Posts Tagged ‘government of sudan’



President Kiir joins the other African heads of state and governments as they pose for a photo in front of the new AU headquarters.
[Photo: Thomas Kenneth]

Speech delivered by President Salva Kiir Mayardit at the 18th AU Assembly in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Your Excellencies,

On behalf of the people of South Sudan, allow me to express to all the member states of African Union our gratitude for the warm welcome accorded to the Republic of South Sudan upon our admission into this noble and prestigious organization.  We are truly honored to join you as a sovereign state and look forward to fully engaging in this forum.

The people of South Sudan will long remember the African Union and particularly IGAD for facilitating the resolution of the decades-long conflict in Sudan along with many of our international friends.  Without your invaluable support and guidance, peace may have taken longer to achieve.

Your Excellencies,

On the current oil crisis in our country and in response to the statement just issued, I would like to clarify the position of my government. The ongoing negotiations between the Government of South Sudan and the Government of Sudan – which we continue to be involved in – have been critical for both nations.  We believe that true negotiations must be based on the following two principles:

The principle of peaceful coexistence of South Sudan and our neighbor, Sudan.  This stability will also strengthen the overall stability of the region in particular and the continent at large.

Secondly, the principal of reasonable and fair commercial engagement that ensures the economic viability of both states, in a manner that is respectful and agreeable to both nations.

Your Excellencies,

We reached this current crisis for several reasons.  Most significant was Khartoum’s unilateral decision to enact a bill to levy a fee of 32.2 dollars per barrel to the South Sudan oil that passes through their territory.   While negotiations were taking place to determine a fair fee, Khartoum began diverting and confiscating our oil by force.

We acknowledge that most of the oil infrastructure lies on the territory of Sudan, however the oil clearly belongs to South Sudan.  This unilateral decision to take our crude entitlements is unmistakably a violation of the sovereignty of South Sudan and must be condemned.

This act was implemented despite the fact that the oil operating companies have repeatedly explained that the Republic of South Sudan has been and is paying transit fees to Sudan.

We have no objection to paying Khartoum for the use of their infrastructure, however it must be a mutually agreeable price and to date we have NOT agreed on their proposed price of 32.2 dollars per barrel, nor do we have any intention to accept that price.

It is completely out of international norms and it is a precedence that we will not set.

Since they began their campaign of recovering funds that they unilaterally decided to levy against South Sudan, they have prevented ships from leaving Port Sudan.  They have prevented other ships from docking to collect their purchases.

They have completed constructing a tie-in pipeline designed to permanently divert almost 75% of our daily entitlements.

On Sunday, our offices in Port Sudan confirmed that documents have been processed to allow two detained ships to sail.  The reason for this development is an attempt to coerce us into signing the cover agreement presented by the AUHIP.

To date, the loss of revenue to the Republic of South Sudan amounts to almost 850 million dollars.  These funds are critical to the security and welfare of the citizens of South Sudan and must be recovered.


Your Excellencies,

At the initial phase of this crisis, I immediately informed regional leaders of the developing situation.  We sought advice and exhausted all possibilities to resolve this situation, including our continued involvement with AUHIP negotiations.  Finally, we concluded that due to the fact that we can no longer guarantee that our oil will reach its intended destination, we cannot allow oil production to continue.

At this time, the oil will remain in its natural place- the ground- until the situation is amicably resolved.

Your Excellencies,

We were unable to sign the cover agreement presented by the AUHIP on Friday for several reasons:

The transitional financial provisions were not in line with what we anticipated.

The agreement excluded the concepts of peaceful coexistence and mutual viability for both states.

In general, the proposed agreement was vague on several issues.  Meanwhile, it tied the Republic of South Sudan to urgently provide cash and oil to the Government of Sudan without first addressing the issues that made us reach this point.

In order to move forward, we would like the AU to understand that we stand ready to contribute to the financial physical gap being experienced by the Government of Sudan only within bearable costs limits.  This august house is well aware that we are the youngest nation on earth and that development is limited. Whatever limited resources we have must be dedicated to developing South Sudan.
We must be guaranteed swift and peaceful resolutions to the outstanding CPA issues including Abyei and the borders. The Abyei issue was resolved by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.  That decision needs to be respected and implemented.  In addition, the borders have been agreed upon (80%) and it must be demarcated immediately.

We suggest that all outstanding arrears and claims between the parties should be settled through an independent transparent committee, that would be comprised of three members.  Both Sudan and South Sudan would be able nominate a committee member who is not of either nationality.

