Why All The “Howling” About Sudan’s Debt?
Mr. Badawi in his recent post “Indebted to the Save Darfur Coalition?“ plays loose with the numbers and the definition of Sudan’s “odious” debt. In addition, he mischaracterizes the objectives of the Save Darfur Coalition’s position related to how the international community should deal with Sudan’s debt crisis and ignores the coalition’s support thus far of the Obama Administration’s engagement strategy with Khartoum. We have repeatedly called for the U.S. to offer Sudan’s leaders with a choice between earned incentives for durable peace and escalating costs to those who obstruct efforts to resolve Sudan’s interlocking crises. It is necessary, as Mr. Badawi argues, for the international community to rid the Sudanese people of this burdensome and “odious” debt accumulated by multiple regimes in Khartoum – but the burden of proof first lies with Sudan’s leaders to demonstrate that they have finally committed to extinguishing the flames of decades of conflict in Sudan.
To begin with the facts, Mr. Badawi is just plain wrong when he states that the “explosion [in debt] has been almost solely [due] to a build-up of repayment arrears to bilateral and multilateral creditors.” From 1989 until today, the Sudanese government has received an estimated $4 billion in new public medium and long-term loans and an estimated $5 billion in new private medium and long-term loans (information via Economist Intelligence Unit, a past employer of Mr. Badawi). Much of this new debt is even more recent. Sudan accumulated over $2 billion in new loans from international lenders (almost half of it from non-Paris Club bilateral loans) between 2001 and 2006 when it was still waging war in south Sudan and orchestrating its campaign of death and destruction in Darfur. In 2007 and 2008 alone, Sudan contracted another $1.444 billion in more loans mostly from Arab multilateral and non-Paris club creditors, as well as from China and India.
This data reveals that many in the international community continued to give to the Sudanese regime while it was waging war and genocide against its own people. Sudan’s arrears certainly did balloon during this period by $12 billion to bring its total arrears to $18 billion (half of its estimated debt load of $36 billion), but NIF/NCP leaders also contracted new irresponsible loans to finance their destructive policies. From their own reporting, Sudan imported weapons worth $76.3 million between 2004 and 2006, not including fighter jets and combat aircraft. The cost of Sudan’s purchase of 20 MiG-29s and 26 attack helicopters from 2004 to 2008 is unknown but most experts conservatively estimate the price-tag at hundreds of millions of dollars. Recent reports, furthermore, allege that this advanced military buildup continues.
These figures lead me to Mr. Badawi’s second slight of hand. While designating the Nimeiri regime’s debt as “odious,” he shows absolutely no willingness to apply the same standards to President Bashir’s twenty-year old regime. Any amount of intellectual honesty should have led him to consider this $9 billion in new loans as “odious” as well. This financing certainly did not go to improve the lot of the war-battered Southern Sudanese and Darfuris over the last two decades. In making the case for immediate debt-relief for Sudan, Mr. Badawi argues that “the pattern of inequitable development in Darfur, south Sudan, and other areas of the “˜periphery’… lies at the heart of Sudan’s history of instability.” With that said, his argumentation implies that such marginalization was a product purely of the Nimeiri regime – certainly an absurd historical account given that the civil war with the SPLA escalated in the years after the 1989 coup and such marginalization was a chief motivation of the Beja rebellion that began in the late 1990s and the Darfuri rebellion in 2003.
It is also questionable whether the vast majority of northern Sudanese have seen their conditions improve. Their political rights, as consistently protested by northern opposition parties and democracy and human rights activists, continue to be severely curtailed. Last week, in fact, the Mo Ibrahim Index of Governance ranked Sudan 49th out of 54 countries, noting that Sudan “scored well below the continental average in the categories of Safety and Rule of Law, Participation and Human Rights and Sustainable Economic Opportunity.” And even on strictly economic grounds, Sudan has not yet met the pre-conditions for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. Most notably, the Sudanese Government has yet to complete its National Poverty Reduction Strategy paper in consultation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Given its track record, the current Sudanese government should not be surprised that advocates for peace and human rights in Sudan fail to take their argument about being unfairly burdened with Nimeiri’s debt and the related arrears seriously. President Bashir and Hassan al-Turabi took direct ownership of this debt when they carried out their unconstitutional coup in 1989 and usurped all vestiges of state power. Flouting the international community, they ignored the arrears that piled up as they instituted their reign of terror in the 1990s. Bashir and the NCP then, as shown above, have used billions in new loans this decade to finance not only crucial infrastructure for the new oil economy – but continuing repression, civil war, and even genocide.
