0 
0 Read Time:1 Second
The case is made here!
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
Spielberg, Hypocrite?
0 0 Related Posts
The dangerous world of cricket
Gambling, corruption and Murder. And you thought cricket was boring!
English
I don’t see a link in that story to further explain what Mia Farrow is talking about so, I’ll give you all a little info.
China is the number one oil contract customer in the Sudan, the second being (wait for it) France!!!
When Ms. Farrow accuses China of bankrolling slaughter she is referring to their continuance of business with the Sudanese gov’t as they have systematically slaughtered and driven everyone out of the southern third of their country in order to open it up for oil production (without the bother of all the little people having to be given a cut. Better to just kill them or drive them off).
It is an amazement to me that most gov’ts couldn’t care less about this, especially since France is also heavily involved followed closely by a host of other EU nations.
I think that almost anyone in the west would agree that China doesn’t give a damn about human rights but, the moral posturing of France and the rest of the EU just makes me want to gag when I think of their relationship with the Sudanese gov’t.
So, while my son sells wristbands at his high school to “Save Darfur” China and France continue their business relationships in order to get the oil…
“No Blood for Oil” yeah, right, tell it to the French.
Since there isn’t any link from this article to further information regarding Mia Farrow’s statement, I will attempt to flesh this out.
Ms. Farrow’s claim that China “bankrolls” slaughter refers to China’s status as the #1 country to hold oil contracts in Sudan. The 2nd, wait for it, is France!, followed by a host of EU nations!!! The United States has had a trade embargo against Sudan for a decade due to their human rights violations. The U.S. gets not one drop of oil from Sudan…
The Sudanese gov’t systematically slaughtered or drove off the population in the southern third of their country in order to open it up for oil exploration (why deal in the little people when you can just slaughter them or drive them off their land). The oil contracts are now creeping up the western side of the country, hence the pressure on Darfur.
Now, I would think that just about anyone in the west would be willing to agree that China has no interest in human rights but, France and the EU? Funny how this issue almost never comes up in the European press. The moral posturing of the EU just makes me gag when I think about the Sudan. No Blood for Oil! Yeah, right, tell it to the French… (while my son sells wristbands at his local high school to “Save Darfur” and George Clooney hollers that “something must be done to stop the genocide!”) Do you think he ever goes to France to express these opinions and, since I am so aware of this as is Mia Farrow, is Mr. Clooney also aware of the interplay of oil and slaughter in the Sudan?
the second being (wait for it) France!!!
it’s a gag, I was told wer Putin’s best customer, how comes Sudan ? isn’t it a protected grass border ? uhe, UK, Egypt… ? wer in Djamena, didn’t you know ? eh eh, I like your funny rant
Nomad – Since your English skills are somewhat lacking, I am not sure what you are trying to say. If you think the situation is a “gag” then, I ask you to educate yourself and think again.
“Protected grass border”?
“wer in Djamena”?
“eh, eh I like your funny rant”?
What ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ???
Only someone from the Middle East could call this rant “funny”…
And, that really is the “funny” thing about it. I have pointed out the relationship of China and the EU to the Sudan on several different middle eastern web sites. No one gives a damn. I can’t help but think that they are conditioned to wait until the U.S. does something about the situation.
Then, get your stones ready and prepare to throw them. After all, it is the U.S. that is totally bad. How about chucking a few stones at France and the EU this time? Anyone with a teaspoon of brains can investigate this problem and understand that U.S. “imperialism” has nothing to do with the suffering in the Sudan.
BTW, sorry for the double post. I didn’t see my first post go through so I wrote a second.
Sorry Babs, but your the first innocent here not to understad what I ment and from which country I am from, as far as your allegations I am aware of english language enough to understand what you ment, unless you can’t reread yourself ! I can also see you can’t put Djamena on a map and I expect you can’t put Darfur on a map either ; so your only talking blabla and keep your lessons under your table, you big mouth, if you want something move there then take your courage in hands and go there, they need nurses and doctors, at least some help !
