TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  
Showing posts with label South Sudan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label South Sudan. Show all posts

June 04, 2017

BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST




BRITISH & NATO-ALLIED OIL ARAB ALLIANCE & IMPERIALIST FOREIGN POLICY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ON WEST


HIGHLIGHT FROM JOHN PILGER ARTICLE  ...

British foreign policy ... alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer.

This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest. —John Pilger




Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jihad on Britain, FBI Leak, David Cameron, Theresa May, David Blair, UK-Saudi Arms Deal, Bank of Scotland Cluster Bombs, Yemen, South Sudan, Congo, Central African Republic, Libya, Uganda, Mali, MI5,



Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger

http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know



TERROR IN BRITAIN: WHAT DID THE PRIME MINISTER KNOW?
31 May 2017


The unsayable in Britain's general election campaign is this. The causes of the Manchester atrocity, in which 22 mostly young people were murdered by a jihadist, are being suppressed to protect the secrets of British foreign policy.

Critical questions - such as why the security service MI5 maintained terrorist "assets" in Manchester and why the government did not warn the public of the threat in their midst - remain unanswered, deflected by the promise of an internal "review".

The alleged suicide bomber, Salman Abedi, was part of an extremist group, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, that thrived in Manchester and was cultivated and used by MI5 for more than 20 years.

The LIFG is proscribed by Britain as a terrorist organisation which seeks a "hardline Islamic state" in Libya and "is part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by al-Qaida".

The "smoking gun" is that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, LIFG jihadists were allowed to travel unhindered across Europe and encouraged to engage in "battle": first to remove Mu'ammar Gadaffi in Libya, then to join al-Qaida affiliated groups in Syria.

Last year, the FBI reportedly placed Abedi on a "terrorist watch list" and warned MI5 that his group was looking for a "political target" in Britain. Why wasn't he apprehended and the network around him prevented from planning and executing the atrocity on 22 May?

These questions arise because of an FBI leak that demolished the "lone wolf" spin in the wake of the 22 May attack - thus, the panicky, uncharacteristic outrage directed at Washington from London and Donald Trump's apology.

The Manchester atrocity lifts the rock of British foreign policy to reveal its Faustian alliance with extreme Islam, especially the sect known as Wahhabism or Salafism, whose principal custodian and banker is the oil kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Britain's biggest weapons customer.

This imperial marriage reaches back to the Second World War and the early days of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The aim of British policy was to stop pan-Arabism: Arab states developing a modern secularism, asserting their independence from the imperial west and controlling their resources. The creation of a rapacious Israel was meant to expedite this. Pan-Arabism has since been crushed; the goal now is division and conquest.

In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders - house arrest - when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.

Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights.

The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s - bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians".

Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as a "shit show".

In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence".

Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion of the children killed "were under the age of ten".

More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe.

Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him included those secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such as the "Manchester boys".

To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".

The fallen dictator fled for his life. A Royal Air Force plane spotted his convoy, and in the rubble of Sirte, he was sodomised with a knife by a fanatic described in the news as "a rebel".

Having plundered Libya's $30 billion arsenal, the "rebels" advanced south, terrorising towns and villages. Crossing into sub-Saharan Mali, they destroyed that country's fragile stability. The ever-eager French sent planes and troops to their former colony "to fight al-Qaida", or the menace they had helped create.

On 14 October, 2011, President Obama announced he was sending special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops were sent to South Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent was under way, largely unreported.

In London, one of the world's biggest arms fairs was staged by the British government. The buzz in the stands was the "demonstration effect in Libya". The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry held a preview entitled "Middle East: A vast market for UK defence and security companies". The host was the Royal Bank of Scotland, a major investor in cluster bombs, which were used extensively against civilian targets in Libya. The blurb for the bank's arms party lauded the "unprecedented opportunities for UK defence and security companies."

Last month, Prime Minister Theresa May was in Saudi Arabia, selling more of the £3 billion worth of British arms which the Saudis have used against Yemen. Based in control rooms in Riyadh, British military advisers assist the Saudi bombing raids, which have killed more than 10,000 civilians. There are now clear signs of famine. A Yemeni child dies every 10 minutes from preventable disease, says Unicef.

The Manchester atrocity on 22 May was the product of such unrelenting state violence in faraway places, much of it British sponsored. The lives and names of the victims are almost never known to us.

This truth struggles to be heard, just as it struggled to be heard when the London Underground was bombed on July 7, 2005. Occasionally, a member of the public would break the silence, such as the east Londoner who walked in front of a CNN camera crew and reporter in mid-platitude. "Iraq!" he said. "We invaded Iraq. What did we expect? Go on, say it."

