A New Country Created

JONJO THE MISER

Looks like a new country will be created when south Sudan suceeds from north Sudan.
http://www.rte.ie/aertel/114-01.html

God, that writing on Aertel looks like something you'd see on a commodore-64!

TheZohanS

Partition...sure that'll work...

pablomakaveli

I was reading about this in National Geographic a while back. The south are sitting on a lot of oil too but it gets piped up to a refinery in the north.

It'll be intersting to see how it pans out.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

spliters!

JONJO THE MISER

Deleted User wrote: »

God, that writing on Aertel looks like something you'd see on a commodore-64!

If its not broke why fix it:cool:.

bobblepuzzle

FREEEEDOOOOMMM!

Cavehill Red

This is a US-inspired UN stunt, aimed at slapping Sudan down for harbouring people like Bin Laden.
The North will largely be boycotting the vote, and the entire government is against it.
The South will vote it through because they've been promised the sun, moon and stars in terms of investment and development from Western countries like America, which I heavily suspect will not ultimately be forthcoming.
And of course, none of this resolves the elephant in the living room - Darfur.

chicken fingers

Lol wtf aertel!

danniemcq

until the next war

bobblepuzzle

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is a US-inspired UN stunt, aimed at slapping Sudan down for harbouring people like Bin Laden.
The North will largely be boycotting the vote, and the entire government is against it.
The South will vote it through because they've been promised the sun, moon and stars in terms of investment and development from Western countries like America, which I heavily suspect will not ultimately be forthcoming.
And of course, none of this resolves the elephant in the living room - Darfur.

Source?

Dunjohn

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is a US-inspired UN stunt, aimed at slapping Sudan down for harbouring people like Bin Laden.
The North will largely be boycotting the vote, and the entire government is against it.
The South will vote it through because they've been promised the sun, moon and stars in terms of investment and development from Western countries like America, which I heavily suspect will not ultimately be forthcoming.
And of course, none of this resolves the elephant in the living room - Darfur.

"Largely boycotting?" It's a Southern Sudan-only referendum, the North can't vote anyway.

Cavehill Red

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Source?

US senator John Kerry promised Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir that if the north supported a peaceful accomplishment of the referendum, the US would remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, potentially opening up new trade and investment possibilities. And progress on Darfur, meanwhile, could lead to the end of economic sanctions and relief of Sudan’s $35 billion worth of foreign debt. As senator Kerry said, “All sides are really focused on trying to avoid more conflict.”

Reported by Reuters this week.

Cavehill Red

Dunjohn wrote: »

"Largely boycotting?" It's a Southern Sudan-only referendum, the North can't vote anyway.

Southerners in the North can vote, but only 120,000 even bothered registering.

gizmo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

US senator John Kerry promised Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir that if the north supported a peaceful accomplishment of the referendum, the US would remove Sudan from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, potentially opening up new trade and investment possibilities. And progress on Darfur, meanwhile, could lead to the end of economic sanctions and relief of Sudan’s $35 billion worth of foreign debt. As senator Kerry said, “All sides are really focused on trying to avoid more conflict.”

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Southerners in the North can vote, but only 120,000 even bothered registering.

Fancy a shot at connecting those two points?

I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with the previous cases of state-sponsored genocide within the country.

Cavehill Red

I'm not going to debate with you on the rights and wrongs of the secession, Gizmo. If you feel that the enforced separation of a sovereign state at the demand of the US is legitimate, then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It's worth noting that the Carter crowd 'overseeing' the process have even been forced to pay tribute to Al-Bashir and how the referendum process has been conducted this week.

Having just returned from East Africa this week, I can tell you that neighbouring countries are highly nervous about all of this. Furthermore, it will not do anything to resolve the ongoing crisis in Darfur, which ought to have been the main issue.

Khartoum has historically been an opponent of the US, and is now being punished for that by having its oilfields annexed to a puppet regime.

It will remain to be seen to what extent that works out for anyone, the Southern Sudanese, the North, the US or any of the other vested interests.