Soudan was not a french colony, you might not know it
and the petroleum companies there are from everywhere, unless you don’t know them, I don’t deny France Elf didn’t try, but at the moment, the site is not exploited, unconfortable diplomatic position with the Tchad (a former french colony) ; by the ways, Djamena is the Tchad capital, and french army is there to protect tchadian population against rebels coming from Sudan
your saying we do nothing in EU, theses article might benot a contrario for you :
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/international/afrique/20070312.FAP9435/les_crimes_a_grande_echelle_continuent_au_darfour_selon.html
and especially for France, some french paras jumped over Darfur borders :
http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/actualites/international/afrique/20070323.OBS8583/des_paras_francaisaux_portes_du_darfour.html
so, keep your rubbish and educated yourself
Well Nomad – Thank you so much for putting me in my place!!! Gee, I wouldn’t have known where exactly my place was (looking on a map) if you hadn’t been so kind to let me know!
And yes, I actually did know that Djamena is in Chad. So, goodie for the French Army, you are in Chad!!! Please note my intense excitement…
Back to Sudan and Darfur, sheesh, I actually can find them on a map as well. Sorry to disappoint and, guess what? They aren’t in Chad!
What grasslands and the French Army in Chad have to do with the slaughter in Sudan I guess is something you have locked up in you mind (which makes a terrible amount of sense if you could only get it out).
Unfortunately, the French continue to exploit the people of the Sudan because they WANT THE OIL and, no number of French soldiers in Chad will make a difference. France is the 2nd largest stakeholder in oil contracts in Sudan after China. I am terribly sorry if that FACT annoys you.
No Blood For Oil, Nomad… eh, unless it is the French that let the blood flow in order to get the oil. I guess it’s OK then.
Does it make you angry to have someone point out that all the moral posturing of the French gov’t is really a load of rubbish? Seems like it does…
Hey, when we are done fighting here, we can move on to the Ivory Coast… Cocoa anyone??? (Quick, everyone get out your map)
I expect you took your foggy visions from “http://pauvre_con.com”,
so rant over, go fuck in your diarrheas
Babs, bravo.
Sophia, fair ingenuity , nah ?
Sophia, fair and courageous, nah ? you prefer to send your dog
When someone becomes a potty mouth in order to support their point of view… Well, let’s just say your message is lost in the filth.
If I wanted to I could descend to your level. Not worth it when the facts are on my side.
For someone with limited English, you certainly schooled up on profanity. Rock on Nomad!
yeah, and showing off your self assumed high moral level doesn’t make you a nice and intelligent person
Check the oil contract maps Nomad. And then get back to us regarding your potty mouth and agrieved status.
I very rarely comment on this site. It just so happens that I know something about oil contracts in the Sudan.
The fact that this topic inflames you to the point of filth is your problem, not mine.
I am not a nice and intelligent person??? Diarrheah Nomad… You seem to want me to have sex in diarrhea because of the facts of oil contracts in Sudan?
You lost this argument the minute you descended into filth. I would suggest you use a different tack the next time you want to take on someone that holds an opinion different than yours (although you never did make your opinion clear other than telling us about grasslands and soldiers in Chad)
Quick, recheck your maps!!!
Check the oil contract maps Nomad. And then get back to us regarding your potty mouth and agrieved status.
I very rarely comment on this site. It just so happens that I know something about oil contracts in the Sudan.
The fact that this topic inflames you to the point of filth is your problem, not mine.
I am not a nice and intelligent person??? Diarrhea Nomad… You seem to want me to have sex in diarrhea because of the facts of oil contracts in Sudan?
You lost this argument the minute you descended into filth. I would suggest you use a different tack the next time you want to take on someone that holds an opinion different than yours (although you never did make your opinion clear other than telling us about grasslands and soldiers in Chad)
Quick, recheck your maps!!!
