Sudanese oil stand-off has grave internal implications for North and South
27 Jan 2012 15:38
Direct North-South hostilities are not the only danger in the current stand-off between Sudan and South Sudan, Saferworld said today. “We are particularly concerned about the grave implications the current stand-off could have for internal stability and prosperity in both countries”, said Hesta Groenewald, Head of Saferworld’s Sudan and Great Lakes Programme.
A collapse in oil revenue means a collapse in income for both sides, which could precipitate serious internal security problems. In the South, the oil take is 98% of the national budget, of which over a third is spent on security.
While much of the economy is not cash-based, and donors largely make up the gap in funding for social services, if the military payroll is disrupted, troops will get restive – a problem which has led to violence in the past.
Southern oil accounted for 36% of the Government of Sudan’s revenues at secession. As the state’s financial patronage also upholds stability North of the border, less oil money will spell trouble, in a country already facing active rebellions in several states.
“As Sudan and South Sudan edge closer to renewed war, China – the largest consumer of oil from the two countries, and with vast economic investments in both – can play a key role in pressuring both sides to find a compromise. China’s interests lie in peaceful co-operation between the two sides”, Groenewald said.
“Although usually reluctant to play a high-prolife role on conflict issues in the region, China was visibly active in trying to mediate a settlement in December. More recently it has expressed concern about the rising tension, renewing its calls for calm and dialogue.”
“Now is the time for China to use its influence to ensure a fair, workable solution is found through the African Union process, and it should be credited in the West for its constructive approach.”
Saferworld believes that China and all international actors should clearly spell out the negative consequences that will arise from escalating tensions, and offer incentives to encourage compromise.
To avoid the risk of further disputes arising out of mutual distrust, any deal must also be transparent, accountable and subject to impartial monitoring.
Leave a comment:
IMPORTANT: Your comment will not appear immediately as we vet all messages before publication. We don't publish comments that are racist or otherwise offensive. Nor do we publish comments that advertise products or services. Please keep your comment concise and do not write in capitals.
Post a Comment
Post a Comment