South Sudan: the world's newest country.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Hadn't seen a topic on this development, so...discuss!

(I don't really know much about this topic, but it seems important enough to create a topic about.)

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

?

[Os Cangaceiros]

there was a long war between the black African tribes in the southern region of Sudan, and the Arab African tribes in the northern region of Sudan, which ultimately culminated in the new state of southern Sudan, recently recognized.

there's still a big problem with people who are enslaved in Northern Sudan.

This is the extent of my knowledge.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

ok, thanks for clearing it up

[Os Cangaceiros]

no prob

[crazyirish93]

and the USA and Britain are already there securing their oil.

[Revy]

South Sudan is where 85% of Sudan's oil comes from.
Just an interesting fact.

[RadioRaheem84]

Anyone hear about the New country's Prez making homophobic statements?

[El Oso Rojo]

Another little piece of ass for imperialism. I love it when people say they do this shit to other nations for humantarian reasons, but i go back to rwanda and look at what a shitty job, they did protecting innocent civilians from Genocide.

[bcbm]

Another little piece of ass for imperialism. I love when people say that do this shit to other nation for humantarian reason, but i go back to rwanda and look at what a shitty job, they protecting innocent civilians from Genocide.

huh?

[OhYesIdid]

There was a genocide on Rwanda and no one intervened, bcbm, though it's really more of an argument for interventionism.
Also, slavery wtf? Where? Citation fucking needed.

[twenty percent tip]

there warse not any split between coler or religion .t hat was made up by resource grabbers. goread some history. notthe 3rd page of the newyork times and think you know. you dunt know stunner:rolleyes:

[bcbm]

There was a genocide on Rwanda and no one intervened, bcbm

yes i am aware of that, i am not sure who is "doing this shit to other people for humanitarian reasons" here though, south sudan voted to secede with a referendum and there hasn't been any intervention in sudan as far as i know?

[Leftsolidarity]

there warse not any split between coler or religion .t hat was made up by resource grabbers. goread some history. notthe 3rd page of the newyork times and think you know. you dunt know stunner:rolleyes:

He said he didn't know much so don't be an ass. Neither do I and I'd like to hear what people think about it.

[La Peur Rouge]

Also, slavery wtf? Where? Citation fucking needed.

Slavery definitely exists. Do a search for human trafficking/slavery in Sudan.

[OhYesIdid]

Slavery definitely exists. Do a search for human trafficking/slavery in Sudan.

Well, I found this site, sudanupdate.org, that has a FAQ. Excrept:

Much of Southern Sudan was plundered by commercial slave traders, who devastated its peoples. Southern Sudanese resisted fiercely, and today's inhabitants are the descendants of those people who remained free. Slavery was abolished by the British imperial rulers in 1898, but it took some decades for the practice to die out. Although Sudan suffered a North-South civil war from 1955-72, slave-taking was not a central issue then. Slavery has only re-emerged in the last decade.
In 1986 the Defence Minister in the civilian government led by Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi proceeded to arm Baggara militias as a "security belt" against the mainly Southern rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA), in renewed civil war. The resurgence of slavery was described in a 1987 report by two Northern Sudanese university lecturers, who linked it to the militias. Many of today's slaves were taken during the 1986-89 period, before the current regime seized power.http://www.sudanupdate.org/REPORTS/Slavery/arw-up-y.gif (http://www.sudanupdate.org/REPORTS/Slavery/slave.htm#Sudan%20-%20slavery%20Beginning)
What is the Sudan Government's policy?
The government has repeatedly denied that slavery exists, but under international pressure it set up committees to investigate the question in early 1996. It blames the phenomenon on "tribal conflicts" in which both sides take hostages, and insists these captives are not slaves. Slavery is against the law in Sudan, and only "the white man, decades ago", took slaves, it says. In practice, the government uses the militias to destroy villages and terrorize entire communities. It turns a blind eye to raiding for captives as "war booty" to be kept in servitude or sold. Some captives become hostages, some become slaves. When families of captives try to get their children back through the courts,the government has not often been helpful. And close to the war zones, few people are brave enough to challenge militia fighters in court

Anyone else can vouch for this?

[KurtFF8]

Hollywood's role in South Sudan's independence (BBC) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14050504)




By Leslie Goffe BBC News, New York http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53897000/jpg/_53897943_012380434-1.jpg
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14050504#story_continues_1) Sudan: Set for divorce (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12070034)



How do you set up a country? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14014083)
How long will the smiles last? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14085832)
'He died for this day' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14030814)
Torture house of horrors (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13995944)



