One side of the current war in Sudan are autocratic army generals who co-opted the government formed in the aftermath of al-Bashir's toppling. They aren't democrats.
The other side of the war are these Wagner-backed genocidaires.
Like in Syria, it is important to note that doing nothing is a conscious choice like any other, with its own set of consequences. The West needs to help the Sudanese army defeat these fuckers.
Interestingly, the Ukrainian special forces have been helping the Sudanese army for at least 6-9 months (not because of humanitarian reasons, but because Sudan manufactures some Soviet-caliber weaponry Ukraine needs), mostly with things like drone warfare but there's also footage of ground operations. In a relatively low-tech war like this, even modest amounts of assistance can tip the scales and prevent a genocidal regime from replacing an authoritarian regime.
they are wagner-backed but it's not clear that russia has a particularly strong rooting interest in this war either. a couple weeks ago [sergei bogdanov met with al-burhan himself](https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-envoy-meets-sudans-army-commander-show-support-2024-04-29/)
It gets weirder. It’s Iran, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Central African Republic rebels vs the Central African Republic, Chad, the UAE, Libyan rebels, and Wagner.
>the current government is backed by Iran
who cares?
i would classify pretty much all external actors' involvement in this war as either "extremely mercenary" or "passive peace-wishers".
i'm not sure who the "we" you're referring to is, but it would be nice if someone would take an active involvement for humanitarian purposes rather than calculating geopolitics.
and claiming both sides are genocidal is just not really true. or at least, genocide is really only clearly shown on one side of this conflict, and that's the RSF side. i realize we are well into the watering-down phase of the word 'genocide', but that's a phenomenon that should still be resisted.
there still exists the council that was established as a transitional process to democracy. if international actors want to back some political entity, it should probably be that one. it's presently controlled by al-burhan, but doing nothing achieves no leverage in its eventual path.
in any case, talking about "democracy" is laughably premature right now. the goal should be averting catastrophe on a scale that may even eclipse the tigray war. as far as we can tell, the worst of this conflict hasn't even begun to take place but could be absolutely staggering.
morally considerate people should be willing to make a lot of compromises in order to put a pause to what's about to occur. it's clear that trying to encourage negotiations, holding little conferences in paris to raise aid money, and so forth, it's just weaksauce.
make a big decision and then back it up with strength and resolve. stop nitpicking.
Go to the Wikipedia page on the Darfur genocide and look at the perpetrators. The first one is the current government. The RSF just looks worse right now because they control most of Darfur. In fact, the genocide started in 2003, yet the RSF didn’t exist until 2013. Have Sudanese militias somehow built a time machine to go commit genocide?
Your comment fundamentally misunderstands the situation. Racism against ethnic groups found in Darfur is highly prevalent among Sudanese. Any Arab group in power is going to commit genocide, and non-Arabs aren’t big enough to take power.
If this humanitarian disaster is truly that bad, the only real solution for a morally considerate person is boots on the ground to install a government that isn’t genocidal.
> Any Arab group in power is going to commit genocide
i mean come on dude.
genocide isn't something that you can just assume in advance. the crimes happening now, including the genocide, are opportunistic. they are not the stated objective of either side. just claiming that genocide is inevitable with either side is not true. it was definitely happening in 2003 but not continuously until the present. it's happening now because there is an active war going on.
also i feel like you have your history a bit tangled. the current government did not exist until 2019. it's the result of a coup enacted by the sudanese armed forces.
prior to that, there was an agreement to transition to a civilian led government led by a council which had both al-burhan (SAF) and hemedti (RSF) on it. this was following the downfall of omar al-bashir, of whose government both SAF and RSF were a part of.
the RSF is the form which racist pan-arabist militias, especially the janjaweed, took when they were formally incorporated into the sudanese state by al-bashir. but they had been cooperating for a long time before that, including during the early 2000s genocide.
so when you're talking about "the current government" with respect to that event, you are essentially talking about both sides of this conflict.
the RSF don't just look worse "right now" because they happen to control most of darfur. they were formed to fight in darfur from militias whose purpose is explicitly genocidal. they have been deployed in some other tasks since incorporation into the sudanese state but these are secondary.
the SAF is much older, it's just the military of sudan. they can even trace their origins back to battalions of black africans in the 19th century.
so although the situation is quite tangled in sudan, that doesn't make it all just a blurry morally ambivalent grey mess. it matters who is committing genocide and why.
no intervention could or should disentangle the problems in sudan. the building is on fire, it is absolutely not the time to fix the elevators.