BTW Nomad, I never did say I was “nice” or “intelligent”, you said it… What I did say is that I know something about oil contracts in the Sudan.
It would be really hard for me to lower myself below “go fuck in the diarreahs” when we are talking about French oil contracts in the Sudan.
One doesn’t have to be all that nice or intelligent to rise above a comment like that.
babs, show me the proofs, seems you forgot Repsol, shell… how about all those anglo-saxon ones ? yeah, the frenchs, whatever gets wrong in your holly world, it’s the frenchs ! you forgot that people who don’t share your views are more numerous :
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/4946/42645135countryinflugrayh4.gif
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6421597.stm
Babsy, your highness doesn’t seem to like sources
Do your own homework Nomad.,..
Shall I link for you? I think not…
Look up oil contracts in the Sudan… Google it baby!
Here’s a hint, Shell Oil is an EU company, not an American one. As I said, the U.S. has had a trade embrgo on Sudan for a decade now due to human rights.
Do your own homework before you tell someone to have sex in diarreah…
Wow, you are one disgusting person. And, all that just to win an unwinnable argument….
The bigger question is, why are you fighting so hard for the EU? Do you REALLY believe that all they do is good and honorable?
Are you actually asking someone to wallow in diarreah because you so firmly believe this? If so, you are one sad human being…
Repsol = Repsol YPF, S.A., (IBEX-35:REP) is an integrated Spanish oil and gas company with operations in 29 countries, the bulk of its assets located in Spain
God Nomad – You are such an easy mark. I can hardly stand it…
So, you name Shell, a Dutch company and Repsol, a Spanish company.
What part of EU don’t you get???
Never mind that the #2 Co in the Sudan is French. Like I said before, do your own homework, pull up the oil maps yourself.
Got any other companies you want to talk about or, do you just want me to have “sex in diarreah???
What kind of nonsense did you link to? Did it have anything to do with oil contracts in Sudan? I tell you again, do your own homework, Nomad. Get past the “feel good” polls and delve into items that the French and,for that matter anyone else, is savvy about. Analyse why the French are the #2 oil contract exporters in the Sudan and think about what this is doing to the native country.
I couldn’t give a sh!t if Sudan was ever a French colony! That somehow matters to you, it doesn’t matter to me. On that topic, why does it matter to you? Is there a reason other than French guilt?
The FACT is that French oil companies are the 2nd largest exporter of oil from the Sudan. Does anyone in the French nation feel that they should do something about the people of Darfur or, should they all just wait until the United Staes (a nation that long ago cut off trade with this gov’t due to thier human rights) intervene?
That is what I am asking you, Nomad… You seem to want to answer with “diarreah questions”…
show me the proofs babsy
whare are you doing yet, for Darfur ? you don’t seem to be a doctor, then business ?
our country is already there helping, the” french doctors” doesn’t signifie something for you ?
a french regiment of paras is patrolling, preventing people of different ethnies to kill each others ; I did not notice any american soldier there ,
so Babsy until you show me the proofs that once more time we are faultiv of your bullshits allegations, water will pass under the bridges
youd better ask your little friend Ossama, I think he is already there
http://www.iran-resist.org/IMG/jpg/SAHEL_alQAEDA.jpg
You poor thing Nomad… I guess you just refuse to pull up the oil contract maps.
Oh, Dr.s are there, probably nurses too… All to help assuage the French guilt of exploiting these people for oil… Go ahead Nomad, powdered milk and vaccines… anything to take the heat off the fact that France WANTS THE OIL.
I don’t need to “show you”. You can discover it for yourself. I really laughed at your last links.
Do your own homework Nomad and keep your diarreah to yourself.