The Republic of South Sudan will soon be the world's newest nation.
Its independence on Saturday will be celebrated in the United States by Republicans and by Democrats alike, and by Christian conservatives alongside Hollywood liberals.
All have been vocal advocates in the US for an end to war in Sudan that has taken millions of lives and resulted in accusations of genocide.
These advocates include actors Don Cheadle and George Clooney, known to some in the US as "Mr Sudan".
Mr Clooney, convinced by activist friends to use his star power to draw attention to the crisis in Sudan, led a rally in Washington and delivered a speech on Sudan at the United Nations in 2006.
"Everyone feels like this is one issue they can all be on the same side on, and there aren't many of those," Mr Clooney said in an interview.
On the other side, are evangelical Christians determined to stop what they claimed was the persecution and killing of Christians by Muslims from northern Sudan.
Evangelical churches began building hospitals, schools and churches in the mostly animist and Christian south in the 1990s.
Under pressure
In 2004, evangelical groups pressed then-President George W Bush - himself a born-again Christian - to send troops to Sudan.
The president did not go that far but he did impose tough economic sanctions on Sudan and press the Khartoum government to negotiate a peace deal with rebels in the south that was signed in 2005.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53926000/jpg/_53926266_clooney.jpg George Clooney was in South Sudan for January's independence referendum
But did the lobbying and campaigning by evangelicals and Hollywood celebrities make a difference?
A member of the Bush administration, the former ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell, thinks so.
"South Sudan captured the public's imagination more than has happened elsewhere in Africa because Christians in Sudan used their grapevine to let Christians in America know that Muslims were persecuting them."
It reminded people, says Mr Campbell, "of the persecution of the Jews in the Soviet Union and elsewhere." Mr Campbell says the role celebrities played was important, too.
"Celebrities made all of this known, in their way, to ordinary people and made it part of the conversation to people who would otherwise not pay much attention to what was happening overseas."
Enoch Awejok, an official at South Sudan's embassy in Washington, also believes the lobbying and campaigning made a difference.
"Without George Clooney and the churches, the CPA [Comprehensive Peace Agreement] would not have occurred," he says.
"And they still have an effective role to play in resolving the outstanding issues in Sudan."
Cool cause
Continue reading the main story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14050504#story_continues_2) “Start Quote


I just wish people would be more open to learn about things instead of looking at because a celebrity is involved and all of a sudden people want to be involved”
End Quote Mari Malek Southern Sudan Initiatives
Sudanese expatriates in the United States have campaigned for their country, too.
But New York-based fashion model Mari Malek, born in southern Sudan, founder of the charity Southern Sudan Initiatives, worries that without the involvement of celebrities many Americans would not have been interested in Sudan, at all.
"I just wish people would be more open to learn about things instead of looking at because a celebrity is involved and all of a sudden people want to be involved," says Ms Malek.
"I think people should be more open-minded instead of looking at it as a cool thing."
Sudan became "cool" to Americans looking for a cause to support in 2003 when the film Lost Boys of Sudan (http://www.lostboysfilm.com/) was released.
This was a documentary about the remarkable story of the hundreds of Sudanese boys who fled the civil war, walked for weeks to Ethiopia, where their refugee camps were attacked, forcing them to flee to Kenya, before they were finally allowed into the US.
The film helped make the plight of the people of Sudan known and make it a cause many Americans wanted to be involved in.
Ger Duany is one of the Lost Boys of Sudan. An actor who lives now in Harlem, in New York City, Duany was featured in the Hollywood film I Heart Huckabees.
Duany says he made sure to lobby and tell his co-stars on the film - Dustin Hoffman and Mark Wahlberg - what he faced in Sudan.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53904000/jpg/_53904489_jex_1099664_de30-1.jpg Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53904000/jpg/_53904489_jex_1099664_de30-1.jpgClick to play





All you need to know about South Sudan's independence

"I spoke to a lot of guys and they were very supportive people, Mark Wahlberg mostly, but I think in a way more could have been done. We are not free," says Duany, who plans on being in South Sudan to celebrate its official independence on 9 July.
South Sudan has enjoyed a lot of support in the United States.
But now that it is about to achieve its independence some are concerned that Americans who campaigned and lobbied on its behalf, will find some other "cool" cause to occupy them.
If this does happen, says Ms Malek, then Sudanese expatriates in the US will do whatever they have to to ensure their new country is not forgotten.
"I think that the new generation of South Sudan people who migrated here to the USA are going to keep the momentum going," she says.
"So, with or without the celebrities, I think we are strong enough to keep pushing the momentum."
As for Mr Campbell, the former Bush administration ambassador to Nigeria, he says Americans will be content to turn their attention elsewhere if after 9 July, boundary lines between north and south are respected and there is agreement on how the oil revenue will be divided up.
If, however, says Mr Campbell, "we see the kind of bloodshed we have seen over the past several weeks then I don't think American attention or interest in Sudan and South Sudan will dissipate, at all."

[La Peur Rouge]

Anyone else can vouch for this?

http://www.antislavery.org/english/what_we_do/antislavery_international_today/award/2006_award_winner/slavery_in_sudan.aspx

www.humantrafficking.org (http://www.humantrafficking.org/)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Sudan

[SacRedMan]

All we can do is waiting for the USA that brings democracy there or immigrants that come here and knock on our doors.