But my suspicion, and that of many East Africans, echoes that of a previous poster - until the next war.

gizmo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm not going to debate with you on the rights and wrongs of the secession, Gizmo. If you feel that the enforced separation of a sovereign state at the demand of the US is legitimate, then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. It's worth noting that the Carter crowd 'overseeing' the process have even been forced to pay tribute to Al-Bashir and how the referendum process has been conducted this week.

It's not enforced if it's the will of the majority of the people.

You've yet to post proof that the US is "demanding" it.

Carter isn't the only overseer over there. There are representatives from many other nations including China who have significant interests in the nations oil reserves and which is being served quite satisfactorily it seems by the current arrangement. If anything they'd want to maintain the status quo over there.

fontanalis

Doesn't China have a lot of influence in Sudan?

Cavehill Red

gizmo wrote: »

It's not enforced if it's the will of the majority of the people.

Not if you count the Northerners, obviously. It's a gerrymandered vote. It will be the will of the majority of those who vote. That won't include the North, or the vast majority of Southerners in the North.

gizmo wrote: »

You've yet to post proof that the US is "demanding" it.

Well, if you don't accept that the US is demanding it, or that a UN demand for the election amounts to that, or that the US has presented Khartoum with a carrot (off the ****list and debt relief) and stick (ongoing isolation and trade sanctions) in relation to this vote, then again that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

gizmo wrote: »

Carter isn't the only overseer over there. There are representatives from many other nations including China who have significant interests in the nations oil reserves and which is being served quite satisfactorily it seems by the current arrangement. If anything they'd want to maintain the status quo over there.

Indeed, the Chinese are all over East Africa at the moment. The most intriguing element of this will be to watch to see if this backfires spectacularly on the US.

They could well end up creating a seething resentful North AND a Chinese client state in the South.

Ghandee

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Looks like a new country will be created when south Sudan suceeds from north Sudan.
http://www.rte.ie/aertel/114-01.html

JonJo, I think there are 3 extra letters in that word!

Jeboa Safari

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not if you count the Northerners, obviously. It's a gerrymandered vote. It will be the will of the majority of those who vote. That won't include the North, or the vast majority of Southerners in the North.



Well, if you don't accept that the US is demanding it, or that a UN demand for the election amounts to that, or that the US has presented Khartoum with a carrot (off the ****list and debt relief) and stick (ongoing isolation and trade sanctions) in relation to this vote, then again that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.



Indeed, the Chinese are all over East Africa at the moment. The most intriguing element of this will be to watch to see if this backfires spectacularly on the US.

They could well end up creating a seething resentful North AND a Chinese client state in the South.

How is it undemocratic when the people of South Sudan get to vote on it? Thats like saying that if a vote for Irelands independence was not backed by everyone in Great Britain it would be undemocratic, even if it was the will of the Irish people. South Sudan is far more under-developed, less educated and poorer than the north, the North is mainly Muslim too I believe, while the south isn't, hard to blame them for wanting to try and forge their own destiny, rather than inside a country whose borders drawn from the European Imperial Age.

Cavehill Red

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How is it undemocratic when the people of South Sudan get to vote on it? Thats like saying that if a vote for Irelands independence was not backed by everyone in Great Britain it would be undemocratic, even if it was the will of the Irish people.

Comparison fail.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

South Sudan is far more under-developed, less educated and poorer than the north, the North is mainly Muslim too I believe, while the south isn't, hard to blame them for wanting to try and forge their own destiny, rather than inside a country whose borders drawn from the European Imperial Age.

I don't blame the South Sudanese at all. But anyone who thinks that a) this will end well or b) that it's the organic result of a decision-making process within Sudan to split the country (a la Czechoslovakia) needs their head examined.

You raise the spectre of Imperialism, and it is in that context that this referendum should be viewed, I feel. It's being done primarily at American demand, and it will result in a feeding frenzy over the new oil-rich, infrastructure poor country created among the current Imperial powers (and some regional ones).

pablomakaveli

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I don't blame the South Sudanese at all. But anyone who thinks that a) this will end well or b) that it's the organic result of a decision-making process within Sudan to split the country (a la Czechoslovakia) needs their head examined.

