|
Post by lionking on Jan 10, 2011 8:25:49 GMT -4
It is for the greatest regret that our sister Arab country, Sudan, is on the edge of splitting as South and North. Lebanon went for a 17 years civil war and many parties called for partition and faught for it to get defeated and agree at the end on the Taef Accord to have Lebanon as one country. It is sad that no similar agreement was worked for and succeeded in Sudan. Obama is very happy and the Sudanese are to blame too. They should have agreed on a solution rather than this splitting that frightened the nearby Arab countries for facing the same destiny eventually.
Sudan tried to help in the past years to get our politicians together but failed as Egypt failed. It is sad that they couldn't come together. I wish that proper investments in the big ,fertile land will be done to feed the poor people there and that turmoil would finally stop, but I can't but think that the big countries will have a share from the rich resources of Sudan and this is why they created the civil war in the first place. Our civil war was created for different reasons [palestinian presence in lebanon], but now we found Petrol and as we are afraid that our thief politicans will steal it, we are afraid that turmoil will be created or the new settlemet will give Syria and Israel part of our gas and oil. The big headache will come, but now they are busy with the coming indictment and solution to contain it between KSA and Syria.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 10, 2011 10:34:33 GMT -4
It is getting progressively more difficult in the world to govern people that do not wish to be governed raising the question of what is a country. So much Middle East geography is based on the administration of the old Ottoman Empire, not any preferences for governance by people in the current states.
If the Sudan opts for division, hopefully it can be done without bloodshed. If not, then at least maybe they can settle their differences quickly and the people can get on with their lives. After all, the most destructive element in civilization is bad government.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 10, 2011 10:42:08 GMT -4
It is for the greatest regret that our sister Arab country, Sudan, is on the edge of splitting as South and North. Only the north part of Sudan is Arabic. Most people in South Sudan are African and Christian. Personally, I think the split is an amazing opportunity, and if both sides accept the split peacefully, it could bring tremendous benefits to both countries. The difference is that Sudan is large (if I remember correctly, the current country is the eighth largest in the world by area), and the population split was very clear - Arabs in the north, Africans in the south. Why should other Arab countries fear such a split? The problem for many African countries is that their borders were drawn up by European colonial powers with no regard for the cultural and tribal differences. Sudan is one such case. Which nearby Arabic countries would be frightened? Those with large Kurdish minorities? Perhaps the creation of a state of Kurdistan out of parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey would be a good thing. (Okay, two of those countries aren't Arabic...) Is it possible for you to believe that the two civil wars in Sudan were driven at least in part by local factors? Why do you blame the "big countries"?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 10, 2011 10:58:16 GMT -4
Which nearby Arabic countries would be frightened? Those with large Kurdish minorities? Perhaps the creation of a state of Kurdistan out of parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey would be a good thing. (Okay, two of those countries aren't Arabic...) That's the rub. Most of the Arab world is governed without much input from subjects of the state. Dissatisfaction in one that leads to a split can mean a split possible in all countries. Particularly for ethnic regions.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 10, 2011 12:28:34 GMT -4
Obama is very happy and the Sudanese are to blame too. I'm no fan of President Obama, but why would the split of Sudan make him happy?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 10, 2011 12:54:39 GMT -4
Only the north part of Sudan is Arabic. Most people in South Sudan are African and Christian.Please don't bring thee thaughts about. It ws the agonyzingtrauma of Lebanon that Christians started saying that they are not Arabs but phoenicians and Islam came from the Islamic conquests so they have to be separated from the Arabs. On the other hand, Islamis here back then said that they belong to pan arabism and some didn't acknowledge the borders of Lebanon.Many countreis have different ppl' s origins. If each ethnic group started saying that they should split it is a tradgedy. People should start thinking that they belong to their country no matter wha treligions and ethnic backgrounds they came from. Personally, I think the split is an amazing opportunity, and if both sides accept the split peacefully, it could bring tremendous benefits to both countries.The two sides might accept the split , ut this is becasue they hate each other which is something bad. The soldier swears an oath that he will protect all the lands of his country. These benefits would mean end of strife, but this end could be braught up by peace and reconciliation like countries who had civil wars did, including America. The difference is that Sudan is large (if I remember correctly, the current country is the eighth largest in the world by area), and the population split was very clear - Arabs in the north, Africans in the south.Again, split based on ethnicity is not true. Lebanon is small, but it has 18 religious sects and is diverse enough in ethnicities. Why should other Arab countries fear such a split? The problem for many African countries is that their borders were drawn up by European colonial powers with no regard for the cultural and tribal differences. Sudan is one such case.Lebanon also was created by Sikes-Piko agreement. Syria keeps saying that this agreement is a historical mistake and that it splitted the arabs. True, but one can't go back in history. The Arabs would fear this becasue it would form a first 'successful' example of splitting and big countries might use this if they want to split their foes. Which nearby Arabic countries would be frightened? Those with large Kurdish minorities? Perhaps the creation of a state of Kurdistan out of parts of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey would be a good thing. (Okay, two of those countries aren't Arabic...)Syria, Iraq, Egypt... Tunisia...Tunisians are Berbers and Arabs. If they want to split it is dangerous and it will awaken problems. Is it possible for you to believe that the two civil wars in Sudan were driven at least in part by local factors? Why do you blame the "big countries"?Wahahaa..the Lebanese didn't manufacture their weapons in the civil war. They got them from the outside countries who fueled tensions. Obama [this is for Jason too], seems happy about it. allafrica.com/stories/201101100614.html
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 10, 2011 13:01:31 GMT -4
President Obama affects to be happy about any sweeping democratically induced change in the greater geopolitical context since it "proves" that Democracy is "right." Oh yeah it's also much easier to negotiate with two peaceful countries than it is to negotiate with one in the middle of a civil war or two, especially if you want access and mining rights for your corporate buddies.