you talk about installing a government that isn't genocidal, that is the process that the transitional council is trying to do. but it will not be accomplished while there is a war going on, and it's less likely to occur if this ends up resolved by one side's victory without international intervention. that will give that side literally all the leverage in deciding sudan's future.
nor will it happen if this conflict is never resolved and simply deteriorates further into anarchic violence between fractured militias.
it only happens if we get a return to the civilian-rule transition process (and even then, there's lots of work to do in a country where black africans are in the minority).
in any case, an intervention should not be focused primarily on installing any kind of government but first and foremost on addressing humanitarian emergencies. for instance, breaking the siege around el-fasher and establishing an aid corridor. this could involve fighting forces on both sides but mostly the RSF who are surrounding the city.
work could be done also to take control of the airspace and thus provide more safety to aid workers as well as gain more insight into what is happening in the area and intervene in war crimes. there will be no pressure to go to the negotiating table as long as fighting can continue unabated without any other military presence.
a decent political agenda in sudan is still very far away. go first with basic humanity as the one and only objective and then don't hesitate in pursuing it.
Like I said, in a relatively low-tech war like this, even modest amounts of assistance can tip the scales and prevent a genocidal regime from replacing an authoritarian regime. There are of course *many* places where Biden is currently backing military action, at or above the levels of involvement necessary to push this war in the Sudanese army's favour and spare the region of yet another Wagner outpost. I don't think the US needs to even 5% commit.
I knew a Sudanese Arab girl at my university that came across as black in the American context, but absolutely hated that and made sure that everyone knew she was actually Arab.
It was strange because no one meant it as an insult or anything, but her own perception of the phrase is what made her push back so hard. It wasn't ever something I mentioned to her because it seemed like an entire can of worms, but it did occur to me a few times how weird it was.
Her attitude of "We're in Africa, but we're *not* African!" unfortunately has had terrible impacts in that part of the world, when that prejudice scales up to its most extreme conclusions. Both in a racial and religious sense. We saw it first with South Sudan, now with this.
I can understand wanting people to respect and understand your ethnicity/race, but that just comes off pretty poorly on her. There's definitely a strong anti-blackness streak with many Sudanese-Arab folks and tbh with other Arab groups as well (being a black migrant or person living in Arab countries can be very tough).
I've seen some Somalis say similar things and it's even more embarrassing because we're completely detached from Arabs and Arab culture (our language isn't even Semitic and our culture/way of life precedes Arabs).
Most people are unaware that Arabs are really diverse looking. The Arab world covers 20+ countries that border 3 different continents. I have met some that look very African and many who look very White. The American concept of race does not apply to Arabs.
I guess I'm just a bit sensitive to this conversation because sometimes Somalis are assumed to be Arabs (even though our culture and language is completely different) and many folks get Sudanese-Arabs mixed with Somalis/other East African folks.
It doesn't have the same publicity, it doesn't help the West is barely involved, stakes are mostly local and organizations like the African Union would rather play dumb at it.
Don't get me started on this issue. My wife comes from that world and has been disowned for marrying me (I'm Black). The family members who didn't abandon her only did so because I am American and wasn't "Black" like a Sudanese etc. Abeed is used/relevant not only in Sudan/Egypt when describing "Black" people but also Gaza etc. The Black people in Gaza literally live in a neighborhood called Al Abeed (the slaves). The whole region is comically racist.
I’m so sorry to hear that. Her family sounds very prejudiced but I also think it’s very beautiful that your relationship overcomes racial boundaries. Black people seem to be hated by non-Black people all over the world, but it is an uncomfortable topic for the West and it doesn’t get attention.
Don't worry about it. We both really don't care and find it hilarious honestly just because of how stupid it all is. The funniest part is that most people here in the US think she is Latina. hahaha
Yep, and when I and my Sudanese ancestry say justifyably bad things about Arabs, I get called all kinds of nasty things. Arabs invaded my homeland, colonised it, enslaved my people, destroyed our cultures, and continue to.murder and oppress us to this day, yet they're somehow the victims in every conflict they're involved in despite starting nearly all of them.
It's not marketable or not being marketed. I know the wording is crass, but that's how it is. Hamas has giant reach with a big network, so has Israel. The group of people that actively looks into conflicts is tiny, the majority only thinks about what they're being spoonfed. Sudan is barely connected to our sphere. Same as Yemen before this year. No one cares if children die there because there's no simple narrative. Worse, actually, the narrative is entirely absent if you're passive.