Are you really unable to look up the oil contract maps? You seem to be. Are you really that inept? If so, I feel sorry for you. Come on back with a link to the oil contract maps and argue with me some more. You seem able to link to stuff. Go ahead, link me baby… Give me the oil contract maps and then we can really fight it out…
“I did not notice any american soldier there”
That just might be because, as I said a few posts ago, the United States gets not one drop of oil from the Sudan, contrary to the French nation. I will be totally pissed if the United States lands one boot on the ground to solve a problem that French oil companies have been implicit in making. Is that too complicated for you to understand?
In addition, it sounds to me like you have actually been there… “I did not notice…” Have you been there Nomad?
In any event, I am tired of debating this with you. Pull up the oil contracts. Read em and weep… People die every day due to your position. I am so sorry to say that…
Bwahahaha, Nomad, you’ve been poined!
Link me baby, link me hard and sweet…. Oh no? Can’t link me to any oil maps???? Just want to tell me about a few French paratroopers and doctors? Maybe the French should get out of the Sudan oil business…
Maybe the Sudan would be better off…
pauvre con, essie de lire correctement ce qui suit :
Darfour : Khartoum s’offre la protection de Pékin
27.03.2007
Premier importateur du pétrole soudanais, la Chine soutient sans réserve le régime d’Omar El-Béchir, mis au ban de la communauté internationale. Ni la situation au Darfour ni les violations des droits de l’homme n’ont le moindre effet sur l’attitude des autorités chinoises.
Depuis les premières découvertes réalisées par l’américain Chevron au début des années 1980, le pétrole joue un rôle crucial dans la dynamique interne des conflits soudanais. Conscient de l’importance des gisements, le président de l’époque, Nemeiri, avait modifié les frontières des Etats du Sud afin de garantir au Nord un accès aux futurs profits générés par l’or noir. Cette nouvelle injustice poussa le Sud à se rebeller sous la bannière de l’Armée populaire de libération du Soudan (SPLA). En 1983, la guerre civile embrasa le pays.
Cela conduisit Chevron à suspendre ses opérations en 1984, avant de se retirer complètement, en 1992. Le nouveau gouvernement islamiste, dirigé par le président Omar El-Béchir, cherchait alors ardemment des financements afin d’intensifier sa lutte contre la SPLA et de parrainer un audacieux projet d’islamisation du pays tout entier. Mais les compagnies intéressées par l’exploitation des ressources pétrolières du pays ne se bousculaient pas au portillon. De surcroît, les relations entre le Soudan et les Etats-Unis se sont rapidement dégradées. Les déclarations de soutien à l’Irak lors de la guerre du Golfe, les violations flagrantes des droits de l’homme et l’octroi de l’asile à des terroristes internationaux, dont Oussama Ben Laden, ont avivé les tensions entre les deux pays et conduit Washington à appliquer des sanctions économiques.
Sécuriser les régions riches en pétrole
En conséquence, le Soudan s’est retrouvé forcé de dépendre de petites compagnies inexpérimentées pour exploiter ses champs pétrolifères. Ce n’est qu’en 1995, avec l’arrivée de la China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) et de l’entreprise malaisienne Petronas, deux compagnies pétrolières publiques, qu’est réapparu parmi l’élite soudanaise l’espoir de se bâtir une fortune grâce à l’or noir. Trois ans plus tard, Talisman, la compagnie pétrolière phare du Canada, se lance dans le projet soudanais en dépit de risques politiques évidents. A la tête de la Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), elle a contribué, avec ses partenaires asiatiques, au développement de l’exploitation pétrolière. L’absence de concurrence des grandes entreprises pétrolières et la possibilité de bénéfices élevés ont également attiré d’autres firmes occidentales de moindre envergure, comme Lundin (Suède) et OMV (Autriche).
