Sudan, US Engage in Serious Discussion for Normalizing Relations

Addis Ababa - In what may represent a turning point in Sudanese US relations; a meeting was held yesterday in Addis Ababa bringing together Sudanese and US officials.

The meeting was asked for by the US Secretary of State Senator John Kerry who met with the Sudanese Foreign Minister Ali Karti.

In a press release after the meeting; Karti described the meeting and its content as a step taken for the first time. He continued: "Senator Kerry; contrary to what US officials used to do; did not present any accusations against Sudan. His tone showed good intentions. Senator Kerry said he had visited Sudan multiple times and witnessed the most significant moment in Sudanese history (the secession of South Sudan)."



Karti said the US promised to exercise pressure over the Sudanese rebels to cease their hostile actions and pressure the South Sudanese government to cease supporting the rebel movements.

The two parties; the Sudanese and US officials, stressed the importance of continuing serious and constructive dialogue to fully normalize relations between the two countries.

The Sudanese Foreign Minister expressed great enthusiasm; saying the meeting was the first in which the US shows a serious interest in dialogue leading to normalization of relations between the two sides.

John Kerry expressed his country's interest in continuing efforts to enhance bilateral relations between his country and Sudan.

Karti added: "Khartoum hopes that real negotiations will start in the coming days to overcome differences between the two countries."

Meanwhile, The African Union on Saturday marked 50 years since the founding of the continent wide organization that helped liberate Africa from colonial masters and which now is trying to stay relevant on a continent regularly troubled by conflicts.

Opening a summit of the African Union in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said the organization's original pan-Africanist aspirations remain relevant for a continent where many states are still struggling to overcome rampant poverty and violence.

"This historic day marks not only a great leap forward in the Pan-Africanist quest for freedom, independence and unity but also the beginning of our collective endeavor for the realizations of Africa's socio-economic emancipation," he said. "The major responsibility of the current and future generations of African is to create a continent free from poverty and conflict and an Africa whose citizens would enjoy middle-income status."

AU chairperson Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said the pan-Africanism championed by the organization "united and inspired our people across the continent and globe never to accept oppression."

The festivities in Addis Ababa, where the organization was born 50 years ago, were attended by dozens of African leaders and foreign dignitaries including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Bashir is a backwards terrorist war criminal and the oil-sharing agreement is untenable. Until both problems are addressed, there cannot be real progress in relations between the Sudans.

The best policy on Sudan would be to step away from it's internal politics and to look for mutually beneficial trading opportunities with the country.

If both sides feel outside arbitration helps and welcome it than the US can work on that. John Kerry has worked out that nations do not welcome outsiders shoving criticism in their face (which is in some cases quite hypocritical) just as much as the US Government doesn't like foreigners telling them their countries problems.

This may show a positive role re-think for the US, stepping away from the exceptionalist and world policeman mentality which has been costly and damaging.

Joechilli said:

The best policy on Sudan would be to step away from it's internal politics and to look for mutually beneficial trading opportunities with the country.

If both sides feel outside arbitration helps and welcome it than the US can work on that. John Kerry has worked out that nations do not welcome outsiders shoving criticism in their face (which is in some cases quite hypocritical) just as much as the US Government doesn't like foreigners telling them their countries problems.

This may show a positive role re-think for the US, stepping away from the exceptionalist and world policeman mentality which has been costly and damaging.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the situation. It sounds like you've applied a cookie-cutter non-interventionist Ad-Lib.

1. Bashir's rule is perpetuated by outside (terrorist) support and terrorist policy domestically.
2. The oil-sharing agreement was arbitrated by outside forces, along with the division of the country. This represents virtually all trade opportunity.
3. The agreement does not work for North Sudan, they got screwed.

So, now we have a democratic South Sudan with ownership and control of the oil fields (geography as it is) and an agreement that North Sudan provides the labor for extraction and processing. This is a problem for North Sudan because it means eternal dependency on South Sudan. This is a problem for South Sudan because Bashir is not gonna provide equal opportunity employment and will, instead, send terrorists.

I figure the first step is to get rid of Bashir. Then we institute the agreement with massive employment to North Sudanese and ease of border crossing. Then we work on a solution to North Sudan not actually owning the rights to or having security over the oils fields on which it depends.

Or... we could let South Sudan have all the oil and forget the agreement with the North, they spend the money on military and wipe out the Islamist North.

What do you think? Should we completely remove ourselves and allow the South to genocide the North? Probably not. So, I guess we're in. Funny how the world works like that.

ecofarm said:

I'm not sure you understand the situation. It sounds like you've applied a cookie-cutter non-interventionist Ad-Lib.

1. Bashir's rule is perpetuated by outside (terrorist) support and terrorist policy domestically.
2. The oil-sharing agreement was arbitrated by outside forces, along with the division of the country. This represents virtually all trade opportunity.
3. The agreement does not work for North Sudan, they got screwed.

So, now we have a democratic South Sudan with ownership and control of the oil fields (geography as it is) and an agreement that North Sudan provides the labor for extraction and processing. This is a problem for North Sudan because it means eternal dependency on South Sudan. This is a problem for South Sudan because Bashir is not gonna provide equal opportunity employment and will, instead, send terrorists.

I figure the first step is to get rid of Bashir. Then we institute the agreement with massive employment to North Sudanese and ease of border crossing. Then we work on a solution to North Sudan not actually owning the rights to or having security over the oils fields on which it depends.

Or... we could let South Sudan have all the oil and forget the agreement with the North, they spend the money on military and wipe out the Islamist North.

What do you think? Should we completely remove ourselves and allow the South to genocide the North? Probably not. So, I guess we're in. Funny how the world works like that.

Click to expand...

Good plan.

But I should probably mention that this Sudan DP user nearly never responds. He just posts things like this, incites response from us, but then shuts up. I have started to think that it may be a robot.