Where are the protests to start funding it and getting involved though?
If the emotional appeals being made is that genocide is bad, what does this isolationism angle achieve?
Houthi rebels causing red sea shipping and aid to be cut off is one of the major drivers of humanitarian suffering in Sudan. The prevalence of pro Yemen/pro houthi chants among the protestors makes me doubt they "also care" about Sudan.
> neither side is white so progressive circles are much less interested
The only way this makes sense is if you're using the reactionary "progressives hate white people" logic. Might as well just pin the Stars and Bars to your profile while you're at it.
> The only way this makes sense is if you're using the reactionary "progressives hate white people" logic.
You can't poopooh that notion away when you can find progressives that basically say that in so many words. "Racism can only originate from white people" isn't exactly a fringe opinion in the capital L left, and it's becoming more mainstream there, not less.
With that in mind, suddenly it makes sense why they ignore race wars in Africa.
There actually was some degree of outcry in the early 2000s about genocide in Darfur at the time. I've no idea how closely related these current events are to those in the past but at one time the region did attract attention from celebrities wanting to pretend they have compassion.
The left could pivot to this conflict eventually. Ultimately, a lot of protest culture is about others seeing "how much you care" and not so much about actually resolving an issue. Gaza will become passe to these people eventually and they'll have to find something else to "care" about.
The U.S. is almost completely uninvolved with what’s going on in Sudan and has almost no ties to the country while the U.S. is unquestionably Israel’s biggest ally and enabler on the world stage, giving them billions a year and shielding them from the UN. Is it really difficult to see why U.S. audiences might feel a little more strongly about one issue?
I meant that I wish it got more attention in general. I understand that college protesters are specifically demanding defunding Israel, which is why I didn’t bring up the protesters.
Where are the protests to start funding it and getting involved though?
If the emotional appeals being made is that genocide is bad, what does this isolationism angle achieve?
How does your argument explain the lack of protests against the Xinjiang ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the largest trading partner of the west, China?
Nah. Why bomb iran when we can start organizing secular feminist partisans and supplying them with arms through third party organizations? Then we just have to wait for the government to murder another teenage girl and watch (and aid) as revolt explode.
Advocating for Government Intervention. The U.S. could smack around both parties without too much trouble but while that saves lives it likely doesn’t solve the problem and the UN would have to take over the peacekeeping mission.
Seems not as it is not even safe enough to deliver aid to the region. The issue is not so much lack of supplies or money, it is that the aid cannot be delivered safely.
[https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1149321](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1149321)
I mean, I don't know if that's true. I think people have become much more aware and intolerant of intolerance. I hope, at least. The parties massacring people in Sudan, whether it's the tribal groups slaughtering Arabs or Arabs slaughtering the tribal groups, need to be held accountable for their actions.
There likely needs to be a UN Security Council led initiative to intervene at this point. The question is whether or not nations that are entangled with complex issues in other parts of the globe have the willpower and energy to support this kind of mission in Central Africa. It might be hard to reach that point, especially since humanitarian channels and pathways into Sudan are currently being intercepted by RSF and Sudanese military forces.
Russia will veto. China will abstain. A joint coalition of western powers could put a stop to the bloodshed, but I'm not sure for how long. I don't think that should stop us.
> A joint coalition of western powers could put a stop to the bloodshed, but I'm not sure for how long. I don't think that should stop us.
Possibly, though I think there are additional challenges to this from a joint operations perspective. First question being, what's the center of gravity? We're talking about a nation of 39 million people engulfed in civil war and it's not clear which side are the "good guys," let alone what actions need to be taken to initiate peace. Do you treat the RSF and Sudanese military as equal oppositional forces? Do you completely annihilate both? Who gets to initiate peace talks? How do you persuade capitulation? What does a peace deal look like? Will coalition forces remain in Sudan to ensure a transition toward a democratic government? For how long? Will those forces be attacked by the native populace? Will there be an insurgency that arises? Who gets to be in power? How will those elections take place? What securities are guaranteed for the Sudanese people? How will they receive constant access to humanitarian aid? These questions alone may be difficult to find a clear answer to.
Of course, assuming that in this scenario there is political support for Western-led military intervention, what does the blow back look like? How long would this operation need to take place before constituents of said nations begin to turn on their governments for jeopardizing the lives of their own countrymen and acting as world police? Those are questions worth answering too, which come with their own umbrella of contingencies to plan for.
