Monday, January 10, 2011

Macroeconomics & the Split Borders of Sudan


Briefly review the history of the Dinka genocide in Darfur, Sudan and their last few years of struggles with the Janjaweed and the Khartoum Government.

Write a proper response to how the referendum will affect the world macro-economically. Offer an opinion about how it will affect the world humanistically. Be thorough and use quotes that back up your words and opinions.

13 comments:

  1. As of right now, Southern Sudan is not equipped to be an independent country. Southern Sudan has been ignored by the central government in Sudan and "the country-to-be which is larger than Spain and Portugal combined has hardly any roads and not nearly enough schools or health services for its population of roughly eight million." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) They also wasted a lot of their money on the military from the oil fields and they haven't done enough to better living standards. Macro-economically, this country is going to need help to get it going in the right direction. They're going to have to adopt a type of economy for their country, and other countries who have a reliable economy might have to pitch in and help out Souther Sudan. There could also be a huge issue in regards to the oil sector and how that is going to be split. This could affect how oil gets sent out to other countries who get their oil from Sudan. If Sudan is not a reliable source for oil, other countries might consider getting oil from another source. There is a large percentage of households with 'poor' food consumption which means Southern Sudan may become dependent on other countries to help the poor. Humanistically, "They have lots of money from the south's oil fields but their critics say they have so far wasted much of it on the military and not done enough to raise living standards in one of the world's poorest regions." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) Instead of focusing on the people of their country, Southern Sudan has been more focused on making their army stronger, therefore most of their money has gone to the military. Many people in Southern Sudan are not well educated and again, the decision to have uneducated people vote, some have never even voted before, could affect the overall decision to split Sudan in half.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good Points Rebecca, but humanistically speaking, are you not pro-freedom? They are finally getting out from under a brutal dictator, who needed global pressures in order to even entertain ideas of not ethnically cleansing his people into oblivion. It will be tough of course, as they are starting from scratch, but like Rwanda in the 90's, nothing is to hard to overcome. I am hopeful that these bright survivors can create a new place to be and live in racially harmony. many countries have been faced with a similar dilemma, and survived --and prospered.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although Southern Sudan is not particularly ready for independence, "...southerners seem certain to choose independence in Sunday's referendum - and when they go they will take most of Sudan's oil with them." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12128080). Macroeconomically, this can affect both the north and the south of Sudan. Although the South contains most of the oil deposits in Sudan, the North is the main land that efficiently exports the oil, "Since a 2005 peace deal, the south and the north split southern oil revenues equally - and almost three-quarters of the daily 500,000 barrels output comes from the south." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12128080). This means that the North will be affected economically if the south is successful in independece, as most of the oil comes from the south. Economically at the moment, leaders of the North are not worrying as there are "many alternatives in agriculture and minerals." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12128080). But the south can be at a disadvantage here as they are dependent on the exportation of oil by 98%. If the oil were to stop pumping, the South would immediately collapse. Not only this, but the oil pipeline runs through the south to the North Port Sudan- this may be an opporutunity to remain working together to export oil. Although many negotiations are being heard of, the south will end up paying a fee to use the North pipeline. This can affect the South economically as it seems they may levy the prices to how much they please. If there is a ruling that the south will sucede from the North, the South Sudanese will have to find a successful resource to help support their government- not simply on the reliance of oil.

