Sudan's Seperation a major victory for the U.S.

[Koala]

America has skillfully and quietly achieved a major victory in Sudan.

Sudan is an important country strategically, perhaps one of the most important country strategically in Africa because of its rich resources and its position as the place where the arab world and african world meet, and is basically the limit of the Muslim expansion into Africa.

Every major country has a somestrategic interest in Sudan, and we are in the midst of watching what is actually a vicious behind scenes struggle for control and influence.

1) The Russians have long sold arms to the Northern Sudanese government, and would like to continue this. For them, a united Sudan that is constantly at war with itself meant a constant need for weaponry. A united Sudan also meant a constant source of oil revenue for their Northern Sudanese clients. However, with the breakup of Sudan, southern Sudan will be taking most of the oil fields and the revenue with them. The Northern Sudan will still need weaponry, but will no longer have the pockets for it. The breakup of Sudan is potentially the loss of a major client for Russia.

I expect Russia to do its best to help the Northern Sudanese achieve at least 50% control of the oil fields again, by war if the Southerners refuse to accede some control of the oil.

For the Russians, for now, the breakup of Sudan is a bad thing.

2) The Chinese have long used Sudan as a major source of oil. The Chinese, being smart, have sought to diversify their oil portfolio, but still consider Sudan as a major supplier. They also have a monoply on North Sudan's surprisingly advanced telecommunications systems, its market for cell phones and fibroptic telecom, and are thus keenly interested in seeing a healthy Northern Sudanese economy.

Their agreements have long been with the North. They have been the Northern Sudanese government's closest political ally for a long time. They are thus very concnered that the Southern Sudan will take the oil and sell it to the U.S., weakening their hold on Sudan's resources, and weaking the Northen Sudanese economy that they are a major player in.

3) Which brings us to the U.S. The US was late to the game. Traditionally, Sudan has been the realm of the Brits, so America simply ignored Sudan, not knowing of its vast oil resources until the 90s.

In the early and mid-90's, Sudan was a focal point of the Islamic Revival, and in fact the home of radicals such as Usama Bin Laden. This put them in the US's crosshairs, and caused US to put Sudan on the terror list with severe economic sanctions

Unfortunately, these sanctions actually hurt the U.S. in a Sudan united and controlled by the north. While the Northern Sudanese government has been extremely helpful in the post-911 era, the political reality meant the sanctions had to stay in place. Which meant US companies were forbidden from doing business in Sudan. Which meant that the Chinese were able to monopolize access to Sudan's oil fields without any competition from the US.

A united Sudan with the North in control and allied to China was strategically unacceptable to an America keen to monopolize the world's dwindling energy supplies.

Well the U.S. had to do something about this. So they essentially armed the Southern Sudanese to the teeth, via Israel. Advanced anti-aircraft, and anti-tank missiles made quick work of North Sudan's 1960's Soviet era arsenal. The Southern Sudanese rebels were able to halt the Northern Sudanese despite major deficits in manpower, training, and financial resources.

Simultaneous to a build-up of Southern Sudans military, America also sought to inflame and exacerbate the ethnic divide and the religious divide. They encouraged, even demanded, that South Sudan seek total seperation from the North, and claim the majority of the oil fields with it.

When a wildly popular Southern Sudanese leader named Garang forged peace with the North Sudan, the US pressured Garang to seek and demand a peace agreement that allowed for a vote for seccesion. Garang himself preferred a united Sudan, and was always for some reason wary of the U.S.. He was so wildly popular even in the North, that he very much considered it a real possibility that he could be the president of the entire country, and he also understood the simple fact that a united and peaceful Sudan would become a major powerhouse in the ME and Africa.

Garang eventually acceded to both internal and US pressure, and signed a peace deal that allowed for a secession vote. Garang was named Vice President of Sudan and he immediately set out on convincing the Southern Sudanese to vote AGAINST secession. Garang was so popular that it is very likely that the Southern Sudanese would have heeded his advice, and voted against secession. He was their George Washington, and they would have done whatever he told them to.

Well, Garang didnt last long. Two weeks after taking power as Vice President, he died in a mysterious helicopter crash. He was almost certainly assassinated, and President Bashir of the Northen Sudanese was automatically blamed (although the pro-secessionists and Garang's southern political rivals actually had more oppurtunity and motive to assassinate him)

With Garang's death, so too died his dream of a united Sudan: he was the only Southern leader with the clout to convince them to stay as a part of Sudan. Riots broke out and a traumatized and enraged Southern populace vowed to free itself once and for all from Northern rule.

Garang's rival and the pro-secession Salva Kiir became the de-facto leader of South Sudan. Salva Kiir's financial and political ties to the U.S. are well known. In return for their help in achieving independence and favoring Kiir's rise to power, America has sought (and received) assurances from Salva Kiir that an independent South Sudan will sell its oil to America, and not China.

This is a major geopolitical victory over China.


4) There are only a few other pro-unification outside governments. Notably Iran, and Syria, which saw in North Sudan's adamant anti-Westernism an ideological brother.

North Sudan has recently begun investigating the idea of developing nuclear weapons. Bashir even once openly vowed to develop that first "Sunni Nuclear Bomb". Iran was okay with this, and Syria loved the idea as well: intelligence reports indicate that they were developing a plan to outsource their nuclear programs to Sudan, a country out of the reach of the US so long as China protected it.

Number of arab pseudo-islamic autocracies such as Libya have long wanted to see their ideologically- pseudo-Islamic autocratic brethern in North Sudan remain in power, and remain a country outside fo the U.S.'s realm of influence.

Seperation also puts pressure on their own governments, and they fear a dominoe effect that could lead to the Balkanization of the all the East and North african muslim coutnries.

So seperation is another major victroy for the US in its war against the Islamization of Africa and arab autocracies willing to use Islam to solidify hold on power while making the U.S. the focal point of frustrations. Also, northern Sudan without oil is a country that is much easier for the US to influence or bully as they see fit. Whitout oil, China will lose interest and no longer be able or willing to protect North Sudan.

5) The last three countries happy to see a breakup are Israel,Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Northern Sudan has attempted to assassinate egyptian president Hosni Mubarak (for not being pro-Islamization enough) many times. An islamic and wealthy Sudan would also be a major problem on Egypt's streets for Egypt's secular government for obvious reasons. Egypt has long viewed Sudan as its "little brother", and would be very ashamed to see Sudan pull off the feat of being Islamic, wealthy, and free from western influence while Egypt remains conspicously secular and beholden to the US and Israel.