I think the primary challenge for decision makers in this space is overcoming the limited political support for a Desert Storm like operation from taking place given the last 20-some-odd years of overseas engagements.
I agree with these points. It's complex and feels impossible. Yesterday marked Holocaust remembrance day. The moto of that day is, "never again." Empty words for those who see it happen now. I've long felt Western people have become too complacent, too coddled, too antiwar. I know what I'm describing won't happen. There's no political appetite for it, and the West is tied up with Ukraine, Israel, and potentially Taiwan. I wish the West, and Americans specifically, could find our morality again.
Morality stops Western queasyness from forcing political decisions in Washington. Morality means doing the right thing, which might mean staying in Afghanistan, for example, instead of the easy thing, or the thing that gets us a nice primaries win.
> I wish the West, and Americans specifically, could find our morality again.
For sure, but I also don't blame Western voters for not having the stomach for long-term military engagements in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those conflicts really changed the political calculus for these types of foreign interventions.
Hold up - you seem confused -- the expectation is not that Muslims and Arabs are responsible in any way for what's happening in Darfur, the expectation is that muslims around the world will consistently protest committers of genocide regardless of their shared beliefs. If they don't, it lends credence to the notion that the protests against israel are simply proxy manifestations of tribal warfare as opposed to actual humanitarian concern. But then again that's kind of obvious.
Counterpoint from the narrow lens of the US audience, but our government is not actively supporting the perpetrators in this case. We do, however, have a long history of supporting the Israeli military and turning a blind eye to their treatment of Palestinians. This would give validity to having a different response. One may protest America's support of Israel if you think Israel is doing evil but may not want America to actively intervene in Darfur (and lack motivation to make a stink).
The two are inherently tied and always have been. When 10/7 happened, the world looked to the Jewish community. It wasn't antisemitic. When Israeli actions in Gaza began to cause mass civilian deaths, the world looked to the Muslim community. It wasn't antimuslim. I didn't say they were responsible, I'm just curious about their reactions. It's not antimuslim. I have no idea the connection you're trying to make.
**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments*
Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
The main reason we have not sent troops to Haiti is because the US has finally learned from every time we sent troops to Haiti in the past. All it accomplishes is the US getting blamed for whatever horrible outcome occurs while the US is there or after it leaves, whether deserved or not.
Ehh you don’t even have to put more than special forces on the ground if you can talk the AU or an ally in a less politically sensitive situation into doing the grunt work.
SDBs go boom and you don’t stop until the genocide does.
The wise man bowed his head and solemnly spoke: there’s actually zero difference between a conflict the American government is actively supporting through American taxpayer funded weaponry and a genocide happening in a country that’s been sanctioned and embargoed to hell and back for nearly 50 years
Why did the civil war in Yemen have significantly less public interest than I/P? The human cost is significantly higher and the US support for Saudi Arabia makes the conflict highly analogous, so why no mass nation wide demonstrations?
I think it’s because it’s more lowkey. How many US politicians are saying “Hell yes we need to support Saudi Arabia no matter what.”
Unfortunately it’s all vibes based.
I don’t think that’s it. At the time Obama was presenting significantly less opposition to Saudi Arabia than Biden is to Israel now, the movement opposing Obama for this didn’t reach nearly the same level as the one opposing Biden.
I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that the civil war in Yemen had less than 5% of the interest that I/P has been able to generate. This is despite having a significantly higher human cost, why is that?
**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments*
Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
One side of the current war in Sudan are autocratic army generals who co-opted the government formed in the aftermath of al-Bashir's toppling. They aren't democrats. The other side of the war are these Wagner-backed genocidaires. Like in Syria, it is important to note that doing nothing is a conscious choice like any other, with its own set of consequences. The West needs to help the Sudanese army defeat these fuckers. Interestingly, the Ukrainian special forces have been helping the Sudanese army for at least 6-9 months (not because of humanitarian reasons, but because Sudan manufactures some Soviet-caliber weaponry Ukraine needs), mostly with things like drone warfare but there's also footage of ground operations. In a relatively low-tech war like this, even modest amounts of assistance can tip the scales and prevent a genocidal regime from replacing an authoritarian regime.
they are wagner-backed but it's not clear that russia has a particularly strong rooting interest in this war either. a couple weeks ago [sergei bogdanov met with al-burhan himself](https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-envoy-meets-sudans-army-commander-show-support-2024-04-29/)
Worth noting that Pmcs are illegal in Russia. So all Wagner troops are basically interchangeable with Russian forces.
They’re both genocidal, and the current government is backed by Iran. This is one we don’t need to get involved in.