[agnixie]

So, what's with the eagerness to defend a state that's busy turning into a reactionary theocracy?

Or am I misinterpreting the snide comments, since after all, it's not like Sudan is free of imperialism.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Sudan is not two, Sudan is a single state that should be recognized as such. Imperialism is attempting to uphold the Sudanese division in order to gain access to oil within South Sudan and isolate the economic interests of China and Russia within the African continent in order to maintain the domination of US foreign policy in the African continent.

Not to mention that it is rather silly for one interested in 'human rights' to admire the SPLA when the SPLA were the first to force those living within Sudan off of their land in order to gain control over the oil fields within the region in order for foreign companies to benefit from the discovered oil fields. As well, the SPLA have historically committed war-crimes that can be compared to those that have been committed by various other factions within Sudan.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Don't really see the division of the world, yet again, as being helpful to the poor. A definite step backwards, which I imagine will end up in more war/civil war/plunder and exploitation in a few years. This can't work.

[agnixie]

Sudan is not two, Sudan is a single state that should be recognized as such. Imperialism is attempting to uphold the Sudanese division in order to gain access to oil within South Sudan and isolate the economic interests of China and Russia within the African continent in order to maintain the domination of US foreign policy in the continent.

Not to mention that it is rather silly for one interested in 'human rights' to admire the SPLA when the SPLA were the first to force those living within Sudan off of their land in order to gain control over the oil fields within the region in order for foreign companies to benefit from the discovered oil fields. As well, the SPLA have historically committed war-crimes that can be compared to those that have been committed by various other factions within Sudan.

You completely misunderstood me, I was commenting on the snide comments against South Sudan. Also, sorry but this is bullshit nationalist fake analysis. Sudan tried to commit genocide in its outer regions, the people have pretty legitimate grievances. Sudan is not two, either. It's still Sudan, just without the south. South Sudan is South Sudan, Sudan is Sudan. There are no magically defined borders. Especially not in Sudan, where Egypt didn't even control the region until the british came along, except for short periods (the region was claimed as the province of Equatoria). So basically, we have a country that only exists as such because of imperialism. Why should it have to stick together? Or is it going to be the same bullshit Yugoslavist nostalgia when the serbian government nailed its own coffin when it tried to claim two of the republics were provinces of it?

Also, it's not anti-imperialism vs imperialism there. It's imperial rivalries. China is a capitalist and imperialist country, Russia is a capitalist and imperialist country. Hell, it became an imperialist country while still pretending to be communist, admittedly China still also pretends to be so. But I guess the tankies can't make the difference.

Large unitary states don't exactly help things. Especially when the large unitary state is busy committing genocide. Sorry, but if some asshole ML is going to play the left nationalist card in the name of the reactionary theocrats who currently rule in Khartum, I would hope you just go tell it in the face of some Fur civilian. That, sorry, but the glorious workers' revolution can only happen if they stay part of the country that's trying to massacre them all.

How does that help the workers, if the workers are getting slaughtered by the state?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

You completely misunderstood me, I was commenting on the snide comments against South Sudan. Also, sorry but this is bullshit nationalist fake analysis. Sudan tried to commit genocide in its outer regions, the people have pretty legitimate grievances. Sudan is not two, either. It's still Sudan, just without the south. South Sudan is South Sudan, Sudan is Sudan. There are no magically defined borders. Especially not in Sudan, where Egypt didn't even control the region until the british came along, except for short periods (the region was claimed as the province of Equatoria). So basically, we have a country that only exists as such because of imperialism. Why should it have to stick together? Or is it going to be the same bullshit Yugoslavist nostalgia when the serbian government nailed its own coffin when it tried to claim two of the republics were provinces of it?

Also, it's not anti-imperialism vs imperialism there. It's imperial rivalries.

Large unitary states don't exactly help things. Especially when the large unitary state is busy committing genocide. Sorry, but if some asshole ML is going to play the left nationalist card in the name of the reactionary theocrats who currently rule in Khartum, I would hope you just go tell it in the face of some Fur civilian. That, sorry, but the glorious workers' revolution can only happen if they stay part of the country that's trying to massacre them all.

How does that help the workers, if the workers are getting slaughtered by the state?

'Sudan tried to commit genocide in its outer regions'
:rolleyes: Rather silly accusation without realizing that the SPLA had been previously complicit in war crimes that could be likely considered 'genocidal' to a certain degree.

'Especially when the large unitary state is busy committing genocide'
:lol:

'but if some asshole ML is going to play the left nationalist card in the name of the reactionary theocrats who currently rule in Khartum'
Certainly it is better than the silly liberal card that continually supports regimes that attempt to pride themselves as morally superior to various others yet are complicit in war criminal actions but are acceptable due to the economic and foreign interests of US and NATO imperialism.