Isreal obviously is very keen to ensure that no pro-Islamist country achieve vast wealth or influence, especially considering that Northern Sudan is only seperated from Israel by Egypt, and that the pipeline of weapons destined to Hamas from Iran goes through Sudan, which sneaks the weapons to nomadic arabs of South Egypt who in turn send them to Gaza. North Sudan is one of the only remaining arab-muslim countries that openly support Hamas.

Saudi Arabia's royal family has been wary of North Sudan. First, they refuse to join the international oil cartel, and sell their oil to China at a rate well below the market value for oil. SA, the head of the international oil cartel, is quite displeased and has a good economic reason to be so.

Also North Sudan 's had at various times supported Saddam and Iran, to the anger of Saudi Arabia. Sudan has routinely criticized Saudi Arabia for 'selling out' to the west, and has intimated many times that the Saudi Royal family is an enemy of Islam. They did, after all, invite and house Bin-Laden after he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia.

In review, the countries that benefit most from the break up are the US and its allies Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Those that stand to suffer the most are Islamists, pseudo-islamic autocracies, China, and Russia.

Give the US it due credit. Clinton started it, Bush accelerated it, and Obama finished it: total victory in Sudan. China has suffered a major setback in its rise to global prominence, and the U.S. has proved it is still the ultimate power. If China was really anywhere near as powerful as the US yet, they wouldnt have simply allowed the potential disruption of one of their major oil suppliers, and allowed themselves to be shown as unable to protect their allies from sustained US pressure

[mardi gras skin]

Great write up. Was this a report you did for class?

I'm curious about infrastructure. I assume the south can't afford any hickups in production or income and that much of the infrastructure was developed by the Chinese and runs through the north. How does the south get oil to market? Based on location of the Sudanese coast, isn't the south dependent on a pipeline through the north?

Maybe I'm just thinking short term and this paper is looking to a decade or more from now when the south has had time to restructure itself.

[Burgold]

So many problems seem to have been created by the semi-arbitrary country construction by the Euros in the 19th and 20th centuries. It really is amazing how these lands have never been able to come together.

Agree with Mardi... nice write up.

[HailGreen28]

Might point out Northern Sudan's attempt at genocide during the rebellion. link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janjaweed)

[boobiemiles]

So many problems seem to have been created by the semi-arbitrary country construction by the Euros in the 19th and 20th centuries. It really is amazing how these lands have never been able to come together.

Agree with Mardi... nice write up.
But we are to blams as well. America had a great chance to influence both Africa and the Middle east. But we pass the buck to countries like France, and they fumbled the ball. If you think about it the last military conflicts all came because the Europe,

[Burgold]

I think that's true, but the impact of our imperialistic redistricting of borders was not as profound. I mean the way they defined Yugoslavia or any numbers of African nations was just bound to lead to trouble. Mind you, you would have hoped that after a few generations or a hundred years that these people would have learned to swallow some of the hereditary antagonisms, but that doesn't seem to happen. To be fair, we in the U.S. still suffer from many antagonisms caused by mistakes over a hundred years ago... Humans seem to love to hang on to their mistakes and anger.

[DRSmith]

If the south attacks and restricts minorities religous or otherwise and does acts of violence against them they for some it will mean no chnage

[DCsportsfan53]

Good write up, I had heard some things about this in passing on NPR (in regards to the south splitting) but had no idea of the details, history or politics involved. Appreciate the information.

[HailGreen28]

But we are to blams as well. America had a great chance to influence both Africa and the Middle east. But we pass the buck to countries like France, and they fumbled the ball. If you think about it the last military conflicts all came because the Europe,Yes, because incidents like the Rwandan genocide, the Zulus slaughtering people in South Africa long before white settlers showed up, wouldn't have happened without evil Europeans. :rolleyes:

There's a very simple reason why Africa can't have nice things. They still haven't learned to play nice with each other, yet. There's hope for the future.

[elkabong82]

While the results may be benefitial to the US, I don't agree with their means of doing so. Encouraging a country to split up despite that country's desire to remain unified, and exacerbating religious and ethnic divide go directl against the founding principle of the US. Seems like "do as we say, not as we do" and I believe a country's foreign policy should reflect it's own ideals. Unfortunately the only US ideal that seems to be reflected in this is greed. If we're going to expect other countries to be democratic, then we have to act it ourselves when dealing with them.

It might be just me, but this whole ordeal seems to have elements of Korea, Vietnam, Hutus vs. Tutsies, et al

[Duckus]

Yes, because incidents like the Rwandan genocide, the Zulus slaughtering people in South Africa long before white settlers showed up, wouldn't have happened without evil Europeans. :rolleyes:

There's a very simple reason why Africa can't have nice things. They still haven't learned to play nice with each other, yet. There's hope for the future.

While the Hutu's and Tutsis have a history of fighting - the Belgian's absolutely were the main cause of the genocide. The only cause? No. But absolutely the main cause.

[Special K]

While I am beyond excited that there has even been a vote for secession, I fear that this is going to spark another round of major bloodshed, particularly in/on the south. I hope we can get NATO troops in there, in force, to help protect the south.


Yes, because incidents like the Rwandan genocide, the Zulus slaughtering people in South Africa long before white settlers showed up, wouldn't have happened without evil Europeans. :rolleyes:

There's a very simple reason why Africa can't have nice things. They still haven't learned to play nice with each other, yet. There's hope for the future.
It's statements like these that make me really sad. I'm not trying to be snide here, but this post speaks of such ignorance of issues people on the African continent face (and political issues in each country in the continent are different), sometimes I wonder if there is any hope. So many people, as you have proved through your post, just don't get it.

Also, if you want to absolve whities/Europeans of all blame in political issues and/or genocides, answer me this prior to doing so: what is one of the primary "differences" between Hutus and Tutsis? And who was involved in defining that difference?

Finally, there is NOTHING simple about anything that goes on in Africa. 2 minutes spent working over there and trying to get anything done will tell you that.

