comes in as well. In addition to cheap local labor, our mining operations will likely want cheap local hardware as opposed to having parts shipped in from the West.
Tanzania- one of the poorest countries on Earth. more than half to the GDP is from agriculture, but only 4% of the land is arable. They've got plenty of mineral wealth- especially gold, and plenty of land. If they had the electricity and the aid, they've got plenty of workforce and plenty of room for industrial growth. If the infrastructure existed for the import of electricity from Sudan and Ethiopia, they'd need to develop an industrial base to pay for their imports. They've got the stability- perhaps amazingly considering their demogaphics- all that is needed is available resources from neighboring countries which could be bought with aid to stimulate development.
When the infrastructure of this community reaches Tanzania, the next stop is Mozambique- and then we finally get our access to Zimbabwe. Granted it will probably be 50 years before we've gotten this far, that may be about as soon as we can really do anything about them.

Of course on top of this all there is the huge problem of AIDS, especially when you get further South. Frankly I have no idea what we're going to do about it. As far as I'm concerned, we're looking at the inevitable economic collapse of most of the heavily infected nations unless compulsory testing, sterilization, and quarantine are instituted, and I see that happening only shortly before hell freezes over. That may prove to be a serious barrier to much of this scenario, especially anywhere beyond Tanzania.

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 06:14 PM
Bit more simple than that.

Sudan has been mentioned in the media since 9/11, in reference to OBL.

And the fact that the true state of Israel, which is in the bible, and other writings, incorporates Sudan, as part of that true state if Israel. Also countries such as, Iraq, saudi, syria, jordan and parts of Iran and egypt.

Strange is'nt it?

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:35 AM
I don't know. Israel has to go through Egypt before it can worry about Sudan, so I don't really see that happening anyway.

But, the VP of Sudan, a Southern rebel commander, recently died when the Ugandan presidential helicopter crashed with him in it. I don't know what the most recent news is, but there was speculation that it could mean a return to war.
I think that Uganda or perhaps Kenyan agents are behind the sabotage. Blue Nile isn't part of the autonomous South, and thus won't be part of Southern secession in 6 years when Southern Sudan gets its vote on the matter. If fighting is renewed and Blue Nile is seized, then Kenya can get the power it needs to jump start it's economy, as I mentioned in the scenario I originally posted (which I admit was at least a tad grandiose, and went further than reality is likely to go).
It's all good for India too. Can't trust them not to stir the pot over there. East Africa is a natural market for their wares.

new topics

log in