Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
AI Subscribe Login/Register account icon
S&P 500
6,368.85
(
-1.67%
)
US TECH 100
22,405.20
(
-2.38%
)
Dow Jones
45,166.64
(
-1.73%
)
Brent Oil
106.89
(
0.00%
)
Bitcoin
66,613.69
(
0.44%
)
News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 9338
Next 10
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (2) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

Amaunet

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 16
Posts 7805
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/09/2001

Amaunet

Member Level

Re: Amaunet post# 6299

Thursday, 03/02/2006 10:50:35 AM

Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:50:35 AM

Post# of 9338
Evangelized foreign policy?

This is convenient for Bush in the Sudan. Through Jesus Bush has a chance to stop China from getting oil and help his Christian evangelical voting minions. Nothing like two birds with one stone. If Washington cared about the suffering in Darfur they would have done something a long time ago.

The recent deaths of 30,000 Sudanese are but a subchapter in a conflict that has been raging for more than two decades, and which according to modest estimates has taken the lives of more than 1.2 million people.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1091072352915

I say chance because so far Bush's call for a considerably larger foreign peacekeeping presence in Darfur - under the United Nations and with beefed-up involvement by NATO - has not been answered by the international community.

Sudan has become particularly important to China, making up more than half of the world’s second largest oil consumer’s foreign oil reserves. CNPC holds a 40 per cent stake in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, the biggest player in Sudan’s oilfields.http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=14322

Through the Sudan Bush plans to infiltrate Egypt.
#msg-3680101

And

American Special Forces are fighting in Sudan and the Chinese are alleged to also be fighting in Sudan but they are not fighting each other, yet.
#msg-3678761
#msg-3701895

Two texts.

-Am

Evangelized foreign policy?

from the March 02, 2006 edition -


By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - When President Bush recently used a public forum to announce his support for a more robust international intervention in Sudan's Darfur region - catching even some of his senior aides off guard - it was yet another milestone for the rising interest of Christian evangelicals in US foreign policy.

In just a few years, conservative Christian churches and organizations have broadened their political activism from a near-exclusive domestic focus to an emphasis on foreign issues.

As Mr. Bush gave his attention to Darfur, one of the world's most high-profile humanitarian crises, he was almost certainly cheered not just by a coterie of evangelical advisers, but also the sizable Christian right constituency. But his focus on a forlorn region of Africa suggests deeper shifts in the forces influencing US foreign policy.

Even as many in Washington trumpet the return of realism to US foreign policy and the decline of the neoconservative hawks, the staying power of the evangelicals is likely to blunt what might otherwise have been a steep decline in Wilsonian ideals.

Indeed, the aftermath of Iraq has some historians predicting a bout of American isolationism similar to what occurred after Vietnam. But other analysts say that with so many conservative Christians now convinced of activism in foreign affairs, old patterns of periodic introspection have been broken.

"Without a determined constituency pressuring for engagement in international affairs, it would be likely that - given the difficulties in Iraq - you would have had the administration hunkering down a bit, and the American people with them," says Allen Hertzke, an expert and noted author on religion in US foreign policy at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. "But instead, you have these substantial forces pushing on human rights causes and demanding intervention."

Some note that because the evangelicals' foreign-policy interests are motivated by religious convictions and not a temporary cause, the movement has deeper roots. "These people are not flavor-of-the-month types," says Mark Palmer, a former diplomat focused on democratization and now vice chairman of Freedom House in Washington. "The fact they are so involved now will be a factor in us not becoming isolationist."

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center, which periodically gauges public views on America's place in the world, finds an upswing in the percentage of Americans who agree that the "US should mind its own business internationally." But the trend would be even stronger without the evangelical conversion to global involvement, some experts believe.

Ambassador Palmer says some White House political strategists contend that the Christian right makes up at least one-third of the electorate. "Whether that's true or not, the number is large," he says.

Behind the most recent evidence of evangelical influence in US foreign policy - the renewed calls for stronger intervention in Darfur - stands Michael Gerson, who is a Bush policy adviser and speechwriter (and who helped coin the "axis of evil" phrase). The former journalist, who is also a member of an evangelical Episcopal church in suburban Virginia, is seen as one of the driving forces behind Bush's emphasis on a global spread of what the president sees as God-given rights.