[HailGreen28]

Also, if you want to absolve whities/Europeans of all blame in political issues and/or genocides, answer me this prior to doing so: what is one of the primary "differences" between Hutus and Tutsis? And who was involved in defining that difference?

Finally, there is NOTHING simple about anything that goes on in Africa. 2 minutes spent working over there and trying to get anything done will tell you that.Thanks for outlining what I was getting at. Tribal rivalries, ancient grudges, never settled. The arbitrary borders set by the Europeans didn't help, but Africa has a history of genocide long before "the evil europeans" showed up.

Example from a website trying to make out the "evil europeans" as the bad guys.

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/topten/hutu/history.html

"Once, Hutus and Tutsis lived in harmony in Central Africa. About 600 years ago, Tutsis, a tall, warrior people, moved south from Ethiopia and invaded the homeland of the Hutus. Though much smaller in number, they conquered the Hutus, who agreed to raise crops for them in return for protection."

In the same freaking breath as "harmony", we have "invasion", and oh the hutu "agreed" to farm for them. Isn't that just hunky dory? Can't see why there's be any reason for revenge on each other after the Europeans came and left. No, no siree.......

Duckus, I think this answers your post as well.

[elkabong82]

Also, if you want to absolve whities/Europeans of all blame in political issues and/or genocides, answer me this prior to doing so: what is one of the primary "differences" between Hutus and Tutsis? And who was involved in defining that difference?


Good point. I don't get, though, why you are happy over Sudan's secession when the US inflamed ethnic and religious differences in order to acheive it, and likely it will lead to violence, as you said as well.

From this article it seems the US split up Sudan solely because they weren't the ones reaping Sudan's energy benefits. If that's the case, we are inciting further violence and turmoil in the country just for our benefit and to combat against other superpowers. These are the kind of actions that led to the Vietnam War, and if I am not off base here that the US did this just to get a leg up on China and Russia and benefit its own energy needs, then it's actually appalling and it shows a complete lack of recognizing and learning from America's past mistakes. If we really hold democratic ideals, then we should have been assisting Sudan in staying unified and coming to a mutually benefitial agreement between North and South.

I mean, how many of you have a positive opinion of Britain helping the South during the Civil War, which helped keep the country divided and had they not been forced out once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, their help could have kept us at war for much longer.

[Special K]

Thanks for outlining what I was getting at. Tribal rivalries, ancient grudges, never settled. The arbitrary borders set by the Europeans didn't help, but Africa has a history of genocide long before "the evil europeans" showed up.

Example from a website trying to make out the "evil europeans" as the bad guys.

http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1996/year.in.review/topten/hutu/history.html

"Once, Hutus and Tutsis lived in harmony in Central Africa. About 600 years ago, Tutsis, a tall, warrior people, moved south from Ethiopia and invaded the homeland of the Hutus. Though much smaller in number, they conquered the Hutus, who agreed to raise crops for them in return for protection."

In the same freaking breath as "harmony", we have "invasion", and oh the hutu "agreed" to farm for them. Isn't that just hunky dory? Can't see why there's be any reason for revenge on each other after the Europeans came and left. No, no siree.......
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Your "knowledge" of this conflict clearly stems solely from the blogosphere.


Good point. I don't get, though, why you are happy over Sudan's secession when the US inflamed ethnic and religious differences in order to acheive it, and likely it will lead to violence, as you said as well.
This isn't an "article," I don't think, it's an opinion piece by the OP. I happen to disagree with the extent of U.S. involvement in creating the genocide.

Having had a cousin working over in Darfur and other parts of Sudan as well as refugee camps in Chad, for over 3 years in the early-mid 2000's, I have had extensive conversations with him about his perception of the actual situation on the ground, not what we are being told and not told by media news outlets over here. He outlined a plethora of examples of the brutality of the nothern Sudanese government, stories of the janjaweed mercenaries, and how some of the people he came to know were murdered.

The Christian people in the south are treated like 2nd class citizens by those in the north and have been, for years, targeted for extermination. It would be nice if the southern Christian leadership could get along with the northern Islamic leadership, but I don't see that ever, ever happening. I think the best thing would be for this country to split into 2 and have the 2 incompatible regimes ruling their own countries.

Furthermore, this isn't the U.S. forcing the seperation, the people of southern Sudan want this. Here's a pretty cool article regarding the "Lost Boys of Sudan" and their reaction to this secession vote:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-11/us/lost.boys.voting_1_southern-sudan-referendum-civil-war?_s=PM:US

If you ask me, I don't think the U.S., nor the international community, have been involved enough in Sudan and stopping the genocide.

[HailGreen28]

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Your "knowledge" of this conflict clearly stems solely from the blogosphere.Are you trying to say it was the Belgians, in the 1990's, that urged the Tutsi's to take Rwanda over again? Or was it two factions in Africa with ancient grudges?

[elkabong82]

Good post, keeastman, you defended your position well. While I personally don't think splitting up the country is the best solution for the historical reasons I previously listed, you do make a compelling argument why splitting it up may be the only viable solution due to the conflicts there. I think if all the outside influences (various other countries), put as much effort into unifiying Sudan with the purpose of keeping the country together and seeking a peaceful coexistence, as opposed to playing sides to their own benefit (of which all sides are guilty of), it would be a better solution.

and I agree they haven't been involved enough in stopping genocide. Unfortunately most won't help as much unless they can find a method of help which directly and immediately benefits them, and that's been more or less a historical standard. Until the viewpoint is globally shared that helping countries like Sudan stabilize through unification in the long term is globally benefitial to everyone, instead of employing selfish and harmful foreign policies/tactics, countries like Sudan will always be on the short end of the stick and will have even greater difficulty ending their internal and often violent strife.

we have to look at our own history, which is why I mentioned the Civil War previously, and recognize that separation, especially when forced, is never a viable, healthy long-term solution. "Separate but equal" didn't work in the US, East and West Germany didn't work out, nor did North and South Vietnam, the Koreas are still in conflict, etc. etc. I can respect the separation theory (like you would do to 2 kids who can't stop fighting each other), but I can't agree with it without disregarding history.

[DRSmith]

Yes, because incidents like the Rwandan genocide, the Zulus slaughtering people in South Africa long before white settlers showed up, wouldn't have happened without evil Europeans. :rolleyes:

There's a very simple reason why Africa can't have nice things. They still haven't learned to play nice with each other, yet. There's hope for the future.