', I would hope you just go tell it in the face of some Fur civilian. That'

I would hope you would do so as well except to those that have been slaughtered, deported and have been made refugees from their own lands due to the actions of the SPLA in the interest of gaining the oil fields within South Sudan.

'How does that help the workers, if the workers are getting slaughtered by the state?'

And you're in support of the SPLA and South Sudan?

[agnixie]

I don't particularly care for the SPLA, which I'll note spent most of the civil war embroiled in conflicts in the south, especially against the LLA in Uganda.


Certainly it is better than the silly liberal card that continually supports regimes that attempt to pride themselves as morally superior to various others yet are complicit in war criminal actions but are acceptable due to the economic and foreign interests of US and NATO imperialism.

You already established that you only had a problem with US imperialism, not imperialism in general. You seem to have no issues with Chinese and Russian imperialism, at least. You're not really anti-imperialist, you're cheering a team.

Or at least it seems so. I can also play that strawmen game.

You're still basically arguing the line that a unitary state has to be defended because... oh yes, because it's backed by the imperialists on what you perceive to be your team.


Imperialism is attempting to uphold the Sudanese division in order to gain access to oil within South Sudan and isolate the economic interests of China and Russia within the African continent in order to maintain the domination of US foreign policy in the African continent.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I don't particularly care for the SPLA, which I'll note spent most of the civil war embroiled in conflicts in the south, especially against the LLA in Uganda.


You already established that you only had a problem with US imperialism, not imperialism in general. You seem to have no issues with Chinese and Russian imperialism, at least. You're not really anti-imperialist, you're cheering a team.

Or at least it seems so. I can also play that strawmen game.

'I don't particularly care for the SPLA'
Yet, you're accusing the Sudanese state of being complicit in genocide and at the same time are supporting South Sudan which is controlled by the SPLA. :lol: It doesn't matter if you say that you don't care for the SPLA, as you're supporting a state that is controlled by the SPLA and is complicit in various war crimes that rival even the Sudanese state.

'you're cheering a team.'

Which is what you're currently doing.

'issues with Chinese and Russian imperialism'
Attempting to divide Sudan isn't 'anti-imperialist.' If this were anti-imperialist, the division of North and South Vietnam would have been 'anti-imperialist.' Sudan is a single national entity and should be regarded as such as previously said, it isn't in the interests of the proletariat to divide Sudan as a state in the interests of US imperialism.



South Sudan’s army set fire to over 7,000 homes in Mankien payam [district] of Unity state after they took the area back from southern rebels on Sunday.



The SPLA accused citizens in the area of hosting a rebel militia that had clashed with the southern army last week.


The army raped hundreds of women, children, men, elders and members of the royal family and tortured and killed a still unknown number of civilians. Over 10,000 people were displaced in the midst of the rainy season, sent fleeing into the forest, often naked, without bedding, shelter or food, and many children died from hunger and cold..

[agnixie]

Attempting to divide Sudan isn't 'anti-imperialist.'

A) This is a huge fucking strawman
B) I never said it was
C) Sudan is a 19th century creation of Arabic and British Imperialism and this split was plebiscited, which has shit fuck all to do with Vietnam and Korea, which had to be kept separate by force.
D) Haha, I'm out. Saw you on other threads, you're probably a troll

[#FF0000]

All we can do is waiting for the USA that brings democracy there or immigrants that come here and knock on our doors.

Stop saying dumb things please.

So, yeah, what's this about intervention in Sudan having to do with this split?

This is hella confusing.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

A) This is a huge fucking strawman
B) I never said it was
C) Sudan is a 19th century creation of Arabic and British Imperialism, which has shit fuck all to do with Vietnam and Korea, which had to be kept separate by force.

'fuck all to do with Vietnam'
It does, Vietnam was previously divided into Cochinchina which encompassed the Southern portion of Vietnam. As well, Vietnam was not previously unified except for a minor unification as done by Tây Sơn's Dynasty.
'This is a huge fucking strawman'
No, it isn't. :lol:


The SPLA put plastic bags on people's heads. They light them on fire and drip the burning plastic on a child's body to make his parents hand over their weapon. They tear out fingernails. If they think rebels spent the night in a village they burn it and rape the women. In the villages of Laor and Tanyang people were burned alive in their huts

[Red Commissar]

One of the problems with South Sudan is that it got tied up in foreign intrigues on Africa. The US had been attempting to support the SPLA by shipments through Kenya in order to make in roads there and its independence is the culmination in a long game of politics.

South Sudan's government would face a number of issues right out of the gate. It has non-existent infrastructure and reportedly under 50 km of modern, paved roads. There is not much power delivery, water supplies, sewage, etc either. Public services such as schooling and hospitals are nonexistent. In regards to the latter it's bad enough for some forecasts of a "grave humanitarian crisis" on account of the new state's inability to address those.