The third member would be nominated by the African Union. This committee would audit and ensure that payments are transparently made.

In conclusion, the Government of Sudan must continue to make concessions as evidence of good faith and no hidden agenda.  Only at that time, will we be able to negotiate reasonably and hopefully end this stalemate.

Thank you.

Advertisements

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.

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/sudanese-oil-stand-off-has-grave-internal-implications-for-north-and-south

South Sudan: Ministry Receives Repaired Lane of Juba Nile Bridge
AllAfrica.com
Aluong lauded the contribution made by the American government through their agency and Japan’s JICA which played important role of improving infrastructure and roads network in South Sudan. The development of roads network and bridges in South Sudan 
South Sudan: CES Minister Closes Anti-Corruption Workshop
AllAfrica.com
Juba — The State Minister of Information, Communication, Youth and Sports, Francis Barson Yowasa, yesterday closed South Sudan Anti-corruption Commission social accountability training program for state. In a word of encouragement to the participants, 
Sudanese oil stand-off has grave internal implications for North and South
Reuters AlertNet
Direct North-South hostilities are not the only danger in the current stand-off between Sudan andSouth Sudan, Saferworld said today. “We are particularly concerned about the grave implications the current stand-off could have for internal stability 
UN refugee chief warns Davos leaders that economic crisis is fueling conflicts
Washington Post
Guterres says existing humanitarian hotspots in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia aren’t going away while new emergencies are emerging in places like South Sudan. He urged donors to increase funding to prevent aid for 500000 people in the newly independent 

Juba, South Sudan:

The Republic of Sudan has suddenly blocked the transportation of South Sudan’s crude oil to the international market. On Christmas Eve all loaded cargo was prevented from leaving, while other cargo was not allowed to load.

Speaking to the press on Tuesday, Minister of Petroleum and Mining Stephen Dhieu Dau said two ships carrying 1.6 million barrels of Dar Blend originating from South Sudan were stopped from leaving the port, and an additional 0.6 million Barrels of Dar Blend were prevented from loading. Yet another two more other ships were prevented from landing at Port Sudan to take possession of 1.2 million barrels of Nile Blend purchased from South Sudan. He strongly condemned the act of preventing loaded ships from leaving the port. “This is unlawful and a violation of international laws and norms.”

The Under Secretary of the Ministry of Information Garang says the blockage has caused the Government of South Sudan to lose a huge sum of money. “At the cost of $118 per barrel, the 1.6 million barrels of Nile Blend would have fetched a huge amount, while each barrel of Dar Blend would secure us $165 million,” he said.

Minister Stephen Dhieu Dau further accused the Government of Sudan of trying to steal the oil resources of South Sudan. The government in Khartoum ordered the foreign oil companies to divert all of South Sudan’s Nile Blend crude oil entitlements for December to the Khartoum and El Obeid refineries. They also ordered 550,000 barrels of Dar Blends Crude oil entitlement for December to be delivered to a Sudan buyer.

“What right have they got to take our oil to sell it to others? Where does this happen in the world?” asked Marial Benjamin the Minister of Information and Broadcasting.

It was also reported that the Government of Sudan also intends to divert 13 percent of Dar Blend oil through its new tie-in pipeline they started constructing between the Petrodar pipeline and the Khartoum refinery.

“Any diversion of South Sudan’s oil without our consent is theft”, said Stephen Stephen Dhieu Dau. “And what right do they have to divert our oil to their refineries”? Marial Benjamin questioned.

To this day, it is not yet clear as to what dishonest plans the Government of Sudan had for the oil it had ordered for diversion to its domestic refineries. There are speculations that Sudan planned to sell South Sudan’s oil to a third party or attempted to “launder” the stolen oil by redirecting it to its own refinery and instead selling its own crude on the world market.

The Government of South Sudan vows to take legal actions against anyone who purchases Sudan’s crude while South Sudan’s oil is being stolen at the same time. “Such illegal acquisitions will find no refuge from South Sudan’s legal authorities and will enjoy no future business with South Sudan,” Stephen Dhieu Dau said.

“We are two different states and each state has got sovereignty over its own resources,” said Marial Benjamin the official spokesman of the government of South Sudan. “There is nowhere in the whole world where a country can interfere and decide on the resources of another country. [For example,] Iraq tried to invade Kuwait and take its oil. The resultant effect of which was clearly seen. If our brothers in Khartoum are thinking that they have another Kuwait which is South Sudan, then they have missed the point.”