People can be ignorant to each other all over the place

There is still some deep amonisty in Asia with countries like China and Tawain

India sees religous fighting

Never mind the Balkans

Or how about Ireland a place of fighting while I was growing up

[HailGreen28]

People can be ignorant to each other all over the place

There is still some deep amonisty in Asia with countries like China and Tawain

India sees religous fighting

Never mind the Balkans

Or how about Ireland a place of fighting while I was growing upAgreed. I just don't see why when it comes to Africa, the majority is blamed on the "evil europeans". Granted the Belgians in the congo may have been the worst of the europeans, but still blaming them in the 1990's? LOL

[Special K]

I think if all the outside influences (various other countries), put as much effort into unifiying Sudan with the purpose of keeping the country together and seeking a peaceful coexistence, as opposed to playing sides to their own benefit (of which all sides are guilty of), it would be a better solution.
Yeah, isn't that a novel concept. :) I whole-heartedly agree with you, I very much wish governments would act in a manner that was best for the people, not for their own interests. It's definitely extremely disheartening at times to see these competing agendas play out and so detrimentally affect the lives of people who have been rendered pretty helpless.

I can tell you that in my experience with global health projects overseas, that is THE single hardest obstacle to overcome in implementing any type of sustainable humanitarian project, be it infrastructure, health, water, crops, ANYTHING. Just a small personal example, not even lighting a candle to the political turmoil being dealt with in the Sudan, was when I worked in Madagascar last year for a few months on a USAID project. As you may know, that country went through a military coup in 2009 and pretty much everything has hit the ****ter since then. They were making slow, but significant progress under Ravalomanana (e.g. creating road infrastructure - the country has very little, increasing clean water access, increasing health parameters such as life expectancy). But he wasn't pro-French. He and his government did not want the French coming in and meddling with Madagascar anymore and pretty much gave the French the finger. Now, I'm not accusing the French of directly causing his overthrow, but they were unofficially involved in that coup as far as I've been told. The father of one of my coworkers who became a good friend of mine while I was over there, was a member of Ravalomanana's parliment and this was some of the stuff we discussed. Anyway, it's no coincidence the new self-proclaimed leader is very friendly to the French and is allowing them to essentially replant themselves in the economy...

We are all hoping the new guy, Rajoelina, will be ousted soon because since he took over, the country's been taken back half a decade under his leadership. It's disheartening...and I didn't even work there that long to be able to see the decline under him. I tell you what though, my friend who's father was a Malagasy parliment member, her mother is American and was the country director for World Wildlife Foundation. The mother, who has worked almost her entire adult life to protect the unique ecosystem of Madagascar, saw all her work go down the drain when Rajoelina came into power. She was so disheartened by the fact that she could work a lifetime on something good and it all become negated in a short span of time, she ended up moving back to the United States this past summer, shortly after I returned. The whole situation sucks...and it really stinks that powerful nations (I'm not saying we're innocent at all, there are examples of us doing this multiple time throughout the course of history) manipulate less powerful nations for economic gain. It's a fact of life, but it stinks to witness.

That being said, I'm still not happy with the fact that the world didn't intervene more in the case of Sudan's genocide. It's unfortunate that the world doesn't intervene more in other cases of genocide and seems to pick and choose their interventions based on highest economic gains. I know that's the way the world works, but it sucks.

[Koala]

Thanks mardi and burgold, Im glad a good discusison is coming out of this. I didnt do it for class tho, just for fun

Mardi Gras -- . You are correct about the pipeline running through the North (and the only refinery is in the North), so the South's short term interest in finding a deal has to be balanced with their long-term interest. They want to build a pipeline through Ughanda (South Sudan is landlocked), but Ughanda wants a chunk of the revenue, which financially defeats the purpose of bypassing the North.

Burgold -- Many Sudanese have quietly confided to me that things were better under British rule. Ethnic tensions were minimized because really the common enemy was the Brits. Once the Brits left, no common enemy exposed the ethnic divisions.

Hailgreen -- The Darfur conflict is only tangentially related to the South/North civil war. Darfur is part of the North, it is in the Western part of the desert there. Thats a whole other post but I cuold write an analysis of that if you are really interested.

Boobie -- We werent interested until in Sudan until two things happened: Islamization and oil discovery. We cant really be the overlord of the entire world, we have to limit it to areas where we have clear interests.

Burgold -- Nobody bungled things like Colonial empires did. But when they did it, it was for good reason usually. By putting warring tribes/ethnicities under Colonial rule in one country, they made it easier to subdue the country via the old divide and conquer routine. Worked well for them, until they had to leave, leaving behind a mess that will take generations to solve. I dont think they were really thinking about the consequences in a post-independence world: they intended to rule those countries forever.

Hail Green -- Yeah cause Africans are the first continent to find ethnic tensions and war. Europe never had problems getting along with each other. /sarcasm. Africa must mature as Europe did, but it took mankind's most devastating wars to learn that lesson, unfortunately Africa is also choosing to learn the lesson the hard way.

Elkabong -- You are correct, there will be a price to pay for this one day. It makes it difficult for other countries to keep a straight face when we try to patronize them on moral issues. This is not new though. The world is not naive, they know America does what it does out of self-interest, like everybody else, and there is no real thing such as the moral superiority of America. Our good--guy image is for consumption at home, noone buys it overseas.

Keeastman -- NATO troops are a good idea. For a reason you might not understand thoroughly: the South itself is very divided amongst ethnic lines and tribal lines. In fact, the reason it took so long for them to get independence was that they were too busy fighting themselves, divisions that the North exploited and will continue to exploit post-seccession. South Sudans days of ethnic warfare may just be getting started, and it will be amongst themselves, thats the sad irony of this situation.