So far Bush's call for a considerably larger foreign peacekeeping presence in Darfur - under the United Nations and with beefed-up involvement by NATO - has not been answered by the international community. The effort endured a setback this week when the month-long American presidency of the UN Security Council expired Tuesday without Council action.

The government of Sudan is lobbying against a UN force on its soil, arguing it would constitute a recolonization of the country, according to UN officials.

But Darfur is hardly the first foreign rallying cause for evangelical Christians. In fact, their awakening to foreign-policy issues began well before the Bush White House, analysts note.

"One place it started was during the efforts to open up the former Soviet Union" in the 1980s, says John O'Sullivan, a foreign-policy analyst and editor at large of National Review. "They looked at the success of the Jewish community in helping the Soviet Jews and said, 'We have done nothing to help our co-religionists in Africa and Korea and other parts.' "

From there came a string of diplomatic initiatives bearing the stamp of evangelical influence - and largely engineered through the halls of Congress, notes Mr. Hertzke. Congress passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, which makes freedom of religion and conscience a "core objective" of US foreign policy. It also established an office and an annual international religious-freedom report that grades countries on rights.

Subsequent initiatives include legislation in 2000 that targets human trafficking and sex trafficking; the Sudan Peace Act of 2002, which among other things established a certification process for periodic review of Sudan's peace efforts; and the North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004. The influence of evangelical Christians is also seen in the Bush administration's focus on AIDS in Africa, as well as in attacks on international family-planning activities, experts say.

But it was the North Korea initiative that first prompted foreign-policy analysts to take notice. Michael Horowitz, a prominent protagonist of the involvement of conservative faith-based organizations in foreign policy, called the North Korea act a "miracle" wrought by evangelicals. But some experts pointed to the large number of Korean-American Christians and their activist pastors as a larger factor in the act's passage.

The faith-based community's influence appeared to deepen when Bush last year named Jay Lefkowitz, a former White House aide and Horowitz associate, to the post of "special envoy for North Korea human rights," as called for in the act. That appointment prompted worried blog entries on the "Christian conservative agenda" for US foreign policy.

Still, some experts express skepticism about the evangelicals' impact, arguing that their key triumphs - such as the Sudan and North Korea legislation - have done little to change the course of what are drawn-out conflicts.

Others say a swing back to domestic issues in recent months may be pulling the Christian right away from foreign-policy concerns. "The culture wars of the last year, the uproar over gay marriage and so forth, have diverted some attention from the international focus," says Hertzke.

The staying power of evangelical influence will also depend on the ability to expand their influence by creating coalitions, according to others. "They won't have continued success unless they make the right alliances," says Mr. O'Sullivan of National Review.

Yet with his new book, "Freeing God's Children: The Unlikely Alliance for Global Human Rights," Hertzke argues that such a broadening is already taking place. It's happening, he says, through links between the Jewish community and Christian organizations, as well as on college campuses and in traditional religious and secular human rights organizations - which have long been interested in such foreign causes.

Hertzke adds that the impact of the "unlikely" movement, still being gauged in terms of Darfur, has already "altered the trajectory of history" in southern Sudan, where the government and rebel groups signed a peace accord in January 2005.

"A 20-year civil war actually ended in large part due to the activism of evangelicals and their alliance with others, including Jewish groups," he says. "It's an unheralded story, but it's also a historical fact."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0302/p01s01-usfp.html



Sudan: China, India fill void left by rights campaigners
Thursday 2 March 2006 05:30.


By Carola Hoyos

Feb 28, 2006 (LONDON) — Sudan perhaps better than any other African country encapsulates the geopolitical tensions of today’s race to supply the world with enough oil.

The US State Department has labelled Sudan a state sponsor of terrorism and states such as New Jersey, Illinois and Oregon have barred public pension funds from investing in companies active in the country. This has broadened across international borders in the wake of 1997 legislation that bars US companies from doing business in Sudan.