Severely affected by the global financial crisis, the Sudanese government currently seeks assistance from the international community to avoid a financial meltdown. Recent hubris underpinned by the Khartoum-boom now makes way for urgent appeals for debt-relief. Save Darfur’s campaign intends to remind the international community of the odious character of this debt contracted by a regime that remains in power and continues to obstruct peacemaking efforts in Darfur and the democratic transformation set forth in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. International financiers should not subsidize the continuation of such policies, orchestrated by a government with an indicted war criminal at its head, that are leading the country toward even further chaos and ruin.
Save Darfur has also begun educating American policymakers and Sudan’s other major creditors on the real opportunity that debt-relief provides to incentivize peacemaking in Sudan in a multilateral, coordinated manner. Of course, it’s useful for those defending the Sudanese government, in the name of “ordinary” Sudanese people, to treat Save Darfur’s advocacy (for this specific initiative and in general) as a simplistic campaign to punish those in power in Khartoum. It’s also useful for these writers to conflate activist campaigns like “Fast the Eid” – to which Save Darfur had no relation – with the serious policy proposals put forward by the organization.
Mr. Badawi’s description of Save Darfur fundamentally mischaracterizes the coalition’s approach to the Obama Administration’s engagement strategy. Up until now, we have supported the active efforts of the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan General Scott Gration to revive the constantly-adrift Darfur peace process and to help facilitate the ongoing negotiations surrounding the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. In fact, we have urged Gration to do even more to help create space, opportunities, and incentives for Sudanese to solve their own problems, such as sponsoring civil society mechanisms for non-combatants to participate in the Darfur negotiations.
With Sudan at a dangerous crossroads, we have consistently called for President Obama to present those in power in Khartoum with a choice between earned incentives or serious consequences. To that end, the U.S. should put forward a clear but conditioned process toward normalization of relations with Sudan if, and only if, the government of Sudan provably: permits unrestricted humanitarian access; secures peace in Darfur; fully implements the Comprehensive Peace Agreement; ensures free and fair elections throughout Sudan; and removes the president who is a fugitive from justice. On the other hand, the U.S. should make clear to President Bashir and his party that if they renege on humanitarian commitments and continue to undermine efforts at peace, escalating costs will ensue.
With this strategic approach to providing incentives and disincentives to those in power in Khartoum, the Obama Administration should utilize the ready-made multilateral stick/carrot of debt-relief. Mr. Badawi chose to ignore the political conditions that Save Darfur has set out for the provision of debt-relief to Sudan. In our public statements, we have said that if the government demonstrably changes its behavior to the benefit of all of Sudan’s people, the U.S. should lead the way in facilitating a debt-relief package for Sudan with the international community. On the other hand, if the Sudanese government fails to match its rhetoric for peace with proven action, then the U.S. should make it clear to Sudan that it will use its role at the IMF, as well as its position in the Paris Club, to block any potential debt-relief package. The American message should be simple: the international community will not help Sudan with its economic crisis unless the Sudanese regime takes concrete and lasting steps to resolve Darfur, implement the CPA, and enact true reform to the benefit of its citizens.
These are the internal political solutions – outlined most recently by a cross-section of Sudanese political parties in the Juba Declaration – which the Obama Administration must support in its engagement with the Sudanese government. Indeed, these should be the parameters for – as Alex de Waal writes – “a more constructive political and economic engagement with Sudan, precisely because that will help shift the political centre of gravity in Sudan away from the sterile military/militaristic polarization to a civil-political process that nurtures democracy.” Without first achieving these political solutions and implementing these reforms, debt-relief now for Sudan would give unearned incentives to a regime that has shown no clear and demonstrable signs of finally kicking its murderous and odious ways.
The author is a senior member of the policy and government relations team at the Save Darfur Coalition.