[DRSmith]

Agreed. I just don't see why when it comes to Africa, the majority is blamed on the "evil europeans". Granted the Belgians in the congo may have been the worst of the europeans, but still blaming them in the 1990's? LOL

Well sometimes it is how you walk away from things and one does reap the fuits of the seeds they sow

For example when Britain pulled out of the area we now know as Israel they promised the area to both parties and got involved again around WWII

[Special K]

Agreed. I just don't see why when it comes to Africa, the majority is blamed on the "evil europeans". Granted the Belgians in the congo may have been the worst of the europeans, but still blaming them in the 1990's? LOL
I would love to have you "LOL" in the face of a dear friend of mine (who he and his family are Rwandan refugees) when telling him what were and what were not the underlying causes of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Obviously the Rwandan genocide can't be solely attributed to "white Europeans" as you like to say and you seem to like to portray the rest of us as claiming (which is completely false, btw). But you should look into how Rwanda was colonized, how the Tutsis and Hutus were phenotypically separated and WHY they were divided. Tensions between the two groups for decades and decades and decades were inflammed PURPOSEFULLY in order to divide and control them. That type of deep-seeded resentment and misunderstanding doesn't just poof, vanish, when the colonizers leave and leave a huge frickin mess in their wake.

---------- Post added January-16th-2011 at 04:09 PM ----------



Keeastman -- NATO troops are a good idea. For a reason you might not understand thoroughly: the South itself is very divided amongst ethnic lines and tribal lines. In fact, the reason it took so long for them to get independence was that they were too busy fighting themselves, divisions that the North exploited and will continue to exploit post-seccession. South Sudans days of ethnic warfare may just be getting started, and it will be amongst themselves, thats the sad irony of this situation.
I actually do understand, pretty well, the divisions between groups in southern Sudan. Obviously I don't know everything, but I understand the fact that they definitely are not all united as one front against the north. This happens to be another one of the reasons I want NATO, not UN (they were absolutely worthless in Rwanda), troops in Sudan.

[HailGreen28]

Well sometimes it is how you walk away from things and one does reap the fuits of the seeds they sowWhen an area is in situation A, then goes to situation B, then back to situation A again, I don't think the causes of situation B are the issue here.

The Rwandan constitution now SAYS it prohibits sectarian classification. I don't know if that's true, but there's hope. I think things have calmed down over there.


For example when Britain pulled out of the area we now know as Israel they promised the area to both parties and got involved again around WWIINot touching this with a 10 foot pole, right now. One outrageous controversy at a time, please.

---------- Post added January-16th-2011 at 06:14 PM ----------


I would love to have you "LOL" in the face of a dear friend of mine (who he and his family are Rwandan refugees) when telling him what were and what were not the underlying causes of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Obviously the Rwandan genocide can't be solely attributed to "white Europeans" as you like to say and you seem to like to portray the rest of us as claiming (which is completely false, btw). But you should look into how Rwanda was colonized, how the Tutsis and Hutus were phenotypically separated and WHY they were divided. Tensions between the two groups for decades and decades and decades were inflammed PURPOSEFULLY in order to divide and control them. That type of deep-seeded resentment and misunderstanding doesn't just poof, vanish, when the colonizers leave and leave a huge frickin mess in their wake.Explain the difference before the Belgians showed up, and afterwards. They did their own divisions long before the imperialists showed up.

Blaming the Belgians for what happened in the 1990's is LOL worthy, or utterly despicable on the blamer's part. Take your pick.

[DRSmith]

Not touching this with a 10 foot pole, right now. One outrageous controversy at a time, please.

---------- Post added January-16th-2011 at 06:14 PM ----------



Interesting how though come conflicts bring in the rest of the world

The conflict in the Balkans got WWI going and then the UN had to go again in the 90's

The middle East is on going

The Koreas right now

[HailGreen28]

Interesting how though come conflicts bring in the rest of the world

The conflict in the Balkans got WWI going and then the UN had to go again in the 90's

The middle East is on going

The Koreas right nowOr how the rest of the world does bring in conflicts sometimes. I understand Germany being separated after WWII. But Korea?

Of course, I think the Soviets had Korea at that time, and I really wonder if a peaceful Juche government would have been better for South Korea, than the prosperity after that horrific Korean War (korean civilian casualties).

[DRSmith]

Or how the rest of the world does bring in conflicts sometimes. I understand Germany being separated after WWII. But Korea?

Of course, I think the Soviets had Korea at that time, and I really wonder if a peaceful Juche government would have been better for South Korea, than the prosperity after that horrific Korean War (korean civilian casualties).

Ah the good old days of the cold war

Back when Muslims were also god fearing people who had to be supported in their fight again those godless communists

[HailGreen28]

Ah the good old days of the cold war

Back when Muslims were also god fearing people who had to be supported in their fight again those godless communistsWell, which would Koreans prefer, if they could go back in time? I would think a unified Korea with the rich US' backing would be best, based on South Korea. But what about a choice between a unified Korea with Soviet backing (would the Kims still turn it into an Orwellian state?), or the present with the South prosperous and North starving after a brutal proxy war? I really have no clue.

[Special K]

Explain the difference before the Belgians showed up, and afterwards. They did their own divisions long before the imperialists showed up.

Blaming the Belgians for what happened in the 1990's is LOL worthy, or utterly despicable on the blamer's part. Take your pick.
I'm not going to explain anything to you, because you evidently know all. :)

The only advice I'm going to give you is that you might want to check out a "basic" history of Rwanda and a "basic" timeline of events throughout the century leading up to the genocide and you might begin to understand a little bit more about history. I doubt it though.

[Thiebear]

But we are to blams as well. America had a great chance to influence both Africa and the Middle east. But we pass the buck to countries like France, and they fumbled the ball. If you think about it the last military conflicts all came because the Europe,

It was one of the few areas France was in charge via the United Nations. So you blame America :) The only country trying to get the UN to say genocide and they wouldn't.

It might not be great to root against another but I'm glad the US won one.
I think Iraq was a good victory so far.
And the Euro going to crap is 1/2th helpful, but China buying their debt now also is not.
We need some ingenuity

[elkabong82]

wow, that's really disheartening, yet not surprising sadly, about the French involvement in Madagascar, keeastman.

we do it to, supporting coups in order to set-up new regimes which will include us or allies without taking into consideration their baggage, so to speak. It's just depressing that we and other nations continue these tactics despite the abundance of historical examples, even recently, that almost unanimously show such tactics ultimately do not work.

[HailGreen28]

I'm not going to explain anything to you, because you evidently know all. :)

The only advice I'm going to give you is that you might want to check out a "basic" history of Rwanda and a "basic" timeline of events throughout the century leading up to the genocide and you might begin to understand a little bit more about history. I doubt it though.Concession accepted.