    ReplyDelete
  4. With the split of Sudan into two countries, the south will play a larger roll in the macro-economy. With the split, the south will gain access to rich oil fields which they could sell to help raise money for the government. By selling oil and raising money they will be able to help their people and raise the standard of living. Even though they have access to oil fields it will take time for them to head in the right direction. "has hardly any roads and not nearly enough schools or health services for its population of roughly eight million." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) This will take time for them to build up the country. The north on the other hand will have a reduced presence in the macro-economy. With the proposed split the north will lose access to valuable oil fields. If the split goes through the people and refugees of the south will have a better standard of living and not be hunted down. In the north they were discriminated against. Both the north and south have been fighting and with this proposed split they will be able to experience a better freedom. "With the government based in the north, many southerners said they were discriminated against and north and south have fought each other for most of the country's history." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) The split may not be helpful to the south though. Many southerners are uneducated and illiterate. By having these people vote they may not know what they are even voting on and because of this they may not split. Critics have said that the south has not taken enough care of their own people by spending it on the military instead of bettering their own people by building things they need such as schools, hospitals, and roads. "They have lots of money from the south's oil fields but their critics say they have so far wasted much of it on the military and not done enough to raise living standards in one of the world's poorest regions." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) With this wasted money the people are no better off than they are without the split. If they are able to get their government together and hold it together they would be able to raise their standard of living.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To see that the Southern Sudanese are choosing to separate from the long tyranny of a terrible dictator is truly heartwarming to those rooting for them and any other underdogs in these type of situations. However, by leaving the north it seems that the South will be taking about half of the oil reserves with them, which at the same time is taking a substantial chunk away from the North's economy. Now in the past few years, they have had a pact that negotiated peace or what goes for peace. "Since a 2005 peace deal, the south and the north split southern oil revenues equally - and almost three-quarters of the daily 500,000 barrels output comes from the south". Now what this has to the world's macro-economics comes into play when discussing how exactly the split between the North and South goes. Although both sides are very optimistic about the split, the fact remains that separating the oil will have a huge impact on their relations and whether the separation will actually go peacefully. For the north, who claim to have "many alternatives in agriculture and minerals", they are privately worrying about losing such a big portion of their economy. As for the south, oil plays an even bigger role," which provides 98% of its revenue". In short, if it doesn't go peacefully, the price of oil will rise around the world as a portion of it will be unavailable while the North and South Sudanese fight it out.
    Although I fully support the South seceding from the North, I cannot see a reason for them to do it under current conditions. If they were to secede, the loss of some oil reserves would prove damaging to the economy and in turn to their government. For example, the South would be unable to for its soldiers, allowing its army to ultimately crumble. The South has done a tremendous job working through the brutal dictatorship of the North, without a stable and efficient plan to handle itself after the separation, I simply cannot support the decision right now. It would just be like eating a chocolate covered beetle: at first it's delicious, but then you realized what you really got into.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The country of Sudan has been under constant debate as to whether or not to divide Sudan. The factors that tie into the division include religion, economics, and production. Sudan is a country who is rich in oil lands and the government wants to produce the oil and sell it for money. The problem with producing the oil is that the refugees from that piece of oil rich land have been pushed out of their home. With the migration of people, there's a disruption within Sudan and the bordering countries. When the refugees were pushed out of their home, they sought refuge in surrounding countries that just could support them and had to send them back, but they couldn't go back to their home.
    The reasons discussed to divide up Sudan state that religiously and agriculturally the land is different, "Southern Sudan is full of jungles and swamps, while the north is mostly desert. Most northerners are Arabic-speaking Muslims, while the south is made up of numerous different ethnic groups who are mostly Christian or follow traditional religions." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730
    The people allowed to vote are the south and their hopes are for independence, but the issue is the border. The border would cut right through the oil lands; the north would be able to use their port to trade, but the south would have to create a system of transport, which would cost way too much money. With an inefficient system of production, the world would be affected in which macroeconomics takes place. If one area struggles and there is a tie to that area, they both suffer. Macroeconomics deals with the economy as a whole and decision making by large units such as governments. If there is an inconsistent distribution of oil, then there will be a shortage causing prices to rise. Humanistically, I think that this division will create more problems, money, and fighting. The south as it is now is no where near ready to be independent because it would need many repairs, a form of government, health care, schools, and jobs. There is some that believe in their success because they have, "drawn up ambitious plans to develop their cities and have decided the winner of a competition to compose a new national anthem. The south's own flag is already on display across the region." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730