English
Amharic
Arabic
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
English
French
German
Hausa
Italian
Portuguese
Sesotho
Shona
Spanish
Swahili
Xhosa
Yoruba
Zulu
Sean
I may not be quite versatile with the “Debt history” of Sudan, my concern here is with your emphasis on the “Government of Sudan.” While I note that the SPLM/A had a lot of support in the North and still has and enjoys such support, because of the clarity of its visions,as represented by the Late Dr. Garang, the Dar Fur Movements have so far failed to offer such vision,and we keep hearing of yet new movements every day, we see intransigence from movements whose following in Dar Fur itself is dubious, yet they push the thresholds of their demands to negotiate beyond reason.
I would appreciate if your movement would also come out clear about the intransigence of the Movements themselves, while at the same time I respect your views on the American Policy towards Sudan, which is absolutely a matter for the Administration, which according to the Washington Post will make public its policy towards the Sudan on Monday.
One last point: does your movement believe that a United Democratic Sudan (New Sudan), is possible?
Thanks.
Dear Sean:
I enjoyed reading your post.
So, what’s the fuss, you ask?
A couple of points if I may:
1) I’m not “plain wrong†to state that the explosion in Sudan’s foreign debt since 1989 has been almost solely down to an accumulation of repayment arrears on loans incurred under the Nimeiri government: do the math. An estimated US$9 billion in public and sovereign extracted liabilities contracted since 1989 plus US$13 billion (the size of Sudan’s foreign debt in 1989) hardly equals the US$34 billion Sudan owes today, does it now??;
2) You seem blissfully unaware that the bulk of the estimated US$9 billion in public foreign debt contracted by President Al Bashir’s government since 1989 represents loans for building the oil pipeline and associated infrastructure and the Greenfield Merowe, Dal and Kajbar dam investments and Brownfield Roseires dam project.
My point, Sean? All of these investments have had/promise to bring a big positive developmental impact on ordinary Sudanese (the IMF notes, for example, that government spending on the poor, Darfur included, has more than quadrupled in real terms since the signing of the CPA, and it’s hardly the fault of ‘Khartoum’ that GoSS has pissed-up its share of oil revenues), and so would hardly be quantified as “odious debtâ€, as claimed wrongly by SDC, by any objective assessment;
3) Weapon purchases? Sean, the always more interesting – and salient in terms of securing a durable peace – question in the Darfur conflict (and indeed all civil wars) is not who’s supplying the State, which as the sovereign power has the right to purchase arms from whoever it wants, but, instead, who is supplying the Darfuri rebel groups (i.e. the non-state actors) and why……..?;
4) I presume, and your post supports, that the Save Darfur Coalition’s anti (or even conditional) foreign debt forgiveness campaign is being waged in the name or interests of Darfuris and other ordinary Sudanese? Well, Sean, they don’t support it; after all, who in their right mind would support a policy that reduces or delays improvements to their living standards??? It is simply disingenuous for Save Darfur Coalition to peddle the notion that its anti-foreign debt forgiveness campaign has even a veneer of domestic legitimacy or support amongst ordinary Sudanese – Darfuris included. I repeat it’s not in our name – and we Sudanese, don’t forget, are right here in the mix – not the Save Darfur Coalition
Put starkly, the anti-debt forgiveness campaign is simply yet another example of an (albeit well intentioned) US activist movement talking to itself or a mirror (i.e. a woefully under-informed US audience) about “what to do about Sudan?†over the heads of – and without a moment’s thought to, let alone consulting with – of a near 40 million ordinary Sudanese. Why not, instead, come to Sudan, visit Darfur and find out if Darfuri IDPs themselves – let alone other ordinary Sudanese – support what is being done in their name?
Indeed, I would encourage strongly all Sudanese readers of this blog to take a look at the video link below of the Save Darfur Coalition luxuriating in the far away comfort of Pittsburgh, PA, about why Sudan’s foreign debt must not be forgiven just yet (and so, at a stroke, taking a decision to deny all ordinary Sudanese a major improvement in popular living standards) as a powerful illustration. Here it is http://www.savedarfur.org/pages/webcast: Seen it? Happy my fellow Sudanese? Thought not;
5) Dangling the carrot of foreign debt forgiveness, in any case, no longer works as a credible incentive for ‘Khartoum’. They’ve heard it all before (CPA and DPA). So why not instead support de-linking the issue of foreign debt forgiveness from the ‘politics’ to help shore up chronic economic underdevelopment – the underlying driver of internal conflicts in Sudan – in Darfur and other areas in the ‘periphery’ of Sudan?