And on another note, condolences and best wishes to all, including the people you know, who are victims of such senseless violence humanity keeps putting itself through.

[Predicto]

Blaming the Belgians for what happened in the 1990's is LOL worthy, or utterly despicable on the blamer's part. Take your pick.


The only thing dumber than blaming the Belgians and the Belgians alone for what happened in the 1990s would be not blaming the Belgians at all for what happened in the 1990s.

Of course, no one here is doing the first of those things - but you appear to be doing the second of those things.

[HailGreen28]

The only thing dumber than blaming the Belgians and the Belgians alone for what happened in the 1990s would be not blaming the Belgians at all for what happened in the 1990s.

Of course, no one here is doing the first of those things - but you appear to be doing the second of those things.Predicto, you must be confused.


While the Hutu's and Tutsis have a history of fighting - the Belgian's absolutely were the main cause of the genocide. The only cause? No. But absolutely the main cause.


Agreed. I just don't see why when it comes to Africa, the majority is blamed on the "evil europeans". Granted the Belgians in the congo may have been the worst of the europeans, but still blaming them in the 1990's? LOL

Explain how the Belgians were goading the Tutsis to fight the Hutus in the 1990s. Go on, were they using secret mind control rays from way back in Europe? Or was it the same old ancient grudges that go WAY back before Leopold II started his atrocities?

edit: Just to be clear, I'm saying the vast majority of the blame is on the people of Rwanda. If you want to start dividing blame among the Hutus and Tutsis, whatever. But considering the Rwandans got their INDEPENDENCE from Belgium, it's silly or rotten to blame the Belgians for the civil war later.

To use another example: The British introduced slavery to the US colonies. They set the borders of the colonies. The colonies got their independence from the British and became the US. The US fought a civil war over slavery. Who here would say that the civil war was, in large part, the British's fault?

[Yusuf06]

Explain how the Belgians were goading the Tutsis to fight the Hutus in the 1990s. Go on, were they using secret mind control rays from way back in Europe? Or was it the same old ancient grudges that go WAY back before Leopold II started his atrocities?

edit: Just to be clear, I'm saying the vast majority of the blame is on the people of Rwanda. If you want to start dividing blame among the Hutus and Tutsis, whatever. But considering the Rwandans got their INDEPENDENCE from Belgium, it's silly or rotten to blame the Belgians for the civil war later.

To use another example: The British introduced slavery to the US colonies. They set the borders of the colonies. The colonies got their independence from the British and became the US. The US fought a civil war over slavery. Who here would say that the civil war was, in large part, the British's fault?
I don't think anyone is saying that the Europeans are directly responsible for the Rwandan genocide or Africa's other problems. However, what can't be denied is the continued effect of the divide and conquer strategy used to control the colonies.

The europeans were tasked with ruling and controlling vast expanses of land and large numbers of people. And even though they could subdue the natives with force and superior technology, that wouldn't satisfy the ultimate goal which was to control a stable colony that would provide wealth for the colonizing country.

One solution to this problem was to take advantage of borders that threw groups with ethnic/religious/linguistic differences together by pitting one or more of those groups against each other. When these colonies eventually became countries, the borders and the ethnic tensions used to provide their political structure remained. This happened not only in Rwanda but in the Sudan, India, Haiti, and Iraq just off the top of my head. Moreover, the same tactic was often used by european slave traders and to some degree slave holders in the U.S. to control slaves that usually outnumbered them. It's an ancient and effective strategy that unfortunately resulted in a lot of ethnic tension and even hatred among formerly colonized groups that still exists to this day.

Of course the solution for the modern post colonial state is for everyone to just get along. Unfortunately, where there are centuries of blood on the hands of players on both sides, that's just not realistic. IMHO in the long run, many of these places would be best served by the type of thing that's happening in the Sudan. If borders eventually get redrawn along natual ethnic lines, at least some of the tensions and the simple excuses for drumming them up wouldn't exist anymore. Of course the flaw in that argument is that in general, our history as human beings says that only happens through war. :(

[HailGreen28]

I don't think anyone is saying that the Europeans are directly responsible for the Rwandan genocide or Africa's other problems. However, what can't be denied is the continued effect of the divide and conquer strategy used to control the colonies.

The europeans were tasked with ruling and controlling vast expanses of land and large numbers of people. And even though they could subdue the natives with force and superior technology, that wouldn't satisfy the ultimate goal which was to control a stable colony that would provide wealth for the colonizing country.

One solution to this problem was to take advantage of borders that threw groups with ethnic/religious/linguistic differences together by pitting one or more of those groups against each other. When these colonies eventually became countries, the borders and the ethnic tensions used to provide their political structure remained. This happened not only in Rwanda but in the Sudan, India, Haiti, and Iraq just off the top of my head. Moreover, the same tactic was often used by european slave traders and to some degree slave holders in the U.S. to control slaves that usually outnumbered them. It's an ancient and effective strategy that unfortunately resulted in a lot of ethnic tension and even hatred among formerly colonized groups that still exists to this day.

Of course the solution for the modern post colonial state is for everyone to just get along. Unfortunately, where there are centuries of blood on the hands of players on both sides, that's just not realistic. IMHO in the long run, many of these places would be best served by the type of thing that's happening in the Sudan. If borders eventually get redrawn along natual ethnic lines, at least some of the tensions and the simple excuses for drumming them up wouldn't exist anymore. Of course the flaw in that argument is that in general, our history as human beings says that only happens through war. :(And the solution is as you say, either get along like Rwanda's new constitution is supposed to do, or seperate like in the Sudan. Blaming the former occupiers you got independence from does nothing but shift the blame from the actual participants in the current senseless violence.

Occupiers like Leopold II and his followers deserve full blame and scorn for the atrocities his forces committed. So do the African leaders in the 1990's and their followers deserve full blame and scorn for committing the Rwandan Genocide.

[Yusuf06]

OK, to put it in even simpler terms, one can look at it this way. Human beings to varying degrees have long resented, feared and even loathed "the other". Whenever something goes wrong that political or other leaders can't explain or fix, or when it suits other political ends, leaders will often use "the other" as a scapegoat. Hitler did it with the Jews/Gypsies etc., Milosevic did it with the Croats/Muslims, Omar al-Bashir (among others) did it to the Darfuris, Trujillo did it to the Haitians, etc.