Un oléoduc de 1 600 kilomètres reliant les champs pétrolifères du Sud à Port-Soudan, sur la mer Rouge, a rapidement été construit par les Chinois. Les exportations ont débuté en 1999. Khartoum a tiré les leçons du départ de Chevron. La protection des champs d’or noir est devenue essentielle pour le développement de l’industrie pétrolière et, par voie de conséquence, pour la survie du régime. Le président El-Béchir a donc fait appel à une tactique classique pour « sécuriser » les régions riches en pétrole. Dans le but d’attiser les tensions ethniques, il a fourni des armes aux tribus nomades arabes et leur a permis officieusement de piller et de détruire les communautés d’éleveurs tout le long de la frontière traditionnelle entre le Nord et le Sud, là où des gisements de pétrole avaient été découverts.
Bien que les rebelles du Sud eux-mêmes soient loin d’être des novices en matière de pillage de populations innocentes, ils ont aisément trouvé de nouvelles recrues. La stratégie gouvernementale du « diviser pour régner » a fini par créer des conflits locaux entre des groupes qui, au départ, étaient complètement étrangers à l’opposition idéologique entre le Nord et le Sud. Le pétrole alimente ainsi le cycle de violence.
Même au Darfour, il y a de l’or noir
Les revenus du pétrole permettent à Khartoum de renforcer ses capacités militaires en achetant des armes à la Russie et à la Chine, notamment des bombardiers Antonov et des hélicoptères de combat, utilisés pour raser les villages du Sud et garantir la circulation ininterrompue du pétrole. Cette stratégie de la terre brûlée, toutefois, n’a pas été sans conséquences. A la fin des années 1990, en Amérique du Nord et en Europe, les compagnies pétrolières internationales opérant au Soudan étaient considérées comme complices des déplacements massifs et du massacre de centaines de milliers de civils autour des champs pétrolifères, car elles fournissaient au gouvernement soudanais des revenus grâce auxquels ce dernier pouvait acheter de grandes quantités de matériel militaire. Les protestations organisées par des militants des droits de l’homme ainsi que la politique étrangère des Etats-Unis ont provoqué une chute des actions de Talisman et poussé la compagnie à quitter le Soudan en octobre 2002. Ces mêmes pressions ont conduit, moins de un an plus tard, les firmes européennes à désinvestir massivement.
Des entreprises d’Etat chinoise, malaisienne et indienne ont pris le relais, mettant la main sur l’industrie pétrolière soudanaise. Grâce aux investissements asiatiques, les revenus économiques de Khartoum sont restés intacts. La Chine, en particulier, domine l’industrie pétrolière au Soudan. En 2005, ce colosse économique en pleine croissance couvrait environ 7 % de ses besoins en pétrole grâce à l’or noir soudanais. Ironie de l’histoire, bien qu’elles aient abouti au retrait des compagnies pétrolières occidentales, les campagnes de désinvestissement n’ont pas réussi à affaiblir le gouvernement de Khartoum ni à modifier sa tactique militaire. Elles ont en effet laissé le champ libre à des entreprises asiatiques qui n’ont pas à se préoccuper de pressions de leurs opinions publiques en matière de droits de l’homme.
La signature de l’accord de paix global de janvier 2005 a fait naître un grand espoir au Soudan. Outre la coopération de Khartoum avec les Etats-Unis dans la guerre contre le terrorisme à la suite des événements du 11 septembre 2001, l’accord offrait la perspective d’une amélioration des relations avec l’Occident et, par conséquent, d’une augmentation des investissements dans l’industrie pétrolière soudanaise naissante. Cet optimisme a été de courte durée.
L’application de l’accord de paix connaît des problèmes persistants à propos de litiges frontaliers et du partage des revenus du pétrole, mais c’est surtout le conflit au Darfour qui isole le Soudan de l’Occident. A l’image de leurs homologues du Sud, les groupes rebelles de l’ouest du pays se livrent à une guerre contre le gouvernement en raison de leur profond sentiment de marginalisation. Le pétrole marque ce conflit de son empreinte, et le pays se voit une nouvelle fois privé d’une période de paix.