You raise the spectre of Imperialism, and it is in that context that this referendum should be viewed, I feel. It's being done primarily at American demand, and it will result in a feeding frenzy over the new oil-rich, infrastructure poor country created among the current Imperial powers (and some regional ones).

The north and south of Sudan should never have been made into a single entity in the first place. The north and the south are culturally and ethnically very different. There was a war that went on for a few decades between the north and south which is more evidence that seperating the two is probably for the best and is what the people of the south want.

Cavehill Red

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The north and south of Sudan should never have been made into a single entity in the first place.

Sudan pre-existed the involvement of the Imperial powers as an entity, and therefore has more integrity as a nation than the vast majority of African states.

To set a precedent of splitting up African nations along tribal lines would be highly dangerous, I'd argue.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The north and the south are culturally and ethnically very different. There was a war that went on for a few decades between the north and south which is more evidence that seperating the two is probably for the best and is what the people of the south want.

It's what the people of the South want currently. It's certainly not what the people of Sudan as a whole want, nor is it particularly welcomed by Sudan's neighbours. And as I keep saying, this does nothing to resolve the REAL problem, which is Darfur.

What it does achieve is the removal of Sudanese oil from Khartoum's control, which was the US aim all along. Once again, as was seen in Iraq previously, humanitarian excuses are being utilised to implement an oil control policy to American benefit.

pablomakaveli

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Sudan pre-existed the involvement of the Imperial powers as an entity, and therefore has more integrity as a nation than the vast majority of African states.

To set a precedent of splitting up African nations along tribal lines would be highly dangerous, I'd argue.

I think a lot of the conflicts in africa over the last few decades suggest otherwise.

It's what the people of the South want currently. It's certainly not what the people of Sudan as a whole want, nor is it particularly welcomed by Sudan's neighbours. And as I keep saying, this does nothing to resolve the REAL problem, which is Darfur.

What it does achieve is the removal of Sudanese oil from Khartoum's control, which was the US aim all along. Once again, as was seen in Iraq previously, humanitarian excuses are being utilised to implement an oil control policy to American benefit.

The Darfur problem is one created by the government in Khartoum and the blame lies with them not the south. The issue with the south will ultimately not have a great bearing on Darfur either way. And given that the war between north and south was a bloody and brutal war it is an issue that should not be taken lightly.

You seem to be more concerned with preventing big bad americans sticking their oar in (which you haven't given any evidence for ) than the resolution of an issue that caused a war that spanned a few decades.

gizmo

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Indeed, the Chinese are all over East Africa at the moment. The most intriguing element of this will be to watch to see if this backfires spectacularly on the US.

They could well end up creating a seething resentful North AND a Chinese client state in the South.

Others have responded to the other parts of this reply but this part is something I find interesting. You're claiming it's a US-led initiative when in actual fact not only is there no real benefit to them, there is in fact the worry that the Chinese will be in control of the oil rather than the current government which they're able to purchase from currently.

Superbus

Man Killed in Longford Road Crash?

Cavehill Red

gizmo wrote: »

Others have responded to the other parts of this reply but this part is something I find interesting. You're claiming it's a US-led initiative when in actual fact not only is there no real benefit to them, there is in fact the worry that the Chinese will be in control of the oil rather than the current government which they're able to purchase from currently.

The benefit is to get Khartoum's hands off the oil and put it in the hands of a client state government. The risk is that the Chinese will beat them to it.

Cavehill Red

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I think a lot of the conflicts in africa over the last few decades suggest otherwise.

So you'd be of the view that a neo-imperial redrawing of borders is the answer. I'd be more of the view that a strengthening of African nationhoods would be more in order: South Africa as the model rather than the creation of ethnically cleansed tribal states.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The Darfur problem is one created by the government in Khartoum and the blame lies with them not the south.