These measures have built on the grass roots campaigns that have been critical in affecting change Sudan in the past five years. Many investors boycotted PetroChina’s initial public offering in 2000 in response to the activities in Sudan of the China National Petroleum Corporation, its parent.

Other international oil companies have also felt intense investor pressure. Canada’s Talisman left Sudan in 2002, concluding that it was no longer worth suffering the company’s depressed share price. OMV of Austria followed a year later.

But none of this has stopped oil from flowing from the war-ravaged country. Sudan produces 500,000 b/d, having doubled its volumes in just two years. Its main western investors may have sold their holdings or at least suspended operations until politics improves, but Indian and Chinese companies, spurred on by their own oil-hungry governments, have shrugged off criticism and filled the vacuum.

Sudan has become particularly important to China, making up more than half of the world’s second largest oil consumer’s foreign oil reserves. CNPC holds a 40 per cent stake in the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company, the biggest player in Sudan’s oilfields.

Meanwhile, India’s Oil and Natural Gas Corporation bought several of the blocks sold by western companies due to political and investor pressure. Petronas of Malaysia and Gulf Petroleum Corporation of Qatar are also involved. Western companies hungry for new places to seek and produce oil are not far behind.

Many of them have remained dormant in Sudan, holding on to their licences, rather than selling them, in the hope that the country’s political situation will improve and the projects go ahead.

In January last year, after Sudan ended its 21-year civil war with the signing of a comprehensive peace agreement, France’s Total, Marathon of the US, and the Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Company renewed their exploration rights in the south of the country.

There is good reason for their tenacity. Sudan holds 6.3bn barrels of proven reserves, more than the UK’s 4.5bn and not far off Azerbaijan’s 7bn barrels, according to the BP’s most recent statistical review. Production has risen steadily, especially since the completion of an export pipeline in 1999.

In 2001, Sudan’s status as an important producer of oil was elevated when it became an official observer at meetings of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the cartel that supplies 40 per cent of the world’s oil.

Sudan expects to be able to produce 650,000 b/d soon this year, according to Angelina Teny, a minister of state for energy and mining. At $60 a barrel, the country’s budget has swelled, as has its military expenditure.

“Far from bringing peace, prosperity and security, in Sudan oil development has brought conflict, displacement and widespread abuse. After Talisman came on to the scene in 1998, fighting and displacement in Western Upper Nile/Unity State drastically increased,” a report by Human Rights Watch, the non-governmental pressure group, said in a report published in September 2003.

Military spending of SD90.2bn for 2001 soaked up more than 60 per cent of the 2001 oil revenue of SD149.7bn. Military expenditure officially rose by 45 per cent between 1999 and 2001, Human Rights Watch found.

But the oil companies’ presence not only helped fuel the war, it also hindered diplomatic progress at the United Nations Security Council.

In August 2004 the Security Council, of which China is a permanent, veto-holding member, threatened punitive measures against Sudan‘s oil industry if things did not improve. Three months later, 3,500 African Union troops were dispatched to Darfur to police the situation.

In February 2005 a UN commission concluded that the violence in Darfur was no less serious than genocide.

But China’s ability to use its veto to block any resolution has meant that the Security Council has not followed through on its threat.

Last month, the US Energy Department outlined the impact in a report to Congress of China’s willingness to make deals with oil-rich countries Washington shuns for political reasons.

It said China’s tolerance of despotic regimes could undermine Washington’s strategic goal to spread democracy and free trade.

“Further, if Chinese companies increase their ownership of assets in these countries, this may increase China’s propensity to intervene in order to protect those investments,” the report said.

But it went on to acknowledge that China’s willingness to pull oil from places others avoid means the world oil market is better supplied, reducing oil prices and benefiting consumers.

Most Sudanese have yet to see the upside of their country’s huge oil wealth.

Today, sub-Saharan Africa’s third-largest oil producer must rely on UN food handouts to help the 2m internally displaced people in Darfur and 900,000 more returning from abroad to rebuild their lives.

The UN says it need to supply 800,000 tonnes of food aid this year to feed 6.7m people living mainly in Darfur and the south.

http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=14322






Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (2) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (2) Next 10 Prev Next

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today