In the case of the post colonial countries, in my opinion one has to assign some blame to the colonizers for drawing political boundaries that in most cases did not exist prior to their arrival and intentionally pitting groups against each other to maintain control. Note that I'm not saying that today's primary actors have no responsibility. All I'm saying is that they're not completely responsible and that the countries that colonized them bear responsibility for creating/exacerbating the conditions that allowed many of the subsequent problems to occur.

In many ways this is very similar to the way the Treaty of Versailles contributed to WWII. Hitler and the Nazis were responsible but the terms of the treaty almost guaranteed that someone like Hitler would rise in Germany. Likewise, the Jews' experience during the holocaust shaped many of Israel's existing policies and attitudes.

If you can't see or accept that past policies and historical events often have current and future implications then you're clearly so committed to your narrative regardless of the facts that I don't think there's any point in discussing it any further.

[Koala]

Yusus -- Both posts excellent, perfect way to sum it up.

Hailgreen -- For reasons I am not totally sure of, you seem to really be hung up on this concept of 'blame'. I hate that word. Its a loaded word that actually prevents objective analysis, does little but satisfy some ancient urge to find scapegaots, and puts everybody on the defensive.

There is no doubt that when to two parties go to war, the ultimate responsibility (what you call 'blame') rests on the shoulders of the warring parties. However, the various factors surrounding that decision to go to war almost always are subject to outside influences and contexts that 3rd parties have a large role in determining. Unless you happen to believe certain cultures or races and ethnicities are more prone to war. Which, as you understand, is an argument few people want to hear, whether or not you may be correct, as it borders on racial or ethnic slander.

When you over simplify it as 'the only people to blame for Rwanda are the Rwandas', you make it sound like you are intimating that Rwandans are somehow a war-like people prone to bouts of genocide as either a cultural or racial phenomenom. That might not be your intent. That is why I hate the world "blame".

I prefer to simply state that the ultimate responsibility for Rwanda rests on the powerful elite in Rwanda who first failed to heed the warning signs of ethnic conflict, and then took the country to war and took the war into the realm of genocide. Noone can really argue that. Nor does it deny that historical context that created this tense ethnic situation could largely have been influenced by 3rd parties such as the Belgians.

[HailGreen28]

OK, to put it in even simpler terms, one can look at it this way. Human beings to varying degrees have long resented, feared and even loathed "the other". Whenever something goes wrong that political or other leaders can't explain or fix, or when it suits other political ends, leaders will often use "the other" as a scapegoat. Hitler did it with the Jews/Gypsies etc., Milosevic did it with the Croats/Muslims, Omar al-Bashir (among others) did it to the Darfuris, Trujillo did it to the Haitians, etc.

In the case of the post colonial countries, in my opinion one has to assign some blame to the colonizers for drawing political boundaries that in most cases did not exist prior to their arrival and intentionally pitting groups against each other to maintain control. Note that I'm not saying that today's primary actors have no responsibility. All I'm saying is that they're not completely responsible and that the countries that colonized them bear responsibility for creating/exacerbating the conditions that allowed many of the subsequent problems to occur.

In many ways this is very similar to the way the Treaty of Versailles contributed to WWII. Hitler and the Nazis were responsible but the terms of the treaty almost guaranteed that someone like Hitler would rise in Germany. Likewise, the Jews' experience during the holocaust shaped many of Israel's existing policies and attitudes.

If you can't see or accept that past policies and historical events often have current and future implications then you're clearly so committed to your narrative regardless of the facts that I don't think there's any point in discussing it any further.Scapegoating the Belgians is a laughable or horrifying way to overlook the constant bloodshed in that area, once the major players there established themselves. The First Congo War, the Second Congo War, the Rwandan Genocide, the Kivu conflict, etc. All done by africans against africans on the basis of ancient grudges that existed long before the Belgians stepped in.

Rwanda got it's independence around 1960. And the Tutsis were largely in charge of the country before and during Belgian occupation. Seems bizarro logic to blame strife on conquerors that said country got it's independence from.

Versailles? Please point out where the Belgians enforced crippling war indemnities, and put a significant city of Rwandans in the territory of a different ethnic state.

I'm not saying the Belgians were blameless, or anything but bad actors here. But they didn't put the Tutsis on top of the Hutus. They were there already! The independence of Rwanda was at one point as much against the Tutsi as the Belgians.

I'm no expert, but you're the one citing narratives and canards instead of discussing specifics. If you can't actually cite policies and events that occurred or that apply..... why should you discuss it?


Yusus -- Both posts excellent, perfect way to sum it up.

Hailgreen -- For reasons I am not totally sure of, you seem to really be hung up on this concept of 'blame'. I hate that word. Its a loaded word that actually prevents objective analysis, does little but satisfy some ancient urge to find scapegaots, and puts everybody on the defensive.

There is no doubt that when to two parties go to war, the ultimate responsibility (what you call 'blame') rests on the shoulders of the warring parties. However, the various factors surrounding that decision to go to war almost always are subject to outside influences and contexts that 3rd parties have a large role in determining. Unless you happen to believe certain cultures or races and ethnicities are more prone to war. Which, as you understand, is an argument few people want to hear, whether or not you may be correct, as it borders on racial or ethnic slander.

When you over simplify it as 'the only people to blame for Rwanda are the Rwandas', you make it sound like you are intimating that Rwandans are somehow a war-like people prone to bouts of genocide as either a cultural or racial phenomenom. That might not be your intent. That is why I hate the world "blame".

I prefer to simply state that the ultimate responsibility for Rwanda rests on the powerful elite in Rwanda who first failed to heed the warning signs of ethnic conflict, and then took the country to war and took the war into the realm of genocide. Noone can really argue that. Nor does it deny that historical context that created this tense ethnic situation could largely have been influenced by 3rd parties such as the Belgians.They got thier independence. As they should have. They have responsibility. As they should have. I apparently hold people to a higher standard than you, that the people of Rwanda SHOULD have found a middle ground rather than commit genocidal action.

We've seen this during roughly the same time period, in the Balkans. Same kind of stupidity. A power vacuum re: Yuogslavia and the former USSR. Kinda like the power vacuum after the Belgians left. In the case of the Balkans and Rwanda, bad people and bad groups of people ended up taking over, at times.