By. Yobu Annet

Copyright 2006-2010 The Diplomatic Courier™. All rights reserved. 

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Khartoum-Breaks-International-Laws-by-Blocking-South-Sudans-Crude-Oil.html


The negotiating team of the Government of the Sudan (GoS) on post- secession issues with the Government of the Republic of South Sudan has been following the statements and allegations made by representatives of the Government of South Sudan (GoRSS)

The negotiating team of the Government of the Sudan (GoS) on post- secession issues with the Government of the Republic of South Sudan has been following the statements and allegations made by representatives of the Government of South Sudan (GoRSS) including the Press Release from Addis Ababa dated 17th January 2012 by the delegation of GoRSS titled, ‘‘Government of Sudan poisons negotiations atmosphere in Addis by stealing 1.4 million barrels of South Sudan oil just days before‘‘.

The negotiating team of the Government of Sudan would like to make the following response:

1. The GoS entered the process of negotiations with the SPLM/GoSS in accordance with art 67-3 of the Referendum Act of 2009 to negotiate and agree on arrangements on pending issues, and was eager to conclude those negotiations in sound agreement for the realization of viable economies for the two states. This was translated in the document on the Guiding Principles that was adopted by the parties and within the letter and spirit of the Mekelle MoU which launched the process of negotiations.

2. During this process the negotiating team
kept to the spirit and the Mekelle MoU directives and strived to create an atmosphere of restraint in the negotiations, refraining from any statements or remarks that would adversely affect the negotiations. Our preference has always been the realization of two viable states and economies, acting on the principle of close cooperation and good neighborliness. Unfortunately our proposals for two cooperating states including the joint management and development of the oil industries in the two states, close commercial links and cooperation in border trade for the benefit of the two peoples, were met each time with rejection by the other party. This rejectionist attitude has been the major reason for the protracted nature of these negotiations. An attitude that was fostered and encouraged by the ineptitude towards them by some of their international political sponsors from outside the African continent.

3. While the negotiating team of the GoS kept its statements within the parameters of comity, the other party unfortunately kept using slanderous language including terms as stealing, robbery, piracy, theft etc. Those remarks have not even spared the Head of State of the Sudan. Sudan has contributed immensely to the stability of the region through its commitment to the full implementation of the CPA.

4. On the allegations brought forward by the negotiation team of the GoRSS, we would like to clarify the following:

· The Government of South Sudan has failed to reach an agreement with the Government of the Sudan in respect of transporting its crude oil through the territory of, and infrastructure under the sovereignty of the Sudan.
· The GoRSS is laboring under the erroneous assumption that they are party to the COPAs and COTAs negotiated and signed by the Sudan and oil companies. An assumption which is refuted by the principles of international law.

· GoRSS made intermittent payments which amount to a small fraction of the fees claimed by the GoS to those private companies under agreement to which it is not a party without any of these payments being made to the Sudan .Meanwhile GoRSS proceeded with negotiations with GoS without showing the necessary good faith to reach a negotiated convention within a reasonable time.

· The GoS has since 9th of July 2011 presented invoices to the GoRSS to cover the costs for processing and transporting GoRSSs crude oil together with a transit fee without receiving any payment from GoRSS up to date. The GoS has decided accordingly to take its entitlements of transit fee and other service fees in kind in conformity with recent legislation passed by the GoS. The GoS has made that clear via a letter to all stake holders including the Minister of Petroleum and Mining of the GoRSS , and duly informed all the concerned parties that its decision will be implemented starting 1st December 2011 . Thus the allegations that the oil was stolen are baseless and unfounded.

· The GoS, in the face of the stubbornness of GoRSS and their clear intention not to reach an agreement as long as their entitlements of crude oil are transported through the territory and infrastructure of the Sudan and sold free of any agreed fees, decided to apply the measures of taking in kind its entitlements of transit fees and charges for other services.

· The GoRSS unilaterally confiscated the assets of Sudapet and expelled Sudanese employees in the oil industry in the South without compensation.

· It is important to recall that The GoRSS has rejected an interim arrangement on oil proposed by the AUHIP which was accepted by GoS and which we were, and still, are ready to sign. That arrangement would have allowed the flow of the crude oil of the South through the Sudan in return for an agreed amount of remittance to the Republic of the Sudan, until a final agreement was reached between the two states. This would have averted the current prevailing situation.
5-We would like to re-iterate here that the GoS continues to believe that two viable states, closely cooperating and in good faith, is for the optimum benefit of the peoples of the two states. But it takes two parties to achieve this objective. We remain ready to fulfill that; however is the other party ready?