An enormous and erroneous oversimplification, ignoring the role played by the SLMA and the JEM, and the spillover in Chad.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

The issue with the south will ultimately not have a great bearing on Darfur either way. And given that the war between north and south was a bloody and brutal war it is an issue that should not be taken lightly.

The North-South war could and effectively was already resolved without breaking up the country. And as you admit, the break up does not resolve Darfur, which is the main crisis.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You seem to be more concerned with preventing big bad americans sticking their oar in (which you haven't given any evidence for ) than the resolution of an issue that caused a war that spanned a few decades.

You mistake me for someone with an involvement. I'm not. The war was already resolved. I see no need for breaking up Sudan at this time, and crucially neither do its neighbours, who fear an unstable and unsustainable Southern state.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

God, that writing on Aertel looks like something you'd see on a commodore-64!

Actually it's more like a BBC Micro. Exactly like you'd see in text mode on a BBC Micro.

johnmcdnl

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

How is it undemocratic when the people of South Sudan get to vote on it? Thats like saying that if a vote for Irelands independence was not backed by everyone in Great Britain it would be undemocratic, even if it was the will of the Irish people. South Sudan is far more under-developed, less educated and poorer than the north, the North is mainly Muslim too I believe, while the south isn't, hard to blame them for wanting to try and forge their own destiny, rather than inside a country whose borders drawn from the European Imperial Age.

say north sudan is really rich in oil and gas and gold and everything great but south sudan is a ****e hole - would it be democratic for the north to have a vote to kick out the south sudan people because they were costing too much to support???

Jeboa Safari

johnmcdnl wrote: »

say north sudan is really rich in oil and gas and gold and everything great but south sudan is a ****e hole - would it be democratic for the north to have a vote to kick out the south sudan people because they were costing too much to support???

Probably be democratic, doesn't mean it would be right, although if they were treating them that poorly I'd assume they'd want their own country anyway.

Cavehill wrote:

You mistake me for someone with an involvement. I'm not. The war was already resolved. I see no need for breaking up Sudan at this time, and crucially neither do its neighbours, who fear an unstable and unsustainable Southern state.

Part of the resolution for the war was a clause that independence for South Sudan could be voted on. They've being fighting a civil war for most of Sudans modern existence, its obviously something they want if they vote for it.

Phill Ewinn

North Sudan is best Sudan

Eric Cartman

a general rule for doing something politically in a non christian / oil rich country

Does america like your descision ?

yes - DONT DO IT

no - Your probably right

Cavehill Red

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Part of the resolution for the war was a clause that independence for South Sudan could be voted on. They've being fighting a civil war for most of Sudans modern existence, its obviously something they want if they vote for it.

A clause insisted on by the UN, at America's behest.

Look, I wish the Southern Sudanese all the best. They've had a very rough time. But all the signs do not bode well for it as an independent, landlocked state.

So far, the future rulers have produced plans for a load of unaffordable new cities in the shape of animals and pineapples, and have already spent fortunes in Dubai fitting out palaces for themselves.

They'll have to police borders with Chad, CAR and DRC, three of the most fecked-up places on Earth, and on the other side will be the Ethiopian highlands, effectively impassible. That leaves them having to deal with North Sudan for imports and trade anyway. Or they could look south, to Kenya, which isn't exactly advisable given the nature of Kenyan interests.

The only thing that will really change is who's hands are on the oil, and who they'll be selling it to. I predict little or no change for the average Southern Sudanese. All they'll achieve by way of this vote is the creation of another class of parasitic ruling African elite.

Fart

Nice plane crash ya got there buddy.

Cavehill Red

Sudan, not Iran.

JONJO THE MISER

The new south sudanese ....... A great bunch of lads.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Don't know much about the country really. Worryingly Cavehill's speculations sound like they make sense.

Feel really really sorry for moderate arabs in the north. No doubt after partition it will turn into an al-shabab type hellhole. If that's not already the case of course, though now there will be no major objections to Sharia.