That would definitely make Sudan more peaceful and democratic (see Alex’s first and second comments here: Indebted to the Save Darfur Coalition? ), which is what “advocates for peace†would surely want to see? And as for any concerns that new financial resources would not be put to good use, see my last comment addressed to Kevin Heller at the bottom of my post (Indebted to the Save Darfur Coalition?)
and, lastly,
6) Yes, you’re right, Sean: the Save Darfur Coalition has been one of the least vociferous anti-General Gration activist groups, though it would be stretching it to call it “support†as you claim (a bit like hearing a car salesman say to a customer: “Sure, you can have any colour. As long as it’s red.â€) In other words, the Save Darfur Coalition has hardly given General Gration unconstrained wiggle room to give ‘politics’ a chance to succeed through engagement of Khartoum.
Even so, I am, nonetheless, very encouraged that change-is-a-comin’ now, with the coalition – and in particular, its energetic president, Jerry Fowler – coming finally off the fence definitively to throw his full support behind the general (see Advocacy groups hopeful on new US Sudan policy ).
Maybe, pragmatism, rather than shrill bombast, has indeed finally won the day in the Save Darfur Coalition.
I do hope so.
Best regards,
Ahmed Badawi
Dear David,
Yes, the fragmentation of the Darfuri rebel movements is a significant hindrance to the Darfur peace process. I would point you to a blog post of mine from August entitled, “Overcoming Fragmentation and Intransigenceâ€: http://blogfordarfur.org/archives/1249. We have encouraged the work of General Gration and others to unify the various movements, or at least rally them around a common negotiating position for future peace talks.
One way to help create a unified vision for negotiations would be to promote the role of Darfuri civil society leaders in the peace talks. The US Policy Review released today states such an initiative as an American priority – but it’s slim on details.
One final point, though, in discussing the fragmentation of rebel movements and even various efforts to unite the Darfuri civil society, the negative role of Khartoum should not be ignored. Since 2003, NCP leaders have played various Darfuri factions off against one another. And in May 2009, the Sudanese government scuttled the most promising initiative to bring civil society leaders together – Mandate Darfur at http://www.mandatedarfur.org/en/ – by obstructing the safe passage of Darfuri delegates to a large-scale gathering in Addis Ababa.
Concerning the possibility still of a united democratic Sudan (a New Sudan), I will leave this existential question to Sudanese who will have a chance to decide in the 2010 elections and 2011 referendum.
Best,
Sean
Dear Ahmed,
The math is easy:
$36 billion (est. 2009) – $12 billion (est. 1988) = $24 billion in debt accumulated under Bashir’s leadership.
$24 billion = $9 billion in new public and private debt + $15 billion in arrears (roughly $3 billion in commercial arrears on new loans and roughly $13 billion in arrears to official creditors such as the IMF – the numbers are rounded so they don’t add up exactly).
You are right that many of these new loans were taken out for investment in the oil infrastructure and large-scale infrastructure projects like the dam projects you listed. It is impossible though to disconnect the state resources gained from oil revenues and state-run agriculture with the revenues available for war-making. These accounts and revenues are entirely fungible especially in a country like Sudan that lacks transparent budget records.
On this last point, I would point everyone to a recent report by Global Witness that “documents how the oil figures published by the Government of National Unity in Khartoum are smaller than the equivalent figures published by the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the operator of the oil blocks.†It concludes, “Unless the suspicions surrounding the sharing of oil are resolved, the very element that helped secure the peace could also be its undoing. The key players must engage now, or the historic achievement of the peace agreement runs the risk of falling apart, thus setting the scene for a return to conflict.†The report is here: http://www.globalwitness.org/media_library_detail.php/804/en/fuelling_mistrust_the_need_for_transparency_in_sud.
In terms of arms, there is a UN Security Council sanctioned arms embargo for Darfur. Save Darfur calls for all countries and combatants – including the rebel movements – to respect the embargo. We also continue to believe that an immediate ceasefire reached by all of the combatants in Darfur is absolutely necessary for setting the stage for productive negotiations.