Actuellement, la seule production pétrolière au Darfour est celle de la CNPC, le long de la frontière du sud du Darfour et du Kordofan occidental, dans le « bloc 6 ». Bien que les niveaux de production de la CNPC – 40 000 barils par jour – ne représentent qu’une fraction de la production pétrolière du Soudan et que la plus grande partie de l’exploitation pétrolière soit effectuée dans le Sud traditionnel du pays par la GNPOC, la White Nile Petroleum Operating Company (WNPOC) et Petrodar, c’est le potentiel futur des découvertes de pétrole au Darfour qui, de nouveau, relie cette ressource lucrative à la guerre civile au Soudan. Soucieuse de s’assurer une part suffisante des réserves pétrolières mondiales pour soutenir son économie en pleine croissance, la Chine conjugue ses activités pétrolières au Soudan avec son droit de veto en tant que membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité, ce qui limite sérieusement l’influence de l’ONU sur Khartoum.
Bien que la Chine ne souhaite pas mettre en péril ses relations commerciales avec les Etats-Unis en passant pour complice d’une répression au Darfour que Washington a qualifiée de génocide, elle est clairement opposée à l’idée d’une « obligation de protéger » qui forcerait les Nations unies à intervenir. Le conflit au Darfour marque ainsi un tournant crucial pour la Chine en sa qualité de puissance mondiale émergente.
be babs oh loo la, in your ass !
Darfour: Khartoum offers the protection of Peijing 27.03.2007 First importer of Sudanese oil, China supports without reserve the mode of Omar El-Béchir, put at the round of applause of the international community. Neither the situation in Darfour nor the violations of the humans right have the least effect on the attitude of the Chinese authorities. Since the first discovered ones realized by American Rafter at the beginning of the years 1980, oil plays a crucial part in the internal dynamics of the Sudanese conflicts. Conscious of the importance of the layers, the president of the time, Nemeiri, had modified the borders of the States of the South in order to guarantee to North an access to the future profits generated by the black gold. This new injustice pushed the South to rebel under the banner of the popular Army of release of Sudan (SPLA). In 1983, the civil war set ablaze the country. That led Chevron to suspend its operations in 1984, before being withdrawn completely, in 1992. The new islamist government, directed by president Omar El-Béchir, then sought ardently financings in order to intensify its fight against the SPLA and to sponsor a daring project of Islamization of the entire country. But the companies interested by the exploitation of the oil resources of the country were not hustled with the wicket. In addition, the relations between Sudan and the United States quickly degraded themselves. Declarations of support for Iraq at the time of the war of the Gulf, the obvious violations of the humans right and the granting of asylum to international terrorists, whose Usama Bin Laden, revived the tensions between the two countries and Washington conduit to apply economic sanctions. To make safe the areas rich in oil Consequently, Sudan found itself forced to depend on small inexperienced companies to exploit its oil-bearing fields. It is only in 1995, with the arrival of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) and of the Malaysian company Petronas, two public oil companies, which reappeared among the Sudanese elite the hope to build a fortune thanks to the black gold. Three years later, Talisman, the oil company headlight of Canada, launches out in the Sudanese project in spite of obvious political risks. With the head of Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company (GNPOC), it contributed, with its Asian partners, with the development of the oil exploitation. The absence of competition of the large oil companies and the possibility of high benefit also attracted other Western firms of less scale, like Lundin (Sweden) and OMV (Austria). A pipeline of 1 600 kilometers connecting the oil-bearing fields of the South to Port-Sudan, on the Red Sea, was quickly built by the Chinese. Exports began in 1999. Khartoum learned the lessons from the departure of Rafter. The protection of the fields of black gold became essential for the development of oil industry and, consequently, for the survival of the mode. President El-Béchir thus called upon a traditional tactic “to make safe” the areas rich in oil. With an aim of poking the ethnic tensions, it provided weapons to the Arab wandering tribes and their semi-officially allowed to plunder and destroy the communities of stockbreeders all along the traditional border between North and the South, where oil reservoirs had been discovered. Although the rebels of the South themselves are far from being beginners as regards plundering of innocent populations, they easily found new recruits. The governmental strategy