Table 1 shows the historical evolution of the conflict from September 2011 on the left to January 2013 on the right. DMs are listed using the following symbols: South Sudan (SS), North Sudan (NS) and third party (TP). The letter (Y/N) indicates whether the DM took the option opposite to the letter or not.
The single equilibrium calculated for the September 2011 conflict is shown as a column of Y’s and N’s above state number 2. This equilibrium constitutes a possible resolution to the conflict for September 2011.
In fact, state 2 in which North Sudan requested South Sudan to pay a higher fee for using the oil shipping pipeline and South Sudan ignored the higher charge for using it was the actual outcome that happened in September 2011. For this situation North Sudan kept tabulating the unpaid export charge, while South Sudan continued exporting oil without paying the oil shipping cost. The equilibrium remained valid because it assumed that North and South Sudan would make an agreement regarding the higher cost of using the oil-shipping pipeline. The arrow between states 1 and 2 shows the change in the option selection that led to the equilibrium from the status quo for September 2011.
However, from October 2011 to November 2011 China acted as a third party to help solve the dispute between North and South Sudan over the higher charge for shipping oil via pipeline. State 3 in which North Sudan requested a higher oil-shipping price based on the Chinese proposal and South Sudan refused the proposal while China acted as a third party, was the transitional state that led to the actual equilibrium. State 4 in which South Sudan refused China proposal, North Sudan compensated for the unpaid charge by taking
23% of the oil coming from South Sudan, and, the situation in which South Sudan stopped producing the oil was the actual equilibrium that happened in December 2011 (Uma, 2011).
Furthermore, the international agency consisting of the UN, UN Security Council, African Union and US, acted as a third party to force both North and South Sudan to solve the conflict and start producing oil.
State 5, in which the North requested a reasonable price for using the oil-shipping pipeline based on the international standard price and South Sudan accepted paying it while the third party was forcing both North and South to reach a resolution, was the actual equilibrium to the dispute.
Currently, the conflict is at state 6. This is because North Sudan added a new option to the game that put a condition on the Cooperative Peace Agreement, which was signed in September 2012 between North and South Sudan. The condition stressed that the government of South Sudan must disarm the liberation army.
So without agreeing to the security condition that was imposed by North Sudan, South Sudan cannot start producing oil using the North Sudan export pipeline to transfer the oil to Port Sudan (Sudan Tribune, 2012).
Table 1. Historical Evolution of the Conflict from September 2011 on the Left to January 2013 on the Right
Sept, 2011 Oct, 2011 to Nov, 2011
Dec, 2011 Sept, 2012 Jan, 2013
DM Options Status Quo
Equilibrium Transitional State Equilibrium Equilibrium Transitional State
NS Higher charge N Y Y Y Y Y
Compensate N N N Y N N
Security condition N N N N N Y
SS Accept the charge N N N N Y Y
Alternative pipeline N N N N N N
Stop N N N Y N Y
Security condition N N N N N N
TP Act N N Y Y Y N
State 1 2 3 4 5 6
References
BBC News Africa (2012a), US Warns of New Sudan-South Sudan Conflict Over Border, September 6, 2012, Available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19514491, Accessed on December 1st, 2012.
BBC News Africa (2012b), Sudan and South Sudan Agree Oil Deal, September 27, 2012. Available online at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19738921, Accessed on December 1, 2012.
Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005), Available online at:
http://unmis.unmissions.org/Portals/UNMIS/Documents/General/cpa-en.pdf, Accessed on December 1, 2012.
DeHaemer (2011), A Devastating Oil War, Chinese Vampire Squid, and 470,000 Barrels a Day, Energy and Capital:
Practical Investment Analysis in the New Economy, August 18, 2011, Available online at:
http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/east-africa-oil/1718 , Accessed on January 18, 2013.
Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., and Kilgour, D.M. (1993), “Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution”, Wiley, New York, 221 pp.
Oil and Energy Trends (2011), Focus: South Sudan Seeks New Role as Oil Exporter, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 3-6, September 2011.
Laessing (2012), Sudan, South Sudan to Resume Oil Exports, No Wider Deal, Reuters, September 26, 2012, Available online at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-sudan-south-talks-
idUSBRE88P1IK20120926, Accessed on December 1, 2012.
Pflanz, M. (2012), “Sudan and South Sudan Reach Agreement Over Oil After Tense Eight-Months of Dispute”, The Telegraph, August 4, 2012, Available online at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/south-sudan/9452032/Sudan-and-South- Sudan-reach-agreement-over-oil-after-tense-eight-month-dispute.html , Accessed on December 1, 2012.
Sudan Tribune (2011a), Sudan denies halting South Sudan oil exports as China condemns move. Sudan Tribune, November 29, 2011, Available Online at: http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-denies-halting-South- Sudan,40861, Accessed on December 1, 2012.
Sudan Tribune (2011b), South Sudan threatens to suspend oil production if North Imposes Charges Unilaterally, November 30, 2011, Available Online at: http://www.sudantribune.com/South-Sudan-threatens-to-
suspend,40871 , Accessed on December 1, 2012.
Sudan Tribune (2012), Juba and North Sudan Agree to Employ the Security Agreement. [Give date here], Available on line at: http://www.sudantribune.net/ﻲﻣﺭﺍﻮ ﺼﻟﺍ-ﺎ ﺑﻮﺟ,4188 , Accessed on January 1, 2013.
Uma, J.N. (2011), S. Sudan Warns Oil Companies over Illegal Deals with Sudan, Sudan Tribune, December 2, 1011, Avilable Online at: http://www.sudantribune.com/S-Sudan-warns-oil-companies-over,40880, Accessed on December 1, 2012.