What exactly is going on in the Sudans?

Kyriakos

Creator
Joined
Oct 15, 2003
Messages
78,218
Location
The Dream
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...sident-says-army-ready-to-take-on-rebels.html

The Telegraph said:
South Sudan president says army ready to take on rebels
South Sudan president has threatened rebel held areas with a major offensive despite diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in the world's youngest nation.

The last British evacuation flight took off just after midday as thousands of expatriates remained behind, hoping a descent into civil war could be averted.

Troops loyal to Salva Kiir, the president, were poised to start a major push on Bor and Bentiu, strategic towns now controlled by the mutinying soldiers allied behind Riek Machar, the former vice-president.

Both towns lie to the north of Juba, the capital, where the military aircraft chartered by the Foreign Office took off for Dubai carrying the last British citizens who had chosen to evacuate.

A map of the (supposedly three) Sudans:

06-sudan-map.jpg


So, what exactly is going on there? They do have oil, so it was to be expected that civil war would be endemic :mischief:

But it seems that the three parts are not enough, and South Sudan may split to parts as well. I did not follow this conflict/country, so maybe others here have some info to make the picture clearer?
 
It's always the way.

You watch. If, or when, Scotland gets independence, the Highlands will seek independence from the Lowlands. And then the Shetlands from the Highlands.
 
Oh, another war in Africa. Hardly a surprise, as tragic as it may be.
 
At first, I read this as "What's wrong with the Sedans?" and I was like "wait whaaat".

Then I saw a map of Africa.

And I realised I might be a terrible person.
 
Short version: leaders of the ruling party had a falling out and having a catfight.
Addendum: Having tribal-based armed militias with combat experience rarely leads to good things.
 
When I read that there's a civil war in South Sudan, my first thought was:

"Well, that didn't take long..." :crazyeye:

Well, kinda did. Many people were expecting some civil war to star in the first year after independence.
 
The UK partitioned their territories in just about any which way they wanted instead of trying to prevent future bloodshed. We still feel the consequences of that today. This is a slightly more modern version of the inter- and intratribal warfare that happened before the British Empire started 'civilising' Africa.
You watch. If, or when, Scotland gets independence, the Highlands will seek independence from the Lowlands. And then the Shetlands from the Highlands.
I suppose the Norwegians would expand their failing oil reserves by reasserting control over Shetland and Orkney. Then they'd get into a war with Denmark because their oil rights conflict over the Danes' Faroe Islands', and then, well, Denmark would win, as they always do, and they'd recover Skåne while they're at it.
 
The UK partitioned their territories in just about any which way they wanted instead of trying to prevent future bloodshed. We still feel the consequences of that today. This is a slightly more modern version of the inter- and intratribal warfare that happened before the British Empire started 'civilising' Africa.

Egypt was the reason the British got involved in the first place anyway, not to mention the Arabs were really douchy to black Sudanese by enslaving them, so blame Muhammad Ali I guess?

I suppose the Norwegians would expand their failing oil reserves by reasserting control over Shetland and Orkney. Then they'd get into a war with Denmark because their oil rights conflict over the Danes' Faroe Islands', and then, well, Denmark would win, as they always do, and they'd recover Skåne while they're at it.

Except Skane is Norwegian, and SatW tells me Denmark is more likely to ally with Norway than Sweden. :p
 
Egypt was the reason the British got involved in the first place anyway, not to mention the Arabs were really douchy to black Sudanese by enslaving them, so blame Muhammad Ali I guess?
The US Army has already blamed Muhammad Ali…
Anyway, the British just decided to take over the slavery operation. Neat, as Borachio would say.
taillesskangaru said:
Except Skane is Norwegian, and SatW tells me Denmark is more likely to ally with Norway than Sweden. :p
:twitch:
 
Peacekeepers might be sent. More, from the Grauniad:
Spoiler :
African leaders 'hopeful' of South Sudan peace deal
Delegations from Ethiopia and Kenya call first meeting promising, but humanitarian crisis continues to worsen


African leaders who met in South Sudan to try to mediate a conflict that threatens to unravel the world's newest country said talks had been "promising" but admitted that it was not clear when a ceasefire might be agreed.

Following nearly two weeks of fighting which has left thousands dead, a high-level delegation including the Kenyan president, Uhuru Kenyatta, and Ethiopia's prime minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, landed in the capital Juba to meet President Salva Kiir on Thursday.

Kenya previously hosted talks that led to South Sudan's independence in 2011, ending five decades of intermittent war with northern neighbour Sudan.

"The meeting was promising. We were able to agree on what needs to be done next, it is just a question of when," an official present at the talks told the Guardian. He said the closed-door meeting had lasted for two hours, involving key cabinet members and international partners.

"Last time we were involved we were able to successfully negotiate a deal," said a Kenyan official present at the latest mediation round. "But this time the stakes are different: we are talking about safeguarding a fragile democracy. We're hopeful but these things take time."

The official added: "This is something African countries cannot look away from."

The delegates were the latest in a stream of international dignitaries visiting South Sudan, including representatives from Norway and the United States, as well as eastern African neighbours Somalia and Djibouti. Delegations from China and the United Nations, which this week agreed to nearly double the number of peacekeeping forces to 15,000, are also expected in the following days.