Economically it's all going to depend on the natural resources it currently sits upon. The corporations moving in to exploit them are securing contracts but for the foreseeable future will have to rely on the existing pipelines that go through North Sudan to the ports on the Red Sea for export. There are projects being lined up as a part of the infrastructure projects that will also presumably lay the ground work for a separate pipeline network going through Kenya to ports there.

Politically it'll be a mess too. Until now the SPLA has been held together by common opposition to Khartoum. With that factor being pushed to the background, rivalries rooted in personal and tribal differences will come to the surface. More over corruption will be an issue as well considering the careerists that will flock to the new "order" and be content that their power will rely more on force than anything else. That'll be a hotspot for discontent against the regime once the euphoria of "independence" passes over and a new generation comes into being that does not have as much attachment to the Civil War.

It'll be a tough start for this new state needless to say.

That being said, I don't really think the opposite- being tied down to Khartoum- would have been much different. This situation here has gone far out of control and I think it would have with or with out "imperialist" meddling. There are too many differences on account of Khartoum's drive to centralize a state that had faced too much trouble right out of its colonial era. Centralizing a state solely based on the inherent superiority of some group of people has never benefited anyone, and the regime in Khartoum showed that pretty readily. At the same time the rebels are hardly the "noble" force struggling for freedom- they committed their own share of atrocities. This was a civil war, and civil wars are always opportunities for exploitation.

Additionally I think foreign perceptions of the region really helped to build up popular support (or at least indifference) for independence in developed nations. Kurt posted an article about the efforts of Hollywood figures in this effort which is worth reading. I think confusion has also benefited- a number of people I've meet seem to have confused Darfur and South Sudan, sometimes thinking the two were the same thing. Indeed I think Hollywood and others were much more loud about Darfur than South Sudan, but seemingly transitioned into South Sudan without much thought. Religious wackjobs also found South Sudan appealing due to its ability to dumb down and distort the South Sudan conflict as a Muslim v. Christian conflict- something those organizations just love to rant about and spread.

What is good in these situations is to take a critical position towards both possibilities and camps. It's pointless to act in defense of the governments in either Juba or Khartoum on account of both in the end are nothing more than states seeking to advance their own interests and that of what ever foreign state is backing them.

[Hiero]

Regardless of imperialism or anti-imperialism it was bound to happen.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Western imperialism however attempts to maintain the unification of Somalia and has not recognized the independence and sovereignty of Somaliland; Nor has NATO and US imperialism recognized the independence and sovereignty of Puntland.



Regardless of imperialism or anti-imperialism it was bound to happen.

However US and NATO imperialism has been keen on dividing the region and recognizing South Sudan.

[Kiev Communard]

Sudan is not two, Sudan is a single state that should be recognized as such. Imperialism is attempting to uphold the Sudanese division in order to gain access to oil within South Sudan and isolate the economic interests of China and Russia within the African continent in order to maintain the domination of US foreign policy in the African continent.

1. Russia and China are just as imperialist as the USA, and to claim that their "economic interests" in Sudan are somehow more beneficial than those of the U.S. is incredibly idealist and counter-factual. For instance, Russian corporations in South Africa are just as destructive for the environment and local communities as the American ones in Nigeria or the Chinese interests in Zambia and Angola, and there is no reason for a communist to vilify some of them while upholding the others.

2. Sudan's statehood is just as artificial as those of the other multi-national former European colonies in Africa, with its borders having been drawn not according to some ethnic or cultural boundaries, but due to the specific outcomes of inter-imperialist squabbles. Before the Turkish conquest in 1821 and the later British colonization in 1898 there existed at least three large-scale territorial states in the territory of modern Sudan, and the historical region of Sudan used to encompass the lands as far to the west as modern Mali, so that there are no grounds for inventing some fictitious "national unity" of modern Sudan.


Not to mention that it is rather silly for one interested in 'human rights' to admire the SPLA when the SPLA were the first to force those living within Sudan off of their land in order to gain control over the oil fields within the region in order for foreign companies to benefit from the discovered oil fields. As well, the SPLA have historically committed war-crimes that can be compared to those that have been committed by various other factions within Sudan.

Of course, the SPLA committed its fair share of war crimes, but are the government of Sudan (which is fiercely anti-communist and anti-secular, by the way) and its Janjaweed henchmen something better?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

1. Russia and China are just as imperialist as the USA, and to claim that their "economic interests" in Sudan are somehow more beneficial than those of the U.S. is incredibly idealist and counter-factual. For instance, Russian corporations in South Africa are just as destructive for the environment and local communities as the American ones in Nigeria or the Chinese interests in Zambia and Angola, and there is no reason for a communist to vilify some of them while upholding the others.

2. Sudan's statehood is just as artificial as those of the other multi-national former European colonies in Africa, with its borders having been drawn not according to some ethnic or cultural boundaries, but due to the specific outcomes of inter-imperialist squabbles. Before the Turkish conquest in 1821 and the later British colonization in 1898 there existed at least three large-scale territorial states in the territory of modern Sudan, and the historical region of Sudan used to encompass the lands as far to the west as modern Mali, so that there are no grounds for inventing some fictitious "national unity" of modern Sudan.