Also read there could be a lot more partition - a few mini regions have grounds for independence too. Mix that with what usually happens when you combine Africa and valuable natural resources.... future not looking so bright

General Zod

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is a US-inspired UN stunt, aimed at slapping Sudan down for harbouring people like Bin Laden.
The North will largely be boycotting the vote, and the entire government is against it.
The South will vote it through because they've been promised the sun, moon and stars in terms of investment and development from Western countries like America, which I heavily suspect will not ultimately be forthcoming.
And of course, none of this resolves the elephant in the living room - Darfur.

Darfur is a separate issue to the north vs. south issues in Sudan, although if the south do secede there will be a greater push from Darfur to have their own state (happily backed by some of their their neighbours).

How the south would cope with secession is a separate issue, and the west are promising the sun moon and stars but there is mineral weight behind a south sudanese nation. Wether it can avoid having a war of it's own is another issue altogether.

sensibleken

TheZohan wrote: »

Partition...sure that'll work...

worked for czechslovakia

gurramok

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They'll have to police borders with Chad, CAR and DRC, three of the most fecked-up places on Earth, and on the other side will be the Ethiopian highlands, effectively impassible. That leaves them having to deal with North Sudan for imports and trade anyway. Or they could look south, to Kenya, which isn't exactly advisable given the nature of Kenyan interests.

The only thing that will really change is who's hands are on the oil, and who they'll be selling it to. I predict little or no change for the average Southern Sudanese. All they'll achieve by way of this vote is the creation of another class of parasitic ruling African elite.

They're going to build an oil pipeline to Kenya. Oh and only 120,000 registered in the North as most went home to the South. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12145472

Let them have their hard won freedom and don't begrudge them.

gurramok

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Don't know much about the country really. Worryingly Cavehill's speculations sound like they make sense.

Feel really really sorry for moderate arabs in the north. No doubt after partition it will turn into an al-shabab type hellhole. If that's not already the case of course, though now there will be no major objections to Sharia.

The North has been under Sharia Law since 1991.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/820864.stm

Cavehill Red

General Zod wrote: »

Darfur is a separate issue to the north vs. south issues in Sudan, although if the south do secede there will be a greater push from Darfur to have their own state (happily backed by some of their their neighbours).

I suppose what I'm saying is that Darfur is the humanitarian crisis currently requiring resolution, and this secession does nothing to address that. The South will have to deal closely with the North anyway, due to geographical and geopolitical reality, whether it's independent or not. I just don't see this secession as essential at this point in time, and am unconvinced that it will achieve anything of real benefit for the South Sudanese people.

General Zod wrote: »

How the south would cope with secession is a separate issue, and the west are promising the sun moon and stars but there is mineral weight behind a south sudanese nation. Wether it can avoid having a war of it's own is another issue altogether.

As another poster suggested, balkanisation is now a genuine concern. Every tinpot leader in the region will now be seeking to emulate this and carve out their own statelet. That would inevitably lead to conflict.
The viability of the Southern state is also in serious question, subterranean resources notwithstanding (they'll have to initially share them with the North anyway.)
Where will the oil be refined? Who will it be sold to? Who will pay for the pineapple cities and the newly furnished palaces of the elite?
If the West doesn't have a very big chequebook handy, all they'll have achieved is the creation of a Chinese client state in Africa.

jackiebaron

sensibleken wrote: »

worked for czechslovakia

And Ireland, and Korea, and Vietnam and Yemen and India/Pakistan.

Cavehill is right. This partition malarkey smacks of something sinister. Were these free and fair elections and who were they monitored by or were there the usual American-backed agents provocateurs up to their usual tricks again?

Rabble Rabble

jackiebaron wrote: »

And Ireland, and Korea, and Vietnam and Yemen and India/Pakistan.

Cavehill is right. This partition malarkey smacks of something sinister. Were these free and fair elections and who were they monitored by or were there the usual American-backed agents provocateurs up to their usual tricks again?

I dont think that anything is going to convince you that America was not involved.