At a large media gathering I attended, many of the important guests uttered "Iraq" and "Blair" as a kind of catharsis for that which they dared not say professionally and publicly.

Yet, before he invaded Iraq, Blair was warned by the Joint Intelligence Committee that "the threat from al-Qaida will increase at the onset of any military action against Iraq... The worldwide threat from other Islamist terrorist groups and individuals will increase significantly".

Just as Blair brought home to Britain the violence of his and George W Bush's blood-soaked "shit show", so David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, compounded his crime in Libya and its horrific aftermath, including those killed and maimed in Manchester Arena on 22 May.

The spin is back, not surprisingly. Salman Abedi acted alone. He was a petty criminal, no more. The extensive network revealed last week by the American leak has vanished. But the questions have not.

Why was Abedi able to travel freely through Europe to Libya and back to Manchester only days before he committed his terrible crime? Was Theresa May told by MI5 that the FBI had tracked him as part of an Islamic cell planning to attack a "political target" in Britain?

In the current election campaign, the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has made a guarded reference to a "war on terror that has failed". As he knows, it was never a war on terror but a war of conquest and subjugation. Palestine. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. Syria. Iran is said to be next. Before there is another Manchester, who will have the courage to say that?

Follow John Pilger on twitter @johnpilger

http://johnpilger.com/articles/terror-in-britain-what-did-the-prime-minister-know






Very interesting article by investigative journalist, John Pilger, written in aftermath of Manchester Arena attack and ahead of the current London Bridge attack:



3RD JIHAD ATTACK - LONDON

  1. WESTMINSTER BRIDGE SLAUGHTER
  2. MANCHESTER ARENA SLAUGHTER
  3. LONDON BRIDGE SLAUGHTER



At least seven people died and 48 people were injured in a two-pronged attack on London Bridge and Borough Market, with police shooting the three suspected assailants dead.

The attack started when a van rammed into pedestrians on London Bridge and ended with multiple stabbings at restaurants nearby.

Police say the suspects were shot dead within eight minutes of the first call.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/04/europe/london-terror-attack-witness-borough/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter




It appears that the Western, including British, political establishment is in fact responsible for the attacks on Britons and all Europeans, by Jihadists - as the Jihad was manifested by British and NATO-allied oil Arab (terrorist funding) alliance machinations,  coupled with imperialist Western capitalist foreign policy, as well as capitalist-serving domestic ideology & accompanying domestic policy of decades standing, the consequences of which, the hostage domestic public subsequently reaps.






January 08, 2015

SWEDEN - Nordic Battle Group 15 - Carl Bildt Blog


CARL BILDT BLOG

[GOOGLE TRANSLATION - Original Swedish]



What happens to NBG15? Is our preparedness enough? [Referring to Nordic Battle Group 15]

ROM: Since the beginning again stand a Nordic Battlegroup under Swedish leadership ready for the efforts that the EU could decide as part of its common foreign and security policy. [Take this says:  a Nordic Battle Group is on standby, under Swedish leadership or command, waiting for the EU say-so, to take part in 'foreign & security policy.']

It was in 1999, after the Kosovo war experiences, as the EU summit in Helsinki decided to extend its also military facilities, and in June 2004 there were more officially precisely these battle groups of battalion size that should be in constant readiness.  [By 2004, battalion sized battle groups were on constant readiness, I gather.]

As the EU had already in June 2003 in the so-called Operation Artemis conducted a successful military operation in the Congo to assist the UN in conjunction with the world organization with its little slower way of working would strengthen its peace efforts in the country.

And Operation Artemis was also something of a baptism of fire for the Swedish Special Forces who participated in it, and whose efforts came to be valued significantly high.

The idea has since been to the ever shall be two battle groups ready for action at short notice. And we had a Nordic battle deployable later than 2011.

However, it is so stridssgrupperna as such never been deployed, and therefore has doubts about the concept has gradually increased. Not inconsiderable resources are used to equip, train and keep them in readiness in the various countries.

Opportunities to use them has not been lacking.

In the last year, suddenly became current with an EU military operation in the Central African Republic to prevent what very well could have led to an outright genocide, I belonged to those who argued that the EU's battle group would be deployed.

That did
not work.

The reasons were a bit mixed.

The main responsibility for the battle which then stood in readiness low of Greece, and Athens was the interest to say the least weak. But equally important was that the man in Paris clearly preferred to put together something that was indeed the EU, but that clearly was under French command [  (1) Greece not on-board; (2) general lack of enthusiasm (3) Frenchies wanted to be commanders of forces.]

And the reason for that was that the course was about to reinforce and complement the French national strength which of course made the first rapid intervention in the country. [Maybe this says, French wanted to take the lead b/c the French  previously led a rapid response intervention in the African country in question.]