Of course, the SPLA committed its fair share of war crimes, but are the government of Sudan (which is fiercely anti-communist and anti-secular, by the way) and its Janjaweed henchmen something better?

'. Russia and China are just as imperialist as the USA, and to claim that their "economic interests" in Sudan are somehow more beneficial than those of the U.S. is incredibly idealist'

Yet... You're siding with US and NATO imperialism within Sudan and considering this to be somewhat more progressive; This is extremely liberal in nature towards US imperialism. :rolleyes:

' Before the Turkish conquest in 1821 and the later British colonization in 1898 there existed at least three large-scale territorial states in the territory of modern Sudan, '

Unity is preferred as compared to the territorial division of Sudan by US and NATO imperialism that seeks to divide what is rightfully a single Sudanese state in order to spread its own foreign policy and economic interests. :rolleyes:

'which is fiercely anti-communist and anti-secular'

As is the SPLA. :rolleyes:

'Janjaweed henchmen something better?'
Compared to the SPLA henchmen that are responsible for the slaughter of thousands of civilians, torture, rape and massacres in the interests of securing oil fields within Sudan in order for NATO and US imperialism to flourish?

[bailey_187]

kiev_communard doesnt appear to have sided with any faction of capital, u are the only one taking sides in this thread.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

kiev_communard doesnt appear to have sided with any faction of capital, u are the only one taking sides in this thread.

Siding with South Sudan is siding with the SPLA and imperialism from the US and NATO.

'Good will' from the United Nations towards the SPLA:
http://unmis.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=511&ctl=Details&mid=697&ItemID=14318



As the SPLA now transform itself from guerrilla into professional national army, such initiatives would be cumulatively very contributory towards building professionalism in the SPLA across the board,” said Mr. Lidder. “The medical profession of course forms a very important part of military everywhere.

It is rather silly that those that are continually sympathizing with the SPLA that has been and will continue to be complicit in various barbaric war criminal actions in the interests of US and NATO imperialism within Sudan are unwilling to extend their friendliness towards similar organizations that are continually resisting against US and NATO imperialism within Afghanistan, Iraq and Chechnya.


As well, the United Nations actions against the Janjaweed are hypocritical as the United Nations along with US and NATO imperialism is complicit in the war crimes as perpetuated by the SPLA and various other armed factions.

[Kiev Communard]

Siding with South Sudan is siding with the SPLA and imperialism from the US and NATO.

'Good will' from the United Nations towards the SPLA:
http://unmis.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=511&ctl=Details&mid=697&ItemID=14318

I have not sided with them, I have just pointed out that the Bashir government is nothing better. I have always been amused by the fact that some people seem unable to grasp the simple fact that it is possible not to side with any bourgeois faction in an international conflict, and instead to pursue an independent class line therein.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I have not sided with them, I have just pointed out that the Bashir government is nothing better. I have always been amused by the fact that some people seem unable to grasp the simple fact that it is possible not to side with any bourgeois faction in an international conflict, and instead to pursue an independent class line therein.

Which is the reason you're content with a division of Sudan that shall only lead forth further infighting, slaughter and human rights abuses. :rolleyes:

[Kiev Communard]

Which is the reason you're content with a division of Sudan that shall only lead forth further infighting, slaughter and human rights abuses. :rolleyes:

Well, look at Darfur. Is it prosperous under the unitary Sudanese state? Are there no sufferings and slaughter in that region? I think not. If the majority of the population chose to secede, there should be some pretty serious reason for this. And please, do not tell me that the CIA operatives have brainwashed every single of pro-independence South Sudanese with some top-secret brain rays :rolleyes:.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Well, look at Darfur. Is it prosperous under the unitary Sudanese state? Are there no sufferings and slaughter in that region? I think not. If the majority of the population chose to secede, there should be some pretty serious reason for this. And please, do not tell me that the CIA operatives have brainwashed every single of pro-independence South Sudanese with some top-secret brain rays :rolleyes:.

'CIA operatives have brainwashed every single of pro-independence South Sudanese with some top-secret brain rays'

No, however:


South Sudan’s army (SPLA) set fire to over 7,000 homes in Mankien payam [district] of Unity state after they took the area back from southern rebels on Sunday


The army (SPLA) raped hundreds of women, children, men, elders and members of the royal family and tortured and killed a still unknown number of civilians. Over 10,000 people were displaced in the midst of the rainy season, sent fleeing into the forest, often naked, without bedding, shelter or food, and many children died from hunger and cold...


'If the majority of the population chose to secede, there should be some pretty serious reason for this'
Yet again, you're sympathizing with the bourgeois SLM and SPLA whom commit various atrocities and war crimes against the people of Sudan and supporting bourgeois divisions in order to maintain imperialist foreign policy and imperialist economic interests within Sudan.