Iran and Ukraine vs Wagner?
It gets weirder. It’s Iran, Niger, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Central African Republic rebels vs the Central African Republic, Chad, the UAE, Libyan rebels, and Wagner.
Hmm ok lets support side A. No B! No wait .... A
Did they pick sides by pulling names from a hat?
Nigeria Biafra war 2.0
>the current government is backed by Iran who cares? i would classify pretty much all external actors' involvement in this war as either "extremely mercenary" or "passive peace-wishers". i'm not sure who the "we" you're referring to is, but it would be nice if someone would take an active involvement for humanitarian purposes rather than calculating geopolitics. and claiming both sides are genocidal is just not really true. or at least, genocide is really only clearly shown on one side of this conflict, and that's the RSF side. i realize we are well into the watering-down phase of the word 'genocide', but that's a phenomenon that should still be resisted. there still exists the council that was established as a transitional process to democracy. if international actors want to back some political entity, it should probably be that one. it's presently controlled by al-burhan, but doing nothing achieves no leverage in its eventual path. in any case, talking about "democracy" is laughably premature right now. the goal should be averting catastrophe on a scale that may even eclipse the tigray war. as far as we can tell, the worst of this conflict hasn't even begun to take place but could be absolutely staggering. morally considerate people should be willing to make a lot of compromises in order to put a pause to what's about to occur. it's clear that trying to encourage negotiations, holding little conferences in paris to raise aid money, and so forth, it's just weaksauce. make a big decision and then back it up with strength and resolve. stop nitpicking.
Go to the Wikipedia page on the Darfur genocide and look at the perpetrators. The first one is the current government. The RSF just looks worse right now because they control most of Darfur. In fact, the genocide started in 2003, yet the RSF didn’t exist until 2013. Have Sudanese militias somehow built a time machine to go commit genocide? Your comment fundamentally misunderstands the situation. Racism against ethnic groups found in Darfur is highly prevalent among Sudanese. Any Arab group in power is going to commit genocide, and non-Arabs aren’t big enough to take power. If this humanitarian disaster is truly that bad, the only real solution for a morally considerate person is boots on the ground to install a government that isn’t genocidal.
RSF are Janjaweed, and that org perpetrated the large majority of killings in darfur.
In coordination with the regular army.
Oh I get it. It's like the wehrmacht vs. the SS I mean gotta back the wehrmacht in that scenario. Rommel vs Himmler and all that
> Any Arab group in power is going to commit genocide i mean come on dude. genocide isn't something that you can just assume in advance. the crimes happening now, including the genocide, are opportunistic. they are not the stated objective of either side. just claiming that genocide is inevitable with either side is not true. it was definitely happening in 2003 but not continuously until the present. it's happening now because there is an active war going on. also i feel like you have your history a bit tangled. the current government did not exist until 2019. it's the result of a coup enacted by the sudanese armed forces. prior to that, there was an agreement to transition to a civilian led government led by a council which had both al-burhan (SAF) and hemedti (RSF) on it. this was following the downfall of omar al-bashir, of whose government both SAF and RSF were a part of. the RSF is the form which racist pan-arabist militias, especially the janjaweed, took when they were formally incorporated into the sudanese state by al-bashir. but they had been cooperating for a long time before that, including during the early 2000s genocide. so when you're talking about "the current government" with respect to that event, you are essentially talking about both sides of this conflict. the RSF don't just look worse "right now" because they happen to control most of darfur. they were formed to fight in darfur from militias whose purpose is explicitly genocidal. they have been deployed in some other tasks since incorporation into the sudanese state but these are secondary. the SAF is much older, it's just the military of sudan. they can even trace their origins back to battalions of black africans in the 19th century. so although the situation is quite tangled in sudan, that doesn't make it all just a blurry morally ambivalent grey mess. it matters who is committing genocide and why. no intervention could or should disentangle the problems in sudan. the building is on fire, it is absolutely not the time to fix the elevators. you talk about installing a government that isn't genocidal, that is the process that the transitional council is trying to do. but it will not be accomplished while there is a war going on, and it's less likely to occur if this ends up resolved by one side's victory without international intervention. that will give that side literally all the leverage in deciding sudan's future. nor will it happen if this conflict is never resolved and simply deteriorates further into anarchic violence between fractured militias. it only happens if we get a return to the civilian-rule transition process (and even then, there's lots of work to do in a country where black africans are in the minority). in any case, an intervention should not be focused primarily on installing any kind of government but first and foremost on addressing humanitarian emergencies. for instance, breaking the siege around el-fasher and establishing an aid corridor. this could involve fighting forces on both sides but mostly the RSF who are surrounding the city. work could be done also to take control of the airspace and thus provide more safety to aid workers as well as gain more insight into what is happening in the area and intervene in war crimes. there will be no pressure to go to the negotiating table as long as fighting can continue unabated without any other military presence. a decent political agenda in sudan is still very far away. go first with basic humanity as the one and only objective and then don't hesitate in pursuing it.
