Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Sudan

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 13 Sep 2010, 02:56
Dose any one here know anything about the current situation in Sudan? Is there really an anti-black genocide in durfur by rouge Arab Islam extremist that get support by the government or is the west just saying this to trick us? And what's Sudan's economy like do they have a capitalist or socialist economy?
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1537
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jan 2010, 05:46
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 14 Sep 2010, 02:21
Dose any one here even know anything about Sudan or Durfur?
Image

"Those who do not move, do not notice their chains." - Rosa Luxemburg
Long Live The Bolivarian Revolution!
RIP Muamar Qadafi
RIP Hugo Chavez
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5150
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 14 Sep 2010, 02:29
Google does. I doubt there's a specific marxist opinion of sudan and darfur...or if there's any western trickery for that matter.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 200
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Sep 2010, 04:15
Pioneer
Post 16 Sep 2010, 05:09
Sudan is a country that has long been mired in conflict. When the British administrated Sudan, they had to differentiate between the Muslim (north) and Christian (south, mostly along the border) elements. After British left in the mid 1950s there was a long period of civil war between the two, both wanting to have their own hegemony over the region.

It's hard to say what economy Sudan has because the central government does not have full control over the land. For the most part it is a market economy with state intervention, like much of Africa.

The obvious facts: Darfur people are Muslim, but are not culturally Arab like the Sudanese in the north. Darfur was an independent sultanate that was lumped into Anglo-Sudan by the British. As such they've never felt any reason to be in Sudan and attempt to break off.

South Sudan has clashes claiming the north's more Islamic nature conflicts with that of their own values.

What's happened in both regions is tragic and disgusting. However the west's concern, or the leaders of the Darfuri, South Sudanese, or Sudan itself, are only coating their wars with claims of religious and ethnic strife. Look below the surface and you'll see something.

Image


Those are oil and natural gas blocks. Notice that a number of them go through southern Darfur and southern Sudan. That's the root of the problem really- they're fighting over natural resources. Darfur's central government in Khartoum rather keep all of them in line so they can exploit all the oil themselves. Ambitious leaders in South Sudan and Darfur hope to break off and exploit the oil themselves. This will cause conflict. Sudan's main difference from the two secession movements is that for the most part it is more brutal, but more importantly it won't work with western firms very easily.

This is largely why western governments have been taking a humanitarian stance towards this situation and condemning the government of Sudan- they see an opportunity. Darfur is lost and slipping away, but South Sudan isn't. In fact South Sudan is hoping to hold a referendum on 2011 to legitimize their claim that they are seceding from Sudan- and they've been shielded by guarantees from Western governments and by pro-western African governments ( the Chinese are getting mixed up in this too). Just watch, when South Sudan finally does secede, western nations will be among the first to recognize them, and western oil firms among the first awarded contracts to start operations.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.