Speaking of which within Darfur-- The SLM were primarily the first whom had began slaughtering those within the region and forcing Sudanese out of their homes and rightful land within Darfur in order to seize control over the oil fields.

[bailey_187]

no one is saying whether or not there should be two sudans or one, its not really the place of marxists to say.

your logic of the south succession being backed by western imperialism, and therefore unity should be supported could easily be flipped to say that, considering that Chinese impeerialism is so heavily involved which Bashir's government, we should support the south - but that would be equaly wrong to do. why support one side of either imperialism?

[bailey_187]

nice Al Jazeera quotes too. I suppose Al Jazeera say nothing of abuses from the north tho
oh wait, yah it does

Both sides were accused of rampant human rights abuses. The SPLA allegedly carried out thousands of arbitrary detentions and summary executions in areas under its control; allegations of rape were also common. The government in Khartoum has been accused of bombing civilian populations, raiding villages to capture slaves, and arming Arab militias to carry out what the United Nations has called a policy of ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/southsudanindependence/2011/07/20117217141500611.html

So we have established both sides have been caring out atrocities. now what?

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

no one is saying whether or not there should be two sudans or one, its not really the place of marxists to say.

your logic of the south succession being backed by western imperialism, and therefore unity should be supported could easily be flipped to say that, considering that Chinese impeerialism is so heavily involved which Bashir's government, we should support the south - but that would be equaly wrong to do. why support one side of either imperialism?

'no one is saying whether or not there should be two sudans or one'
See previous comments.

'why support one side of either imperialism?'
As the other is not seeking to assure its method of domination within Sudan in the form that the other is currently doing within the region and throughout Africa. While China may indeed be imperialist, China is not and has not dominated the African continent in the methods that US, NATO and UN imperialism has done. As well, China is not seeking to divide Sudan in the method that Western imperialism is currently doing.

'carry out what the United Nations has called a policy of ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region'

Yet when the SPLA and SPLM does so it is not ethnic cleansing.

[bailey_187]

well yeah, of course china isnt trying to divide sudan, because its allied with the north, where as the oil is in the south. do u not understand the concept of an inter-imperialist conflict?

also, the situation isnt a simple as saying now the pro-western south has the oil its going to allow it to be plunderd by western imperialists. its going to be very complicated what happens to the oil, as it will need to travel through northen sudan anyway, and it will need use of the norths refineries

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sudan's government is highly imperialistic towards its southern territories, considering it extracts resources to profit the Arab majority in the North. The south Sudanese deserve independence from their racist theocrat overlords in the North as much as the Kenyans did from Britain or the Palestinians from Israel. Of course, this shouldn't be confused with support for the SPLA any more than support for Kenyan independence is support for the Mau Mau or Palestinian independence is support for Hamas. Merely that any nationalistic exploitative power which tries to impose itself on peripheral populations has no right to complain when those peripheral groups vote on independence.

The real tragedy is that without the Southern resistance, there will be less pushback against their government's capitalistic (arguably even fascistic) abuse in the rest of "Sudan" including of the Nuba and in Darfur.

[Turinbaar]

I noticed that the same sorts of people that are scoffing at south sudan's existence are the same people nearly a decade ago who would have said "The US will invade the middle-east on 'humanitarian and democratic grounds' because there's oil, but it will completely ignore sudan because the have no oil." This lame quip was brought up time and again by people who did not care at all about the africans or middle eastern people, who would have protested had the US intervened, and who simply wanted to show off their "anti-imp" credentials as a childish "fuck you" to the West. After letting the genocide run its course in sudan, all the pseudo-revolutionaries can say is now that the worst possible outcome would be if the US were involved in the Chinese backed war for oil in Africa. These are the same people who euphemise Colonel Gaddafi, the creator of the janjiweed, as a liberator of black africans, and victim of imperialism.

[bailey_187]

These are the same people who euphemise Colonel Gaddafi, the creator of the janjiweed, as a liberator of black africans, and victim of imperialism.

any more info on this please?

[CynicalIdealist]

I noticed that the same sorts of people that are scoffing at south sudan's existence are the same people nearly a decade ago who would have said "The US will invade the middle-east on 'humanitarian and democratic grounds' because there's oil, but it will completely ignore sudan because the have no oil." This lame quip was brought up time and again by people who did not care at all about the africans or middle eastern people, who would have protested had the US intervened, and who simply wanted to show off their "anti-imp" credentials as a childish "fuck you" to the West. After letting the genocide run its course in sudan, all the pseudo-revolutionaries can say is now that the worst possible outcome would be if the US were involved in the Chinese backed war for oil in Africa. These are the same people who euphemise Colonel Gaddafi, the creator of the janjiweed, as a liberator of black africans, and victim of imperialism.

I fucking hate it when people imagine a bunch of different, separate people as one big hivemind that changes with the wind. This is an oversimplification if I've ever seen one. Congrats.