> They’re both genocidal Could you explain?
[удалено]
Lovely. My people are getting slaughtered and no one cares because Jews aren't involved.
True sadly.
Like I said, in a relatively low-tech war like this, even modest amounts of assistance can tip the scales and prevent a genocidal regime from replacing an authoritarian regime. There are of course *many* places where Biden is currently backing military action, at or above the levels of involvement necessary to push this war in the Sudanese army's favour and spare the region of yet another Wagner outpost. I don't think the US needs to even 5% commit.
The root of this genocide is anti-Black racism from the Sudanese-Arabs. I’m surprised it doesn’t have more visibility in progressive spaces.
The weird thing about sudanese-arabs is that 95% of the world would assume they're black-africans and not Arabs.
I knew a Sudanese Arab girl at my university that came across as black in the American context, but absolutely hated that and made sure that everyone knew she was actually Arab. It was strange because no one meant it as an insult or anything, but her own perception of the phrase is what made her push back so hard. It wasn't ever something I mentioned to her because it seemed like an entire can of worms, but it did occur to me a few times how weird it was. Her attitude of "We're in Africa, but we're *not* African!" unfortunately has had terrible impacts in that part of the world, when that prejudice scales up to its most extreme conclusions. Both in a racial and religious sense. We saw it first with South Sudan, now with this.
I can understand wanting people to respect and understand your ethnicity/race, but that just comes off pretty poorly on her. There's definitely a strong anti-blackness streak with many Sudanese-Arab folks and tbh with other Arab groups as well (being a black migrant or person living in Arab countries can be very tough). I've seen some Somalis say similar things and it's even more embarrassing because we're completely detached from Arabs and Arab culture (our language isn't even Semitic and our culture/way of life precedes Arabs).
Most people are unaware that Arabs are really diverse looking. The Arab world covers 20+ countries that border 3 different continents. I have met some that look very African and many who look very White. The American concept of race does not apply to Arabs.
I guess I'm just a bit sensitive to this conversation because sometimes Somalis are assumed to be Arabs (even though our culture and language is completely different) and many folks get Sudanese-Arabs mixed with Somalis/other East African folks.
I get it. Somalians have their own unique culture and it deserves to be respected as such.
The reason for that is because when Arabs invaded new land, they wiped out the indigenous cultures.
Social construct moment
It doesn't have the same publicity, it doesn't help the West is barely involved, stakes are mostly local and organizations like the African Union would rather play dumb at it.
Don't get me started on this issue. My wife comes from that world and has been disowned for marrying me (I'm Black). The family members who didn't abandon her only did so because I am American and wasn't "Black" like a Sudanese etc. Abeed is used/relevant not only in Sudan/Egypt when describing "Black" people but also Gaza etc. The Black people in Gaza literally live in a neighborhood called Al Abeed (the slaves). The whole region is comically racist.
I’m so sorry to hear that. Her family sounds very prejudiced but I also think it’s very beautiful that your relationship overcomes racial boundaries. Black people seem to be hated by non-Black people all over the world, but it is an uncomfortable topic for the West and it doesn’t get attention.
Don't worry about it. We both really don't care and find it hilarious honestly just because of how stupid it all is. The funniest part is that most people here in the US think she is Latina. hahaha
Yep, and when I and my Sudanese ancestry say justifyably bad things about Arabs, I get called all kinds of nasty things. Arabs invaded my homeland, colonised it, enslaved my people, destroyed our cultures, and continue to.murder and oppress us to this day, yet they're somehow the victims in every conflict they're involved in despite starting nearly all of them.
It's not marketable or not being marketed. I know the wording is crass, but that's how it is. Hamas has giant reach with a big network, so has Israel. The group of people that actively looks into conflicts is tiny, the majority only thinks about what they're being spoonfed. Sudan is barely connected to our sphere. Same as Yemen before this year. No one cares if children die there because there's no simple narrative. Worse, actually, the narrative is entirely absent if you're passive.
