PDA

View Full Version : Southern Sudan - More genocide in the offing?



Iron Yeoman
01-21-2011, 05:39 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12252699

So apparently its being predicted that the recent referendum on independence for the south of Sudan will return with a resounding yes. Now if you're a horrendous cynic like me, and going on previous actions of the Khartoum government, I don't think Bashir will accept southern independence and we could well see a return to the genocide and open warfare that has plagued Sudan in previous years. Or maybe I am being too cynical?

Uyraell
01-21-2011, 06:45 PM
I'm 70/30 on a war erupting in Sudan after Southern Sudan gains independence.
Basically put: a genocide campaign run by the Northern Sudan will under no circumstances surprise me.
Cynical though my view may be: in my own lifetime genocides have become a continental tradition in Africa, much as other nations of the world have national sports. Mass warfare and genocide seem to quite simply be "the way things are done" in much of Africa: probably as has been the case throughout African history.

Kind and Respectful Regards Iron Yeoman my friend, Uyraell.

pdf27
01-22-2011, 02:26 AM
I'm leaning towards the opinion that Bashir has decided that the south is more trouble than it's worth, so he'll retain power in the north and without many of the current checks & balances that limit him from going for a fully Islamic state.

Iron Yeoman
01-22-2011, 03:52 AM
I'm leaning towards the opinion that Bashir has decided that the south is more trouble than it's worth, so he'll retain power in the north and without many of the current checks & balances that limit him from going for a fully Islamic state.

Interesting point, I think that will depend though on how much control he'll get over the oilfields. I think if he doesn't get what he wants we may well see a 'border' war to establish control over the oilfields.

Rising Sun*
01-22-2011, 06:52 AM
This may seem off topic, but I'd say it is merely enlarging the topic as what applies to Sudan applies in varying degrees to much of the rest of the continent.

Is much of Africa a basket case which defies understanding by the West, which is the source of much of the humanitarian aid which goes there (and frequently is diverted for the benefit of the ruling whomever)?

How far has much of Africa advanced since the Mau Mau in Kenya in the 1950s and sundry other local brutalities such as the Belgian Congo; Angola; and Rwanda?

Why is Africa overburdened with (frequently brutal if not insane) dictators of one sort or another?

Does there come a time when one says: "You are beyond our understanding. If you want our help, start treating your people humanely. In the meantime, we won't be sending you any aid; we will confiscate your rulers' assets outside Africa; and we will help any refugees who manage to escape your homicidal regimes."

Iron Yeoman
01-22-2011, 02:41 PM
This may seem off topic, but I'd say it is merely enlarging the topic as what applies to Sudan applies in varying degrees to much of the rest of the continent.

Is much of Africa a basket case which defies understanding by the West, which is the source of much of the humanitarian aid which goes there (and frequently is diverted for the benefit of the ruling whomever)?

How far has much of Africa advanced since the Mau Mau in Kenya in the 1950s and sundry other local brutalities such as the Belgian Congo; Angola; and Rwanda?

Not much, sadly. There are some exceptions, Ghana is getting on ok and so is Botswana but most don't seem to be able to move on from ethnic violence

Why is Africa overburdened with (frequently brutal if not insane) dictators of one sort or another?

Does there come a time when one says: "You are beyond our understanding. If you want our help, start treating your people humanely. In the meantime, we won't be sending you any aid; we will confiscate your rulers' assets outside Africa; and we will help any refugees who manage to escape your homicidal regimes."

I think part of the problem is that a lot of African states are artificial and not based on tribal lines. So until they can put their tribal loyalties second to their countries we will continue to see internal division and conflict. It isn't as simple as that but I believe that is part of it.

Uyraell
01-22-2011, 07:16 PM
RS* my friend, I'll go even further.

Africa should not get humanitarian aid, period.

The money wasted on Africa since the late 1940's would have given humanity a very strong foothold on Mars, and the technology did exist.
Mars is important because, though far from ideal as a colonisable planet it removes one of humanity's greatest problems: IF the Human Race remains locked onto one planet, it dies on one planet. Whereas on two planets, the Human Race will survive.

Africa is and remains a hopeless case, and will forever be so.
The entire history of Africa is rife with conflict and little to no true rule of the population as an entirety.
In short, Africa is an economic black hole: endlessly absorbing every dollar that approaches it, but producing nothing useful in return.
Someone will mention oil, metal ores, diamonds. And So? those can be extracted with or without the African populace in place. And said populace rarely if ever benefits from either the presence or exploitation of mineral wealth, regardless.
Therefore, the mineral wealth is meaningless in general population terms.

Africa is NOT worth the money wasted on it thus far.

Certainly, Africa as a continent should be told all aid is to cease.
My view is leave the refugees in place IN Africa: if a few thousand happen to end up dead the number is meaningless, because at the rate of population increase in Africa, statistically whoever in Africa dies now is replaced several times over in about 10 minutes. Thus, there is no economic sense in catering to the needs of refugees.

But I do have a solution. Grand Strategy in style, but effective.

GIVE ALL of Africa south of the Sahara and north of Namibia to Communist China. Tell PRC that the designated area is theirs to modernise, educate, control and develop, within 50 years.
Within 150 years, China will be back to being as bankrupt as it was in 1850, and the population of Africa will be under control, and a fair proportion of the continent will be reasonably modernised.
All at comparatively little cost to the Western world.

China will destroy itself economically, in trying to solve Africa, and thus rid the world of two potential problems at once.

Kind and Respectful Regards RS* My friend, Uyraell.

Nickdfresh
01-23-2011, 02:22 AM
I think part of the problem is that a lot of African states are artificial and not based on tribal lines. So until they can put their tribal loyalties second to their countries we will continue to see internal division and conflict. It isn't as simple as that but I believe that is part of it.

Right, just look at Kenya as RS* has mentioned. Aren't there something of over a dozen different languages and cultural traditions within one state?