In a Christmas day message, Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary general, said: "We know many of you are suffering from horrific attacks. Many of you have lost loved ones and are grieving. Innocent civilians are being targeted because of their ethnicity. This is a grave violation of human rights.

"We are strengthening the UN presence and will do our best to stop the violence and help you build a better future for all."

The most recent – and most violent – fighting erupted after gunmen fired at the presidential palace on 15 December. A day later, shedding his customary black suit and matching hat, the president appeared on state television dressed in military fatigues and blamed his former deputy, Riek Machar, for attempting a coup.

Fighting spread rapidly across the country, pitching Nuers against Dinkas, the ethnicities of Machar and Kiir respectively.

Ethiopia's foreign minister, Tedros Adhanom, who was also at the talks, said the meeting had been "very constructive and very candid".

He said: "The issues we discussed were, among others, the cessation of hostilities, an immediate start of dialogue to settle the issue politically, the detainees who were suspects of the coup, and the fourth is the humanitarian crisis."

Humanitarian groups working in the country have said the situation is dire, with around 20,000 fearful citizens taking shelter in two UN compounds in the last two weeks. About 2,000 have slowly left the crowded bases overnight, UN workers said.

"An estimated 81,000 civilians have fled their homes, the majority of them women and children, but we believe that with the situation changing so rapidly the actual numbers are likely to be higher," UN official Iyorlumun Uhaa said from Juba.

"We are especially worried about those in and around Bor, in Jonglei State, where the fighting has recently been heaviest," he added. "There are desperate shortages of food and clean water at the UN compound there and the lack of sanitation facilities poses a high risk of disease. Children, always among the most vulnerable in conflict, are spending their days without shelter in the intense heat and sun, and sleeping in the open during the cold nights."

South Sudan has been fraught with tensions for months as a power struggle between President Kiir and Machar has periodically erupted. In July, Kiir sacked his entire cabinet. As part of what he called a crackdown against coup-plotters, he also detained some political allies of his deputy. With Machar now on the run, the latest talks have snagged on preconditions for a peace deal as Machar's demand for his supporters to be released has been rejected by the presidency.

"We are ready for dialogue with Machar, but we will not release anybody accused of a coup. They are criminals who must be brought to justice," the government said.

The country's oil-producing areas have been at the heart of the most recent struggle. The violence has disrupted oil production in the country, which has sub-Saharan Africa's biggest oil reserves after Nigeria and Angola.

On Wednesday, a security source said government troops were planning to wrest back control of Bentiu, the capital of oil-rich Unity state. " Definitely [the rebels] will launch an attack on Bentiu any time," army spokesman Philip Aguer said.

Earlier this week, an army general mutinied and seized control of the state and declared himself governor after what he says was a government attempt to assassinate him.

Fighting also raged in Malakal, the capital of oil-producing Upper Nile state, where an army spokesperson described the situation as chaotic.

"Yesterday, there was fighting and … toward the evening, a group of armed men started looting the market," Aguer added. He said government troops were attempting to assess the situation.

The crisis could have knock-on effects. In South Sudan's northern neighbour, some worry that disrupted fuel outages could send the price of goods spiralling. An increase in fuel and basic food prices triggered the largest street protests in decades in Sudan in September.

"There is the potential for all kinds of pretty catastrophic action to follow, including Sudan using the internal turmoil to launch its own crackdowns, or even whip up further turmoil in its neighbour," said a western diplomat in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum.

In the early 1990s, during the civil war with the north, Machar's Nuer faction mutinied and took arms and financial aid from the northern Khartoum-based government.

"I think we are seeing a situation where the stresses of governance, and the president's deteriorating health are also coming in to play when it comes to negotiating," the diplomat added.
 
The US should stay out of this, nothing good will come from sending troops. It is a civil war, which side are the "good guys"?

You send in a few symbolic troops and they are ineffective, worse case you end up with white boys from Kansas shooting black boys from Sudan and it plays badly on television. How do you define victory? How do you leave? Getting involved will just mean that you take the blame in the end.

Sending in the corrupt and incompetent UN would just result in a hugely expensive boondoggle where the UN troops would be raping the locals and selling weapons to both sides , just like they always do in these types of peacekeeping operations.

To totally control and lockdown the area you'd have to send in 500,000 or so to patrol and control all the territory and be able to do a full lockdown. There is no political will for this type of endeavor and the cost would be prohibitive.

You either need to sit back and let them sort it out one way or the other, or let them split the country up yet again. If people want to be ruled by their own kind you should let them. Balkanization will probably have better results than forcing people to live as oppressed minorities.
 
US sending troops? To South Sudan. Haha. Hahahahahahaha.

Oh wow.

Not sure where the joke is.

Yesterday saw news article mentioning that Obama was thinking about sending in US troops for humanitarian purposes. This is exactly the type of not in the national interest of the US war that liberals like to get involved in, like Bosnia, Libya and almost Syria. Bush went to war for oil which is something we need at least.
 
Back
Top Bottom