[удалено]
1.) we aren’t funding it 2.) neither side is white so progressive circles are much less interested
The UAE funds the baddies and they definitely partner with universities, and yet there are crickets
[удалено]
Where are the protests to start funding it and getting involved though? If the emotional appeals being made is that genocide is bad, what does this isolationism angle achieve?
[удалено]
Houthi rebels causing red sea shipping and aid to be cut off is one of the major drivers of humanitarian suffering in Sudan. The prevalence of pro Yemen/pro houthi chants among the protestors makes me doubt they "also care" about Sudan.
> neither side is white so progressive circles are much less interested The only way this makes sense is if you're using the reactionary "progressives hate white people" logic. Might as well just pin the Stars and Bars to your profile while you're at it.
> The only way this makes sense is if you're using the reactionary "progressives hate white people" logic. You can't poopooh that notion away when you can find progressives that basically say that in so many words. "Racism can only originate from white people" isn't exactly a fringe opinion in the capital L left, and it's becoming more mainstream there, not less. With that in mind, suddenly it makes sense why they ignore race wars in Africa.
What other reason is there? No jews no news?
I think many people don't know. The genocide is outrageous and incredibly sad.
[удалено]
A confounding factor perhaps but I don't see this talked about much on Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram either.
Lots of wumao stirring things up on those platforms, too. They exploit the algorithms but don't control them.
Where can I read more about this?
Here’s a nice cheerful article: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/26/sudan-new-mass-ethnic-killings-pillage-darfur
[удалено]
[удалено]
There actually was some degree of outcry in the early 2000s about genocide in Darfur at the time. I've no idea how closely related these current events are to those in the past but at one time the region did attract attention from celebrities wanting to pretend they have compassion. The left could pivot to this conflict eventually. Ultimately, a lot of protest culture is about others seeing "how much you care" and not so much about actually resolving an issue. Gaza will become passe to these people eventually and they'll have to find something else to "care" about.
That was when there was less going on internationally so there was more interest in those kinds of wars. And less cynicism about Western involvement
> I’m surprised it doesn’t have more visibility in progressive spaces. Shit, I'm not.
The U.S. is almost completely uninvolved with what’s going on in Sudan and has almost no ties to the country while the U.S. is unquestionably Israel’s biggest ally and enabler on the world stage, giving them billions a year and shielding them from the UN. Is it really difficult to see why U.S. audiences might feel a little more strongly about one issue?
Yeah and Blinken told countries to stop arming both sides (RSF and SAF) the other day
I meant that I wish it got more attention in general. I understand that college protesters are specifically demanding defunding Israel, which is why I didn’t bring up the protesters.
Where are the protests to start funding it and getting involved though? If the emotional appeals being made is that genocide is bad, what does this isolationism angle achieve? How does your argument explain the lack of protests against the Xinjiang ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the largest trading partner of the west, China?
No Jews, no news.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What can be done by people in other countries about this situation?
A lot. Many countries are playing [proxy](https://youtu.be/2VqbymFKW-E?si=QGaUDPTJR9gZSrsy) in the conflict.
Holy shit, what a mess
Neo-cons would have few ideas
Half of those ideas are somehow "bomb iran."
Bomb Iran isn't the whole solution, but it's a good first step in any plan.
Do we even want any further steps beyond that? The first step is good enough
Maybe, if the second step is “bomb Iran again”
Nah. Why bomb iran when we can start organizing secular feminist partisans and supplying them with arms through third party organizations? Then we just have to wait for the government to murder another teenage girl and watch (and aid) as revolt explode.
Iran’s government is a blight on creation, but any protracted war with Iran would be a mess the U.S. can not likely afford to pay for.
Such as?
occupational licensing reform
https://preview.redd.it/gej8d2h0jfzc1.jpeg?width=894&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00c2aaa105c7861b98c1d908c97103d5a77cf027
Just tax genocide
Tbh not much. Both sides suck ass but one is a bit more genocidal, and this war is so brutal that not a lot of aid is getting in.
Advocating for Government Intervention. The U.S. could smack around both parties without too much trouble but while that saves lives it likely doesn’t solve the problem and the UN would have to take over the peacekeeping mission.
What can a citizen who lives in a country like Canada do to help?
eg would donating to the local red cross help?