For me - then foreign minister, and fairly active in the discussion on the issue of ministerial circuit - this was unfortunately a sign that the battle groups of days maybe numbered.  [No idea.  Rotation based leadership of these groups was discussed?]

The situation in the Central African Republic was so close to the situations battle groups had been set up for that one could imagine:-threatening genocide, appeal from the UN, the need for rapid and limited effort.

But that did not happen. After considerable difficulties did you design the much more limited strength EUFOR RCA which now has a mandate that extends until March of this year.  [EUFOR RCA -- ie European Union Force Republic of Central Africa -- the weaker force was deployed.  Fully operational @ 700 troops in mid 2014.  Bet CB was spewing it wasn't something more grand, with him at the helm?]

Now, as our well trained and well equipped Nordic Battle Group in readiness for the next six months - 2,400 people from seven different countries.  [Now they've got the NBG @ 2,400 on standby & CB is just hanging for them to be deployed somewhere.]

If it will be deployed, I think the concept of EU battlegroups survive. If it does not, I think it will fade away.  [Ooh, if there isn't a deployment, EU battle groups are kaput.]

The speculation in the Irish press - Ireland is also part of the workforce - is spoken about possible interventions in Southern Sudan and Mali.

I have not always easy to see, although nothing can be ruled out.

The situation in Southern Sudan is catastrophic, and the characters right now tends to indicate that it will be worse, but a large UN force is already in place. [Must have resources.]

And if the UN force in Mali suffer from challenges it fails, I think rather in other efforts to deal with the situation.

Personally, I would probably rather see an option for operation in Libya. The situation there deteriorates continuously, and although the United Nations through its special envoy Bernardino Leon makes meritorious efforts to reach a political solution success has so far been limited. 

Would begin to achieve success, it is well not entirely inconceivable that there could be a need for a force that can quickly secure some key installations or functions. Such a task would battle to have the potential to solve.

Obviously there are also other situations that could arise - including a new collapse in the Central African Republic.

To secure parts of the "line of contact" between the separatist Russian groups in eastern Ukraine and the rest of the Ukraine would be such, but the likelihood that the EU could collect himself to such a decision, I believe can best be described as non-existent.  [If sh*t hits the fan in Ukraine, CB doesn't think the EU will have its sh*t together so as to reach an immediate/quick enough decision to deploy the rapid response play-group.  Or so it would appear.  But it could be a trick.  Maybe they're ready to pounce.  ]

In an effort is necessary decision by EU foreign ministers, and it requires no object. Thereafter, rapid decisions of the respective countries, and in Sweden, it is then that the government proposes the parliament a decision by a rapid procedure which it developed a model.

How the Swedish government would react in a situation where the EU wanted a stake of battle, no one knows today, but first, we know that the Greens are almost always been opposed to thoughts like these, and secondly, we know that the money that was previously reserved for a possible effort is disappearing in other directions.

In some places there are those who say that the investment in battle taking resources and energy from the work of national defense, and that it is now high time to saddle up on.

I do not agree with.

Let us not forget that the defense resolutions 2000 and 2004 were written off almost entirely on national defense task. The work of the battle groups was then an important way to ensure quality development in the Defence Forces in association with international collaboration. Without this work, we had been in a significantly worse position today. [Purpose of battle groups ('quality developement' & 'collaboration' ... sold as a domestic defence force investment (how clever); how financial sleight of hand, of sorts, does the trick -- ie a question of allocation, I guess.]

And although the national defense tasks now - and rightly so! - Come into sharper focus, Sweden should not abdicate when it comes to international peace and stabilitertsinsatser.  [Hahaha ... it's not about peace & stability; it's about neo-con agenda on a global scale.]

We are left with a small part in NATO's training mission in Afghanistan, are included in the EU's training efforts in Somalia and Mali, is now entering the demanding UN mission in Mali and will now once again be featured in the EU naval mission in the Indian Ocean.

And the world around Europe's borders have hardly been peaceful and stable in recent years. That the EU would dispose of the instrument battle groups IS would hardly responsibly.

But the coming months may become decisive.



Source:  https://carlbildt.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/vad-hander-med-nbg15-ar-var-beredskap-nog/

--------------------------------------------------

COMMENT

Pressed for time.  No sleep.  Massive on-line binge.
Might come back to this. 

Been good reading and seeing CB's views, although a pain having to make out the wonky Google translation.

Some good information there about Swedish domestic scenario and the EU nations relations, I guess.

Will come back to this.  Excuse any typos.  Rushed.








