----------
Sent from my Nokia phone

------Original message------
From: John Ashworth <[email protected]>
To: "Group" <[email protected]>
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2012 8:33:02 AM GMT+0300
Subject: [sudan-john-ashworth] Andrew Natsios: USA should send anti-aircraft 
weapons

To stop the war on South Sudan, the U.S. should send weapons

By Andrew S. Natsios, Published: May 11 2012
Washington Post

North and South Sudan are at war. The reasons for the conflict are
complex, but the solution is not: To stop the killing, the
international community must arm South Sudan. Unlike interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States need not fire any shots. Just
as we have provided weapons to support Israel but never put our own
troops at risk, we can help bring peace to this region. We need only
make sure that, for the North, attacking the South is a little bit
harder than shooting fish in a barrel.

South Sudan is less than a year old. Its war with the North is the
result of an imbalance of military power that has encouraged military
adventurism. Omar al-Bashir, president of the North and a possible
coup target, believes he can secure his future by bombing the South
into submission instead of negotiating. For this reason, he has
undertaken extensive bombing in South Sudanese civilian areas since
January, killing hundreds — an act of war.

Although the South has a large, well-motivated ground army, it has no
air force or antiaircraft weapons to defend its people. Southern
leaders believe Bashir and his generals plan to invade, occupy oil
fields and install a puppet government that will give them control
over oil revenue lost when the South became independent.

The only way to end the North’s bullying and foster peace talks is to
give the South the right tools: American antiaircraft weapons. If the
United States provides the materiel, the South can end the North’s
bombing campaign. Most Northern air force pilots are mercenaries — if
they start taking heavy losses, they will leave Sudan quickly.

The decision to arm the South shouldn’t be controversial. The United
States has provided more than $30 million per year in military
technical assistance with bipartisan support from Congress to the
Southern Sudanese army since 2006. I know because, as U.S. envoy to
Sudan under President George W. Bush, I helped put the program in
place. Because the Republic of South Sudan is a sovereign state, the
United States can provide military assistance without the approval of
the U.N. Security Council or the African Union.

Given the remarkably broad coalition of U.S. grass-roots organizations
on the left and the right behind South Sudan, providing antiaircraft
weapons could have broad support. Franklin Graham, son of Christian
evangelist Billy Graham and head of relief organizationSamaritan's
Purse, called for the bombing of the North; a wide variety of
humanitarian groups asked the U.N. security council for “escalated
action” last month. If the United States does not act, the war could
turn into a bloodbath as more southern cities are bombed — providing
further fodder for critics of President Obama’s foreign policy in the
heat of his reelection campaign.

But the risks of not acting are greater than those of further
intervention. China provides advanced weapons to North Sudan,
endangering any future relationship with the South, which has warned
Beijing about playing both sides. China might protest if the United
States armed the South, but not too loudly — U.S. involvement would
end the conflict, which threatens Chinese investments in the North. To
ensure tacit Chinese (and Arab) support, the South would have to agree
only not to invade the North again.

For South Sudan, this would be a great deal. Although many hoped that
Southern independence would bring peace to the region, it has not. In
fact, the dispute over control of Southern Sudanese oil fields is one
of the principal causes of the current war. The North has demanded $36
a barrel to transport the oil to Port Sudan, while the going
international rate is less than $1. Because the South refused to pay
the $36 fee, Bashir’s government began commandeering oil tankers as
they left Port Sudan last year and selling the oil themselves,
constructing a new pipeline to divert the oil from the southern line.

All revenue to the Southern government stopped in November. This past
February, the South began shutting down all oil pumping. The North
walked out of negotiations with the South in February and refused to
return.

Diplomatic pressure will not move Bashir and his generals, who do not
take promises of improved relations with the West seriously. The
United States has promised three times — in 2003, 2006 and 2010 — to
normalize relations with Sudan if the North would let the South leave
voluntarily. It did, and we did not respond quickly enough. Now we
have no credibility. Meanwhile, Bashir ridicules Security Council
resolutions. “We will implement what we want,” he said Thursday. “What
we do not want, no one can impose upon us.”

In the past three years, the Obama administration has engaged Sudan by
getting Bashir to agree to a free and fair referendum on Southern
separation and, last July, allow the South to peacefully become
independent. Now that war has come, talking will not end it. Only
redressing the imbalance of military might will convince Bashir and
his generals that fighting won’t solve the two countries’ profound
political crisis. The Obama administration must arm the South Sudanese
with antiaircraft weapons to create a stalemate and get the North back
to the negotiating table.

Andrew S. Natsios, George W. Bush’s former envoy to Sudan, is a
professor at Georgetown University and the author of “Sudan, South
Sudan, and Darfur: What Everyone Needs to Know.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/to-stop-the-war-on-south-sudan-the-us-should-send-weapons/2012/05/11/gIQAywIkIU_story.html

END
______________________
John Ashworth

Sudan, South Sudan Advisor

[email protected]

+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile)
+211 919 695 362 (South Sudan mobile)
+27 82 050 1235 (South Africa mobile)
+44 750 304 1790 (UK/international)
+88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone)

PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya

This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily
reflect the views of any organisation

-- 
The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's views. 
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author of the 
content and the source is always cited.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sudan-john-ashworth" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.co.za/group/sudan-john-ashworth

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob?hl=en.

Reply via email to