    I think that they have great drive to become independent from a government that has neglected their half of Sudan. I think that with great motivation and assistance from governments, to sponsor Southern Sudan, they can live a life that is free.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At this very moment I do not think Southern Sudan is absolutely ready to become independent. Southern Sudan casted off by the central government and it had "hardly any roads and not nearly enough schools or health services for its population of roughly eight million."(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) They need to be put in the right direction, they have spent way to much money from the oil fields on their military instead they should be spending it to make living standards better. Southern Sudan will have to get help from some other countries and maybe even take on another type of economy. However, a major issue is the splitting up the oil sectors. If other countries start not trusting Sudan as a source for oil then countries just might find another source to get their oil. I completely agree with Rebecca Sudan does "have lots of money from the south's oil fields"(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) and instead of making their people they are focusing on making their army stronger. They have certainly "not done enough to raise living standards in one of the world's poorest regions."(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) So their votes could be less educated about the whole situation because they are not getting the opportunity to get the education the government should be providing. So this could affect the overall outcome of if Sudan splits in half.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sudan is not prepared to become two independent countries but if you look at this issue macro-economically it could be beneficial and harmful. First off there would be less conflict since the countries would be separated which means other countries wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars to come into the country and end another civil war. But then their is the issue of how the oil would be split up amongst the two countries. Most of the oil is currently in the south and though they are making a decent amount of money they have "so far wasted much of it on the military and not done enough to raise living standards in one of the world's poorest regions." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730
    If conflict breaks out when the countries are splitting over the oil it could cause the everyone around the world to have to pay much more for gas.
    Humanistically speaking I think it is best that the country split into two because "An estimated two million people died in a two decade long north-south civil war..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12128080
    Doing so would allow the people to focus on bettering the conditions of the country by building hospitals, schools, roads and create a stable economy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In my opinion Southern Sudan is in an economic decline. Southern Sudan has been unnoticed by Central Sudan for any help to its economic crisis. Their money has been spent on the oil fields to keep under protection of the Sudan military. Southern Sudan has spent mostly all of its money protecting the oil fields and not enough on the country for the health care or development of the economy in Southern Sudan. The macroeconomics of this country is economically is in a decline and needs special attention to get back on track to get back where is needs to be in an economic growth. The split of Southern Sudan was a terrible mistake beause it is showing how the country is not getting along and would be a horrible mistake. "After years of warfare and being ignored by central government, the country-to-be which is larger than Spain and Portugal combined has hardly any roads and not nearly enough schools or health services for its population of roughly eight million.
    The SPLM former rebels who have been running the region since 2005 have at least gained some experience of governance."
    (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730)
    To have a country who is not trained with educational needs and the governments wants its population to vote for their rights/needs of the country would be a horrible decision and would affect the whole society.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Dinka genocide in southern Sudan is the worst genocide since Hitler. This genocide has cause about 1.9 million deaths. It is mainly targeting Dinka, Nuer, Skilluk, and Nuba. Due to all of this is it affecting our economy which means its affecting us macro-economically. This means Sudan needs to get up off the ground and get themselves on the right track to reform their country so everyone is happy economically. The only way they can change is by either looking at other successful countries systems and adopt their system or they are going to ask for a rich country for some help such as the United States. One big reason why they don't have the best economy is because they use the money they make off their rich oil fields to make a bigger and better military when they can take that money and make a positive move to reform and support the people in their country. As of right now I believe that Northern and Southern Sudan will be able to split and have their independence. BBC News states that, "The north may also earn revenue from piping the oil over its territory to Port Sudan on the Red Sea." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730) Even though the southern part is wasting their money on building their military I believe they will eventually realize that they need to begin a reform in building a more stable economy once they split into their own country. With the north also being on their own they still have some oil that they can pump and sell to help their economy, but this could and will affect our economy if they both or one of them do not succeed. Maybe we will benefit from one becoming a success so we can do more business with them and the other may become nearly invisible to us and will not affect us as much. So after looking into this I believe that northern and southern Sudan will be able to move on and become separate countries that could possibly help the worlds economy in some way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I feel that the proposed oil lines are going to cause more problems then good, since they run north the north will have all of the maitenece to deal with for oil that isnt thiers. The pipeline through kenya though expensive is a wonderful idea because then the south can protect its own pipeline. The Fighting between these two regions has been going on for so long that the pipeline going north is rediculous, people will consantly attack those pipes because they are near by. I believe that running those pipe north will cause more problems then good, it'l intice fighting in the north against the south.
    On the Macro economic level, South Africa will be relieing soely on oil for the next 20 or 30 years, if they don't find alternative types of revenue they will surely fall again into a worsestate then they are now. How they deall with the influx of oil will be a surprise. Will they horde it and sell if expensivly or will they undercut everyone make alot of money and depleate thier oil resources rediculously fast. Either or, the way they sell or horde thier oil will directly affect American gas prices either positively or negatively.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sudan wants to split into two separate countries. Southern Sudan is mostly made up of jungles and mixed religions. Northern Sudan is primarily desert and Muslims. The government is located in the north and tends to ignore the southern region. As a result, the south is impoverished. They want to be a separate country. However, after years of developing as an impoverished area, the southern region could not handle being an independent country. A lot of steps need to be taken before that can happen. The budget needs to be reworked; more should be spent on public services such as health care, and less on oil and war. The south won't bring themselves out of poverty, they need help.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12111730

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems that Sudan has been fighting North and South for years and they want to run a oil pipeline for the South but running it will cause a lot of problems because the pipelines run North and the North will have an easy opportunity to attack the oil pipelines as they please. There is tension between the North and the South and i believe this will cause even more tension then there already is. It is because of these sort of actions that i believe the South and North will never make peace. I do believe running the pipeline through Kenya is a good idea because it will be further away from the North and hopefully this will discourage the North from attacking the pipeline.

    ReplyDelete