A suspected Sudanese air strike on a refugee camp in South Sudan will not trigger a return to war but belligerent posturing on both sides will complicate and slow talks over oil transit fees and other sensitive disputes....
Perhaps the biggest factor preventing a slide into full-scale war is a shared interest in the continued flow of oil, which comes mostly from the South but reaches clients through a pipeline to the Red Sea terminal in Port Sudan.
"Their mutual reliance on oil was the single greatest disincentive to a new war in Sudan," said Zach Vertin, an analyst at the International Crisis Group, referring to the interim period between the peace agreement and secession.
Yeah, who'd be silly enough to fight over oil resources when both sides can benefit from producing and exporting oil?
They've been fighting over arid dirt for decades, people. The idea that nobody would fight now because they can make money off of the oil is pure wishful thinking. Or do you still believe that the Great War was the war to end all wars?
And it isn't even fully mirror-imaging, really, except that the analysts saying it makes no sense to fight are mirror imaging what they think right now. Even analysts in comfortable offices could probably come up with a PowerPoint presentation about why some really stupid objective is worth sacrificing a lot to get. And speaking of fighting over dirt, how did this make sense? Much is possible when they have your dirt.
Face it, the only thing you can see for sure about a war between Sudan and South Sudan is that the opportunities lost will be much greater than if there was no oil. Oh, and the bloodshed will be greater because the oil will allow them to upgrade from assault rifles and knives to more lethal hardware. Oh, and one more thing: the allure of taking the other side's oil and making it all worthwhile will keep at least one side at it once war starts.
Don't underestimate the stupid things that people can do contrary to their interests. Or do I have to bore you with the type of women I'm attracted to in order to prove my point?
I thought not.