Finally, I can tell you that Save Darfur has consulted with Sudanese civil society on this new initiative and will continue to consult with them. To date, we have received strong backing for this campaign from a cross-section of the Sudanese diaspora, Sudanese policy experts, as well as our civil society contacts in Sudan. All of our consultations continue to indicate that many Sudanese strongly doubt that those in power in Khartoum would use the economic benefits of debt-relief to improve the lives of ordinary Sudanese. The reasoning is similar to Pagan Amum’s recent call for the continuation of US sanctions. At Save Darfur, we very much support development in Darfur and the ‘periphery’ – but, as stated, we do not believe that Khartoum has yet shown a commitment to peace, let alone responsible development, in these areas of the country.
I would also point you to the Juba Declaration that, in the foreign policy section, called for the promotion of “national economic interest through attracting investments and ensure that Sudan is eligible to benefit from international and regional Funds and writing off of its debts.†This demand, of course, comes only after urgent prescriptions for conflict resolution in Darfur, CPA implementation, and real reforms leading to the long-promised democratic transformation. The political parties that signed certainly understand that Khartoum’s irresponsible policies make it currently ineligible in the eyes of much of the international community for debt-relief and greater international and regional funds.
As for our support of General Gration’s approach, I think our record speaks for itself and would point you to our press release in response to the roll-out of the Sudan Policy Review for more information. Its accessible here: http://savedarfur.org/pages/newsroom/.
Best regards,
Sean
If I may respond to Sean Brooks comment posted on October 19, 2009 in the thread: “Why All The “Howling†About Sudan’s Debt?†I would like to state while the math may be easy, the issues are not.
You and Ahmed Badawi both agree that US$9 billion in debt has been incurred since (approximately) 1988 in public and certain private debt. Then there is the “roughly†US$15 billion in arrears added to the US$12 billion in existing as of 1988.
Also, I do believe that you both can agree that much of the debt incurred since 1988 has been due the arrears incurred for non-payment of the pre-1988 debt.
But more importantly, I think that you wish to make the point contained in your statement:
“This data reveals that many in the international community continued to give to the Sudanese regime while it was waging war and genocide against its own people.”
While there were certainly horrors committed in Darfur, your characterization of these horrors as constituting “genocide†does not conform to the findings of the UN, the EU and the AU. But that is a discussion for another thread.
It seems as if you are pointing to Sudan’s external debt as an indication of wrongdoing on the part of the Government of Sudan and corroboration by the global community of lenders, and while I do not wish to be an apologist for the Government of Sudan, I would like to encourage rationality in the discussion about Sudan, as best I can.
With that in mind, I would like for you to consider the following:
Assuming that your figures are correct about Sudan’s external debt (and I have no reason to doubt them) it rose from $12 billion to $36 billion from 1988 to 2009.
But during approximately this same period the external debt of the United States rose from $532 billion to $13.64 trillion. (According to geographic.org and the CIA Worldbook)
http://www.theodora.com/wfb1990/united_states/united_states_economy.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
So, during the period in question, the external debt of Sudan rose by 263% but in the U.S. it rose by 2,564% – almost ten times greater than the percentage of increase in Sudan.
The external debt of Sudan is equal to $766.65 for ever person in Sudan (using the CIA Worldbook’s population figure of 41,087,8525 while the external debt of the U.S. is equal to $44,399.29 for every person in the U.S. (using the CIA Worldbook’s population figure of 307,212,123. The per capita foreign debt in the U.S. is almost 60 times greater than it is in Sudan.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/su.html
The use of capital by both the U.S. and Sudan for weaponry is regrettable; and those who love the innocent civilians slaughtered by both U.S. and Sudanese loathe the fact that foreign debt allows both of these countries to acquire these arms. The fact that the Save Darfur Coalition is based mostly in the U.S. tends to distract from the legitimacy of their concerns for the people of Darfur when there is little evidence of an equal concern for those who have suffered at the hands of the U.S. military.
Finally, it seems to be the case that lenders in the global community, including the IMF (according to the CIA Worldbook) are willing to work with Sudan; and I tend to agree with Mr. Ahmed when he suggests that the people of Sudan would overwhelmingly support foreign debt forgiveness. Quite a few people in the global community believe that debt forgiveness can help improve the quality of life of the Sudanese people and foster movement in the direction of peace. In light of this, the effort of the Save Darfur Coalition to thwart these efforts supporting debt forgiveness tend to be seen as an obstruction to peace and a detriment to the improvement in the lives of the people of Sudan.