Cavehill Red

The secession was demanded by John Kerry as US emissary and was overseen by former President Carter.
It's hard to suggest that the US doesn't have an interest at the highest level here.
The question remains to what extent this will work out for US interests. If the aim is to pull the teeth of Khartoum by eroding their wealth base (oil), that may well succeed.
However, if the aim is to obtain some measure of control over the oilfields by creating a client state, they may well find another bidder in China with bigger pockets. And one cannot entirely remove the Kenyan influence from the equation either (in this regard, a British proxy.)

Capt'n Midnight

sensibleken wrote: »

worked for czechslovakia

Sequence of events following the Munich Agreement:
1. Germany occupies the Sudetenland (October 1938).
2. Poland annexes Zaolzie, an area with a Polish majority taken over by Czech army in 1918-1920 (October 1938).
3. Hungary occupies border areas (southern third of Slovakia and southern Carpathian Ruthenia) with Hungarian minorities in accordance with the First Vienna Award (November 1938).
4. In March 1939, Hungary annexes Carpathian Ruthenia (which had been autonomous since October 1938).
5. The remaining Czech territories become the German satellite Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
6. The remainder of Czechoslovakia becomes Slovakia, another German satellite.

sensibleken

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sequence of events following the Munich Agreement:
1. Germany occupies the Sudetenland (October 1938).
2. Poland annexes Zaolzie, an area with a Polish majority taken over by Czech army in 1918-1920 (October 1938).
3. Hungary occupies border areas (southern third of Slovakia and southern Carpathian Ruthenia) with Hungarian minorities in accordance with the First Vienna Award (November 1938).
4. In March 1939, Hungary annexes Carpathian Ruthenia (which had been autonomous since October 1938).
5. The remaining Czech territories become the German satellite Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
6. The remainder of Czechoslovakia becomes Slovakia, another German satellite.

yes that stuff happened, then some other stuff happened and Czech and Slovakia parted ways. Everythings grand now

/European history

Capt'n Midnight

Cavehill Red wrote: »

As another poster suggested, balkanisation is now a genuine concern. Every tinpot leader in the region will now be seeking to emulate this and carve out their own statelet. That would inevitably lead to conflict.

Sudan is 30 times the size of our divided Island hardly balkanisation

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And one cannot entirely remove the Kenyan influence from the equation either (in this regard, a British proxy.)

And by Kenyan you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Community

The East African Community (EAC) is an intergovernmental organisation comprising the five east African countries Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda.[1] The EAC was originally founded in 1967, collapsed in 1977, and was officially revived on July 7, 2000.[2] In 2008, after negotiations with the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), the EAC agreed to an expanded free trade area including the member states of all three. The EAC is one of the pillars of the African Economic Community.

The EAC is a potential precursor to the establishment of the East African Federation, a proposed federation of its five members into a single state. In 2010, the EAC launched its own common market for goods, labour and capital within the region, with the goal of a common currency by 2012 and full political federation in 2015

South Sudan joining the EAC wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.

Jeboa Safari

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A clause insisted on by the UN, at America's behest.

Look, I wish the Southern Sudanese all the best. They've had a very rough time. But all the signs do not bode well for it as an independent, landlocked state.

So far, the future rulers have produced plans for a load of unaffordable new cities in the shape of animals and pineapples, and have already spent fortunes in Dubai fitting out palaces for themselves.

They'll have to police borders with Chad, CAR and DRC, three of the most fecked-up places on Earth, and on the other side will be the Ethiopian highlands, effectively impassible. That leaves them having to deal with North Sudan for imports and trade anyway. Or they could look south, to Kenya, which isn't exactly advisable given the nature of Kenyan interests.

The only thing that will really change is who's hands are on the oil, and who they'll be selling it to. I predict little or no change for the average Southern Sudanese. All they'll achieve by way of this vote is the creation of another class of parasitic ruling African elite.

The UN is more than America.

And your right, all those things could happen, hopefully not though. I still think they should be given the chance to try go their own way, they clearly want it, a civil war wouldn't be fought for no reason. Look at these stats from the BBC; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12115013
I don't think they could do much worse on their own, and its clear that Khartoum prioritizes the north and doesn't give a **** about the south.