Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Lundin Oil (LOILY, LOILB Sweden) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomas who wrote (2713)	8/30/2001 1:02:52 AM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2742

Sanctions and Sudan The Washington Post, August 29 In "Capital Crime in Sudan" [op-ed, Aug. 20], Eric Reeves argued, "The logic of the argument against the House sanctions [on allowing oil companies doing business in Sudan from being able to trade on U.S. markets] would suggest that even genocidal destruction can't be allowed to ruffle capital-market feathers." In July 2000, Congress passed a trade bill, H.R. 4868, banning U.S. companies from having trade relations with Sudan. But a substance called gum arabic (important to candy and soda makers) managed to be slipped out of the list of banned trade articles. This little sleight of hand was the work of Democratic Rep. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who has two gum arabic processing plants in his district. Thus, the precedent already has been set; capital markets do take priority over moral stances. It also seems hypocritical that our representatives will consider taking stances on conflicts over oil where no U.S. companies are involved, such as Sudan, but we barely hear a word about regions where human rights abuses have been documented, such as the Aceh province of Indonesia, where U.S. companies drill. TODD RIZVI Los Angeles *** Eric Reeves wrote with seeming authority that the government of Sudan has been the "obdurate party" in an 18-year civil war. In reality, it has been the Sudanese Liberation Army that has shown inflexibility by scuttling peace overtures from four successive Sudanese governments since 1983. It now appears to be trying to undermine the latest and most promising effort to end the this tragic war. The Sudan Peace Act is seriously flawed legislation. It not only brings politics to the world's capital markets but also calls for the United States to take sides in this civil war. Mr. Reeves seems to be calling for action that only encourages more killing and prolongs a war that has lasted too long. This is not only a grave injustice to the peoples of Sudan but also a betrayal of fundamental American principles. What Sudan needs most from the United States is its assistance in moving the parties of the conflict to the peace table, not away from it. KHIDIR HAROUN AHMED Ambassador, Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan Washington