Respectfully,
Oscar H. Blayton
Mr Bayton apparently is trying to draw some moral equivalent between the USA and The Sudan. Since he likes to quote the CIA lets see what they have to say about some of his statements:
“While there were certainly horrors committed in Darfur”
The second war and famine-related effects resulted in more than four million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than two million deaths over a period of two decades.
A separate conflict, which broke out in the western region of Darfur in 2003, has displaced nearly two million people and caused an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths
as of 2006, Chad, Ethiopia, Kenya, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Uganda provided shelter for over half a million Sudanese refugees, which includes 240,000 Darfur residents driven from their homes by Janjawid armed militia and the Sudanese military forces
IDPs: 5.3 – 6.2 million (civil war 1983-2005; ongoing conflict in Darfur region) (2007)
militia groups in Darfur, some of which are linked to the government, abduct women for short periods of forced labor and to perpetrate sexual violence
Sudan does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking humans and is not making significant efforts to do so; combating human trafficking through law enforcement or prevention measures was not a priority for the government in 2007 (2008)
“It seems as if you are pointing to Sudan’s external debt as an indication of wrongdoing on the part of the Government of Sudan ”
No that is not what he is saying – it is not the debt but how that debt is being used by the Sudanese govt to finance the govt “horrors!
Comparing the USA debt to Sudan is a joke – The USA has a GDP of $14 trillion dollars vs $88 billion for Sudan. Per capita GDP in the USA is $46,900 whereas Sudan is $2,200. Public debt for the USA is 60% of GDP whereas Sudan is 93.5%. All though it is not the point Sean is making – it isn’t the debt but how that debt is being used.
The Save the Dafur Coalition is in the USA because the USA must lead the world in fighting for the people of Darfur against the Sudanese government and its apologists such as Mr Blayton. The Save the Dafur Coalition is right to ask for meaningful reforms before any debt is forgiven.
I certainly appreciate Bob Sims’s point out the deaths that have taken place in Sudan during both the war in the south and the Darfur conflict. It is important to keep all deaths from these types of conflicts in mind. I think that it is also important to point out, as Mr. Simi has done, the numbers of those who suffer from being displaced due to violent conflict.
With regards to the data used: I simply used the CIA Worldbook data, because I believed that it was data that would be favorable – if not most favorable – to the facts relative to the U.S. and this would eliminate any accusations that I was trying skew the figures against the U.S. in trying to make my point. I must also confess that I made a math error in that I used the CIA Worldbook figure of the 2008 external debt of $31.5 billion when calculating the percentage of the rise in Sudan’s external debt when I wrote that I was using Sean’s figure of $36 billion. Using Sean’s figure the percentage of rise in Sudan’s external debt would be 300% rather than 263% and the per capita debt in Sudan would be $876.17 rather than $766.65 as I stated.
Turning to another issue, I am not clear why Mr. Simi believes that the United States must “lead the world in fighting for the people of Darfur.†And I would posit that it appears that the world is not prepared to follow the United States in its policies aimed at the problems in Sudan. If it were otherwise, there might be more agreement within the global community with the U.S. position that genocide took place in Darfur.
I certainly do not intend to sound like an apologist for the Government of Sudan, just as I would not intend to sound like an apologist for the Government of the United States with regard to its treatment of the people of Iraq since it began prosecuting its war there in 2003. I merely intended to point out the important fact, which Mr. Simi also seems to believe is important, that it “isn’t the debt but how that debt is being used†that should concern us. And it there is an extremely unpleasantly hollow ring to the advocacy of the Save Darfur Coalition when America turns a blind eye to the suffering that its own government has inflicted upon segments of the world community.
Finally, I would like to point out to Mr. Simi (and apologizing for bringing up the details of numbers and math) that given that the USA has a GDP of $14 trillion dollars vs $88 billion for Sudan as he stated in his comment, the $13.4 trillion external debt of the U.S. means that the external debt equals 97% of America’s GDP while the $36 billion external debt of Sudan equals 41% of its GDP.
But again, I would like to join in common cause with Mr. Simi and ask that those of us who are concerned with these issues look to how these debts, both in the U.S. and in Sudan are used to finance the instruments of violence and destruction in the world community.