There is no doubt that when to two parties go to war, the ultimate responsibility (what you call 'blame') rests on the shoulders of the warring parties. However, the various factors surrounding that decision to go to war almost always are subject to outside influences and contexts that 3rd parties have a large role in determining. Unless you happen to believe certain cultures or races and ethnicities are more prone to war. Which, as you understand, is an argument few people want to hear, whether or not you may be correct, as it borders on racial or ethnic slander. (bolded the active part of your platitude filled paragraph)

Go sit on that race card you just threw out there, and keep spinning.

[Special K]

Scapegoating the Belgians is a laughable or horrifying way to overlook the constant bloodshed in that area, once the major players there established themselves. The First Congo War, the Second Congo War, the Rwandan Genocide, the Kivu conflict, etc. All done by africans against africans on the basis of ancient grudges that existed long before the Belgians stepped in.

Rwanda got it's independence around 1960. And the Tutsis were largely in charge of the country before and during Belgian occupation. Seems bizarro logic to blame strife on conquerors that said country got it's independence from.
I'm no expert, but you're the one citing narratives and canards instead of discussing specifics. If you can't actually cite policies and events that occurred or that apply..... why should you discuss it?

They got thier independence. As they should have. They have responsibility. As they should have. I apparently hold people to a higher standard than you, that the people of Rwanda SHOULD have found a middle ground rather than commit genocidal action. Well, I'd say the sum total of your post effectively dashes all remaining hope that there would be any type of reasonable debate with you :ols: :ols: :ols:

You are clueless.

[HailGreen28]

Scapegoating the Belgians is a laughable or horrifying way to overlook the constant bloodshed in that area, once the major players there established themselves. The First Congo War, the Second Congo War, the Rwandan Genocide, the Kivu conflict, etc. All done by africans against africans on the basis of ancient grudges that existed long before the Belgians stepped in.

Rwanda got it's independence around 1960. And the Tutsis were largely in charge of the country before and during Belgian occupation. Seems bizarro logic to blame strife on conquerors that said country got it's independence from.

I'm not saying the Belgians were blameless, or anything but bad actors here. But they didn't put the Tutsis on top of the Hutus. They were there already! The independence of Rwanda was at one point as much against the Tutsi as the Belgians.

They got thier independence. As they should have. They have responsibility. As they should have. I apparently hold people to a higher standard than you, that the people of Rwanda SHOULD have found a middle ground rather than commit genocidal action.

We've seen this during roughly the same time period, in the Balkans. Same kind of stupidity. A power vacuum re: Yuogslavia and the former USSR. Kinda like the power vacuum after the Belgians left. In the case of the Balkans and Rwanda, bad people and bad groups of people ended up taking over, at times.


Well, I'd say the sum total of your post effectively dashes all remaining hope that there would be any type of reasonable debate with you

You are clueless.

OK, I could be wrong. What is untrue about what I posted?

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

So many problems seem to have been created by the semi-arbitrary country construction by the Euros in the 19th and 20th centuries. It really is amazing how these lands have never been able to come together.


Certainly problems existed but it's not like countries didn't split up, heck you had some issues with European boundaries and ethnic conflict in the Balkans but also even in the heart of Europe (post-fall of Austro-Hungarian Empire.) Usually what happened is one ethnic group would achieve supremacy over another, lending stability to the country, though perhaps at great cost. Another thing is that a country would separate.

Compare the Czech-Slovak breakup to say, Sudan, or any other former colony in Africa. Also, Africa is not the only continent upon which colonial imposition left its mark on both the people and boundaries of nation-states. Some have had more success than others.

One thing I always thought was interesting is that while Jesse Helms was talking about the Lost Boys, slavery of Southern Christian and animist black Sudanese by (often black, but culturally Arab) northern Islamist types, the people screaming about Darfur were off occupied by some other cause. It wasn't until the Muslim government started attacking and destroying Muslim populations in Darfur that it finally became the thing to talk about. Isn't that a bit odd? What was at work there?

Yes, good write-up, though it would be nice to see a link or two to some items about the potential separation.

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 06:16 PM ----------


Well, I'd say the sum total of your post effectively dashes all remaining hope that there would be any type of reasonable debate with you :ols: :ols: :ols:

You are clueless.

For everyone who takes Keeastman or whoever's side....so who was to blame for the:

1) Jews in Europe by the Nazi regime and its collaborators

2) Aztec abduction and slaughter of its neighbors

3) the enrichment of several African kingdoms/empires due to the slave trade, to the point where some opposed any attempt by European powers to cut off the transatlantic trade--actually perhaps the huge supply of slaves offered up being the start of it being associated with a race, at all

4) the genocide of Ukrainians in the Holodomor by Soviet authorities under the reign of Stalin

5) The defeat and consumption of whoever was on New Zealand by the Maori


I'm sure in a number of these cases we can point to some originating 'cause' but to pretend that Rwanda was directly the result of colonial behavior is insane. You actually would have more cause to point to the attempted genocide of Hmong in SE Asia by the Communist Vietnamese to the alliance the "Montagnards" had with the Americans. That's at least proximate to the originating cause and is somewhat obvious. Or Rome's behavior in Gaul (due to the sack of Rome centuries before.)

Just curious. It's a bit odd to say that one ethnic group slaughtering another is truly attributable in the main to Belgians, however horrible they were in Africa.

-----------

Ultimately, the problem is that when it comes to non-Europeans, people will look to external causes to explain why a certain tragic set of circumstances has persisted or why some people act in ways we would consider destructive or immoral in some way. You often saw this with the terrorism debate---yet no one ever explained why, if the US/European policy is the cause, that Serbian, Vietnamese, Germans, Japanese and others whose countries were at some point engaged in war with the US did not similarly engage in these tactics.

Basically, it seems that for many, non-Europeans, non-Americans, non-whites, non-industrials, non-whatevers are not human beings with any moral or intellectual agency but ciphers, blank slates upon which the great political and social conflicts of the Western world are inscribed.
It ends up actually reinforcing racist or ethnocentrist notions held by so many and is in fact, a fundamentally ignorant and bigoted perspective.

No one stands outside of the circle of history, no group lacks agency. No one looks to the Mongolian and Islamic conquests in Europe to explain the Crusades or European colonialism. Shouldn't they?