6-The negotiation team of the GoS believes it is appropriate for the two parties to bring their concerns to the negotiation table rather than negotiating through the media. We call on the international community, in particular the AU to convince the other party to act as a responsible state in the letter and spirit of the Mekelle MoU.

http://www.borglobe.com/25.html?m7:post=south-sudan-press-statement-by-the-negotiation-team-of-the-gos-with-regards-to-the-press-release-by-the-delegation-of-the-gorss


Written by John Daly
Saturday, 14 January 2012 13:30

There’s bad news and then there’s South Sudan, the world’s newest state. Less than six months after peacefully seceding from Sudan in the wake of an internally supervised plebiscite, South Sudan, potentially one of Africa’s richest petro-states, is descending into rising tribal violence.

The interethnic clashes have killed more than 3,000 and displaced thousands in South Sudan’s Jonglei State, with the UN reporting that tens of thousands of people displaced by the violence are in urgent need of food, water, health care and shelter.

But not to worry, Washington is now engaged, sending…

Food?

Water?

Health care?

Shelter?

No, on 10 January the Pentagon said that the five officers are expected to depart for South Sudan later this week to join the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS.) The same day South Sudan’s Oil Minister said that north Sudan was siphoning off his country’s oil and threatened to instigate legal proceedings against any country or company involved in buying the allegedly stolen crude. The South Sudanese government also threatened to sue Khartoum over its decision to unilaterally impose monthly charges on its crude oil transported through its pipelines.

South Sudan’s Minister of Petroleum and Mining Stephen Dhieu Dau told journalists in the capital Juba, “Rather than view the New Year as an opportunity for renewed cooperation, the government of Sudan unilaterally decided to impose economic sanctions by blocking exporting our crude and stealing our oil,” gravely adding, “The Government of Sudan and all those that benefit from such illegal acquisitions will find no refuge from South Sudan’s legal authorities and will enjoy no future business with the Government of South Sudan.”

South Sudan is considering building a pipeline to Kenya to bypass having to use north Sudan’s infrastructure, but the project is years away from being implemented. As for the importance of oil to the new government’s economy, South Sudan is one of the world’s poorest countries, with oil export revenues currently accounting for around 98 percent of the government’s annual budget.

Why should the West care?

Because after South Sudan seceded in July 2011, it took with it 75 percent of the Sudan’s known oil wealth. South Sudan is also claiming that Khartoum is arming South Sudanese rebel groups in order to destabilize the new country and retake control of its oil fields.

Ever optimistic, on 12 January South Sudan issued a tender to sell 4.7 million barrels of Dar Blend and 1.6 million barrels of Nile Blend crude for loading in February despite concerns its shipments were being blocked by Sudan at the Bashayer oil export terminal.

Just to make sure that no untoward incidents occur, the quintet of American soldiers would not engage in combat operation but would be armed for personal protection and oh, President Obama issued a memorandum noting, “I hereby certify that members of the U.S. Armed Forces participating in the United Nations Mission in South Sudan are without risk of criminal prosecution or other assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court (ICC) because the Republic of South Sudan is not a party to the ICC and has not invoked the jurisdiction of the ICC pursuant to Article 12 of the Rome Statute.”

Coincidentally, but hardly as an afterthought, the Obama administration also authorized U.S. companies to operate in South Sudan’s oil sector.

And last but not least, Washington last week added South Sudan to the list of countries eligible to receive U.S. weapons and defense assistance, a gesture certain to enthrall the South Sudan’s northern neighbors in Khartoum.

And oh, that humanitarian crisis? The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres, currently visiting Juba said, “This country is facing at the present moment, six months after independence a number of huge humanitarian challenges that needs massive solidarity from the international community.”

As for the intrepid U.S. military personnel boldly going where no U.S. servicemen have gone before, what is the Dinka word for “incoming?”

By. John C.K. Daly of Oilprice.com

http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/Africa/Can-South-Sudan-Ever-Escape-from-Violence-and-Chaos.html

South Sudan caught in a cycle of violence

South Sudan caught in a cycle of violence
BBC News
In South Sudan, more than fifty people, mostly women and children, were killed on Wednesday in continuing tit-for-tat attacks and cattle raids between the Lou Nuer and the Murle people in the state of Jonglei. Aid agencies say more than 60000 people .