Regarding Sudan, I think as Marxists we have to say that the existing state of Sudan was corrupt and a servant of Chinese capital, but that South Sudanese succession as a proxy for Western capital is not the answer. It's the same as saying that the creation of an East Libya is not the answer to Gaddafi, and that the breakup of Yugoslavia was not the answer to the Balkan problems.

Separation will have its good elements and bad elements for Sudan, in all likelihood, but I believe the fact that the South Sudanese economy will be cut off from the already poor North Sudanese people is cause enough for us to be completely against this. Really, I think orthodox M-Ls and those more left-inclined almost try to disagree with each other sometimes.

[Turinbaar]

any more info on this please?

The men who would constitute the Janjiweed leadership were a part of Ghadaffi's Islamic Legion in the 70's.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n15/alex-de-waal/counter-insurgency-on-the-cheap


In the 1980s, Colonel Gaddafi dreamed of an ‘Arab belt’ across Sahelian Africa. The keystone was to gain control of Chad, starting with the Aouzou strip in the north of the country. He mounted a succession of military adventures in Chad, and from 1987 to 1989, Chadian factions backed by Libya used Darfur as a rear base, provisioning themselves freely from the crops and cattle of local villagers. On at least one occasion they provoked a joint Chadian-French armed incursion into pursuing them. Many of the guns in Darfur came from those factions. Gaddafi’s formula for war was expansive: he collected discontented Sahelian Arabs and Tuaregs, armed them, and formed them into an Islamic Legion that served as the spearhead of his offensives. Among the legionnaires were Arabs from western Sudan, many of them followers of the Mahdist Ansar sect, who had been forced into exile in 1970 by President Nimeiri. The Libyans were defeated by a nimble Chadian force at Ouadi Doum in 1988, and Gaddafi abandoned his irredentist dreams. He began dismantling the Islamic Legion, but its members, armed, trained and – most significant of all – possessed of a virulent Arab supremacism, did not vanish. The legacy of the Islamic Legion lives on in Darfur: Janjawiid leaders are among those said to have been trained in Libya.

More on the Islamic Legion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Legion

[bailey_187]

I fucking hate it when people imagine a bunch of different, separate people as one big hivemind that changes with the wind. This is an oversimplification if I've ever seen one. Congrats.

Regarding Sudan, I think as Marxists we have to say that the existing state of Sudan was corrupt and a servant of Chinese capital, but that South Sudanese succession as a proxy for Western capital is not the answer. It's the same as saying that the creation of an East Libya is not the answer to Gaddafi, and that the breakup of Yugoslavia was not the answer to the Balkan problems.

Separation will have its good elements and bad elements for Sudan, in all likelihood, but I believe the fact that the South Sudanese economy will be cut off from the already poor North Sudanese people is cause enough for us to be completely against this. Really, I think orthodox M-Ls and those more left-inclined almost try to disagree with each other sometimes.


i dont think anyone is saying that sucession is the answer. i think most people agree that the division of the world on ethnic lines is a bad idea.

[LevDavidovichBronstein]

The people of South Sudan have been oppressed by the north for a long time, it's great that they now have independence, I just hope that they use the oil to benefit the people.

[Hiero]

However US and NATO imperialism has been keen on dividing the region and recognizing South Sudan.

However, there is a real desire from the people in southern Sudan be a republic of South Sudan. Given the political setting, it was inevitable that a nation-state would be formed.

What are you going to do? Write a letter to the UN? Join an arabic Sudanese militia? Write to each Sudanese person in the south telling them they made a big mistake?

A unified Sudan was done, now new contradictions will occur in the new country, which will either be more class based or tribe based.

Also remember this is a long civil war, it is a good thing that it is over. I live in a city that has a significant Dinka refugee community who got to vote on the succession, I am happy for thoose people, given that most have lived their whole life through a civil war.



Regarding Sudan, I think as Marxists we have to say that the existing state of Sudan was corrupt and a servant of Chinese capital, but that South Sudanese succession as a proxy for Western capital is not the answer. It's the same as saying that the creation of an East Libya is not the answer to Gaddafi, and that the breakup of Yugoslavia was not the answer to the Balkan problems.

I would have said the same if I was alive back during the early days of the DRC under Lumumba's government, and also Yugoslavia (but against imperialism the only chance was Milosevic and only Serb's were was going to accept that leadership). However today is another world. Libya is different, Libya is in a civil war for control of the whole of Libya. Gaddafi is a revisionist in face of imperialism during the 90s earlier 2000s, now he has to deal with that revisionism in the form of civil war. Division of Libya is different then division of Sudan. The division of Sudan into North and South is for a form of peace by the absence of war. If it was the mid 1900s the goal of Marxist in that region would be a union of socialist states, given the climate of imperialism and socialism today, it is not a viable option. The real answer is not within reach, so there is just different and better conditions.

[Rafiq]

North Sudan.... North Korea :D