of “dividing to reign” ended up creating local conflicts between groups which, at the beginning, were completely foreign with the ideological opposition between North and the South. Oil feeds the cycle of violence thus. Even in Darfour, there is black gold The incomes of oil make it possible in Khartoum to reinforce its military capacities by buying weapons in Russia and China, in particular of the Antonov bombers and helicopters of combat, used to shave the villages of the South and to guarantee the uninterrupted circulation of oil. This strategy of the burned ground, however, was not without consequences. With the end of 1990, in North America and Europe, the international oil companies operating in Sudan were regarded as accomplices of massive displacements and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civil around the oil-bearing fields, because they provided to the Sudanese government incomes thanks to which this last could buy great quantities of military material. The protests organized by militants of the humans right as well as the foreign politics of the United States caused a fall of the actions of Talisman and pushed the company to leave Sudan in October 2002. These same pressures led, less than one year later, the European firms to disinvest massively. Government enterprises Chinese, Malaysian and Indian took over, putting the hand on Sudanese oil industry. Thanks to the Asian investments, the economic incomes of Khartoum remained intact. China, in particular, dominates oil industry in Sudan. In 2005, this economic colossus in full growth covered approximately 7 % of its requirements out of oil thanks to the Sudanese black gold. Irony of the history, although they led to the withdrawal of the Western oil companies, the investment withdrawal campaigns did not succeed in weakening the government of Khartoum nor to modify its military tactic. They indeed left the free field with Asian companies which do not have to be concerned with pressures of their public opinions as regards humans right. The signature of the overall agreement of peace of January 2005 gave birth to a great hope in Sudan. In addition to the co-operation of Khartoum with the United States in the war against terrorism following the events of September 11, 2001, the agreement offered the prospect for an improvement of the relations with the Occident and, consequently, for an increase in the investments in incipient Sudanese oil industry. This optimism was of short duration. The implementation of the agreement of peace knows persistent problems in connection with frontier litigations and of the division of the incomes of oil, but it is especially the conflict in Darfour which isolates Sudan from the Occident. With the image of their counterparts of the South, the rebellious groups of the west of the country are devoted to a war against the government because of their deep feeling of marginalisation. Oil marks this conflict of its print, and the country is seen once again private one period of peace. Currently, the only oil production in Darfour is that of the CNPC, along the border of the south of Darfour and Western Kordofan, in “block 6”. Although the levels of production of the CNPC – 40 000 barrels per day – represent only one fraction of the oil production of Sudan and that the greatest part of the oil exploitation is carried out in the traditional South of the country by the GNPOC, White Nile Petroleum Operating Company (WNPOC) and Petrodar, it is the future potential of discovered oil in Darfour which, again, connects this lucrative resource to the civil war in Sudan. Concerned to secure a sufficient share of the world reserves oil to support its economy in full growth, China combines its oil activities in Sudan with its right of veto as a permanent member of the Security Council, which seriously limits the influence of UNO on Khartoum. Although China does not wish to put in danger its trade with the United States while passing for accomplice of a repression at Darfour that Washington qualify genocide, it is clearly opposed to the idea of a “obligation to protect” which would force the United Nations to intervene. The conflict in Darfour thus marks a crucial turning for China in its capacity as emergent world power.
One thing I’ve always been curious about people trotting out ‘the exploiting people for oil’ routine. There’s no law against buying oil, why does the buyer get the blame for what the ‘seller’ does with all the money they got for the oil?
why does the buyer get the blame for what the ’seller’ does with all the money they got for the oil?
That’s the whole premise of the Arab argument for why th U.S. is screwing up the Middle East. Damn Americans
(sarcasm mode: off)
I don’t think any citizen of the u.s. should say anything. The u.s. buy oil. They sell and also give away the weapons they manufacture. Spielberg should give up his citizenship too. I guess many countries do the same thing.