September 21, 2014

Asia, Africa, Middle-East

ASIA

#China trial began : Ilham Tohti, critic of govt policies towards ethnic Uighurs (Muslims) in Xinjiang. goo.gl/aXg9py

#Thailand - coup generals order name of self-exiled billionaire former PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s to be erased from text books. / Economist

How Alibaba measures up  #IT #Business - >> http://goo.gl/GfNAWG  - cool graph - #China e-commerce craps on everyone else


#China - Central bank injects ($81 billion) into financial system via loans 2 big banks for stimulus / goo.gl/BuXrtY / Heaps info

----------------------------------------------------- 
AFRICA


#Zimbabwe: Mugabe appoints 17 new ambassadors http://goo.gl/6YNJbE - serve 4 yr terms, conditionally renewable

#Nigeria 15 pp killed after gunmen attacked teacher-training college>> http://goo.gl/aXg9py - 12 soldiers 2 firing squad over May mutiny

#SouthSudan foreigners (excl. diplomats & govt aid agencies) OUT w/in month / RETRACTED amid criticism it would disrupt aid progs /Economist

International Organisation for Migration "estimates that 3,000 migrants have died trying to cross the sea to Europe so far this year" / Economist

----------------------------------------------------- 
MIDDLE-EAST



"... where the Press is ‘free’ the problem today is that there is in fact no truly free media. " >> goo.gl/ytgMjs Gulf News


I’d have to disagree and say that while the alternate press many not be unbiased, it is at least free to publish a non-establishment point of view.

For me, the issue is biased, sneaky, establishment & foreign-interest slanted media in the *mainstream*.


R T>> "Turkey would join anti-ISIL coalition if the U.S. had a clear-cut strategy to take out Assad." >> Why Assad?
Source - Twitter commentary (Mahir Zeynalov, journalist)

----------------------------------------------------- 
COMMENT


As I understood it, some sort of slowing of China economy:  hence the injection for stimulus.  

Noticed the European press refers to 'migrants' or 'immigrants' in news that is about refuge seekers.  

There's probably an essay about corporate globalism, imperialism, NGOs and the role of media distortion right there.
Still don't know enough about the Middle East to figure out why Assad is such a target for the West.  But I expect I'll get there eventually.  Don't read enough of the Middle East news at the moment.




August 15, 2014

US, UK & NORWAY - FOREIGN AID PROPPING UP SOUTH SUDAN


End the aid: The U.S. must not subsidize war in South Sudan
August 14th, 2014 at 6:05 am




By the Editorial Board
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


The announcement Tuesday of $180 million in food aid to South Sudan, accompanied by a strong statement of impatience from Secretary of State John Kerry, should be the final warning to warring elements there to make peace.

South Sudan has already received $456 million in aid from the United States this year. Now an estimated 3.9 million of the country’s people are said to be facing famine unless more help is furnished immediately. It is in response to that appeal that the United States has responded on humanitarian grounds.

The fundamental problem, however, is that South Sudan’s principal leaders, President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar, refuse to settle their differences and create a transitional national unity government. They have promised one to all negotiators, including the African Union and the United Nations. The peacemaking effort is being led by the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, spearheaded by a troika including Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, all major aid donors to South Sudan.

The quarrel between the leaders of two of the country’s major tribal groups, the Dinka and the Nuer, preceded the independence from Sudan that was brokered by the United States and other parties in 2011.

Talks have been underway in Ethiopia for six months and the two leaders were given six months to move forward. Instead, the talks have gone nowhere, their militias have continued to fight and millions of South Sudanese have been displaced, disrupting food production and creating the famine threat.

The bottom line is that the United States and other donors are feeding the South Sudanese people while their leaders spend the country’s revenues, some of it from oil, fighting each other. It is hard to turn away from suffering, but America has done enough. The IGAD troika should tell the South Sudanese to settle or all aid will be cut off.


http://www.borglobe.com/25.html?m7:post=end-the-aid-the-u-s-must-not-subsidize-war-in-south-sudan



What's the bet there's oil or some energy source in South Sudan.


Republic of South Sudan became the world’s newest nation and Africa’s 55th country on July 9, 2011, following a peaceful Referendum ...
South Sudan is sparsely populated with more than 200 ethnic groups and little sense of shared nationhood.
As a new nation without a history of formal institutions, rules or administration accepted as legitimate by its society, South Sudan must build its institutions from scratch.

South Sudan has vast and largely untapped natural resources and opportunities abound ...

South Sudan is the most oil dependent country in the world, with oil exports accounting for almost the totality of exports, and for around 80% of gross domestic product ...

On current reserve estimates, production is expected to reduce steadily in future years and to become negligible by 2035. Prior to the oil shutdown in January, 98% of fiscal revenue came from oil.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/southsudan/overview

US Exxon's pulled out from South Sudan exploration (here).

What's interesting is that Erik Prince, the Blackwater mercenaries dude, was going to build an oil refinery in the region - but he's put those plans on hold.