But for all that "being happy about it" is nowhere near "is directly responsible for causing" as you seem to wish to imply.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 10, 2011 15:44:16 GMT -4
No one gets happy for nothing or for democracy or for principles from these politicans . they have to have benefits for their external policy. About causing it, these are speculations but based on the history of how civil wars are created. The consultant of Silva Keer , the Southern Sudan leader said that they received weapons from Israel after they received them from Kongo. The south wil have relations with Israel and many benefits for the U.S.A / Israel policies
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 10, 2011 17:26:25 GMT -4
I would look up the definitions of "affect" if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 10, 2011 19:30:18 GMT -4
The Sikes-Picot agreement was flawed in many ways - it represented French and British interests, not that of the people who inhabited the Middle East. Maybe this split is long overdue - although I'll admit I know little about Sudanese history. Where the Sudanese gets their weapons from is less important than the fact that they wanted them and used them. Seems like the people who live in Sudan should take most of the responsibility of what goes on in their country, although a corrupt authority is hard to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 10, 2011 20:02:47 GMT -4
If they want to split up, about all we can do is encourage our governments to apply diplomatic efforts at maintaining peace. For the little good that diplomacy is likely to do.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jan 10, 2011 21:03:34 GMT -4
If they want to split up, about all we can do is encourage our governments to apply diplomatic efforts at maintaining peace. For the little good that diplomacy is likely to do. The plight of the East Horn and Rwanda is documented in the book 'Me Against My Brother.' It has to be one of the most heart tearing reads ever. Such suffering, it's beyond imagination. If only the world could live in peace. Let's hope that the split can bring peace to the country.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 11, 2011 6:29:36 GMT -4
I would look up the definitions of "affect" if I were you. I didn't get it
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jan 11, 2011 6:31:53 GMT -4
The Sikes-Picot agreement was flawed in many ways - it represented French and British interests, not that of the people who inhabited the Middle East. Maybe this split is long overdue - although I'll admit I know little about Sudanese history. Where the Sudanese gets their weapons from is less important than the fact that they wanted them and used them. Seems like the people who live in Sudan should take most of the responsibility of what goes on in their country, although a corrupt authority is hard to deal with. Of course the people are to blame too and I said that before. They think of their interests and their leaders play on the instincts and emotions
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 11, 2011 10:03:51 GMT -4
Only the north part of Sudan is Arabic. Most people in South Sudan are African and Christian.Please don't bring thee thaughts about. It ws the agonyzingtrauma of Lebanon that Christians started saying that they are not Arabs but phoenicians and Islam came from the Islamic conquests so they have to be separated from the Arabs. On the other hand, Islamis here back then said that they belong to pan arabism and some didn't acknowledge the borders of Lebanon.Many countreis have different ppl' s origins. If each ethnic group started saying that they should split it is a tradgedy. People should start thinking that they belong to their country no matter wha treligions and ethnic backgrounds they came from. The problem with this idea is that when a government imposes rules which suit the majority population, or the dominant population, the remainder have no loyalty to their country. This appears to have been very much the case with Sudan. How comfortable would you feel living in Lebanon if all positions in government were occupied by Muslims, and they imposed Sharia Law on the entire population, Muslim or not? The difference here is that the USA at the time of the Civil War was culturally and religiously fairly homogenous, much more so than Sudan is today. There's a huge difference between a Muslim/Animist split and a Baptist/Episcopalian split. But basically everyone speaks the same dialect of Arabic, yes? This isn't the case in Sudan. No, we can't go back in history, but there's no reason not to act now to fix problems from the past. Many countries have found that letting separatist populations leave has resolved problems - East Timor from Indonesia, the various south Slav republics, Ireland from the United Kingdom. And a process like this could easily work the other way. If the two Yemens can merge, why not other Arab states? If their needs are accommodated and culture respected, they should be fine. What I'm reading is that the civil wars were based around ethnic tensions between north and south. Major powers might have stoked the problem, and might have benefited from it. But to say the major powers "created" the civil war is to ignore the evidence.
|
|