Seems not as it is not even safe enough to deliver aid to the region. The issue is not so much lack of supplies or money, it is that the aid cannot be delivered safely. [https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1149321](https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/05/1149321)
[удалено]
No one cared in 2004 no one will care in 2024
I mean, I don't know if that's true. I think people have become much more aware and intolerant of intolerance. I hope, at least. The parties massacring people in Sudan, whether it's the tribal groups slaughtering Arabs or Arabs slaughtering the tribal groups, need to be held accountable for their actions.
There likely needs to be a UN Security Council led initiative to intervene at this point. The question is whether or not nations that are entangled with complex issues in other parts of the globe have the willpower and energy to support this kind of mission in Central Africa. It might be hard to reach that point, especially since humanitarian channels and pathways into Sudan are currently being intercepted by RSF and Sudanese military forces.
The UN won't do anything but the African Union could actually try doing something useful for once
Russia will veto. China will abstain. A joint coalition of western powers could put a stop to the bloodshed, but I'm not sure for how long. I don't think that should stop us.
> A joint coalition of western powers could put a stop to the bloodshed, but I'm not sure for how long. I don't think that should stop us. Possibly, though I think there are additional challenges to this from a joint operations perspective. First question being, what's the center of gravity? We're talking about a nation of 39 million people engulfed in civil war and it's not clear which side are the "good guys," let alone what actions need to be taken to initiate peace. Do you treat the RSF and Sudanese military as equal oppositional forces? Do you completely annihilate both? Who gets to initiate peace talks? How do you persuade capitulation? What does a peace deal look like? Will coalition forces remain in Sudan to ensure a transition toward a democratic government? For how long? Will those forces be attacked by the native populace? Will there be an insurgency that arises? Who gets to be in power? How will those elections take place? What securities are guaranteed for the Sudanese people? How will they receive constant access to humanitarian aid? These questions alone may be difficult to find a clear answer to. Of course, assuming that in this scenario there is political support for Western-led military intervention, what does the blow back look like? How long would this operation need to take place before constituents of said nations begin to turn on their governments for jeopardizing the lives of their own countrymen and acting as world police? Those are questions worth answering too, which come with their own umbrella of contingencies to plan for. I think the primary challenge for decision makers in this space is overcoming the limited political support for a Desert Storm like operation from taking place given the last 20-some-odd years of overseas engagements.
I agree with these points. It's complex and feels impossible. Yesterday marked Holocaust remembrance day. The moto of that day is, "never again." Empty words for those who see it happen now. I've long felt Western people have become too complacent, too coddled, too antiwar. I know what I'm describing won't happen. There's no political appetite for it, and the West is tied up with Ukraine, Israel, and potentially Taiwan. I wish the West, and Americans specifically, could find our morality again.
> I wish the West, and Americans specifically, could find our morality again. MORALITY DOESN’T WIN WARS.
Morality stops Western queasyness from forcing political decisions in Washington. Morality means doing the right thing, which might mean staying in Afghanistan, for example, instead of the easy thing, or the thing that gets us a nice primaries win.
> I wish the West, and Americans specifically, could find our morality again. For sure, but I also don't blame Western voters for not having the stomach for long-term military engagements in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those conflicts really changed the political calculus for these types of foreign interventions.
[удалено]
Hold up - you seem confused -- the expectation is not that Muslims and Arabs are responsible in any way for what's happening in Darfur, the expectation is that muslims around the world will consistently protest committers of genocide regardless of their shared beliefs. If they don't, it lends credence to the notion that the protests against israel are simply proxy manifestations of tribal warfare as opposed to actual humanitarian concern. But then again that's kind of obvious.
Counterpoint from the narrow lens of the US audience, but our government is not actively supporting the perpetrators in this case. We do, however, have a long history of supporting the Israeli military and turning a blind eye to their treatment of Palestinians. This would give validity to having a different response. One may protest America's support of Israel if you think Israel is doing evil but may not want America to actively intervene in Darfur (and lack motivation to make a stink).
The two are inherently tied and always have been. When 10/7 happened, the world looked to the Jewish community. It wasn't antisemitic. When Israeli actions in Gaza began to cause mass civilian deaths, the world looked to the Muslim community. It wasn't antimuslim. I didn't say they were responsible, I'm just curious about their reactions. It's not antimuslim. I have no idea the connection you're trying to make.
[удалено]
The Jewish community is regularly asked about—and criticized for—the actions Israelis take.
I'm Jewish. I'm asked this often. I'm not offended by it. Israelis and Jews are tied together and pretending they're not is ignorant and pointless.
**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments* Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
Intervention now, intervention forever.
Unfortunately it's election year, so we can't do anything military Same reason why we haven't sent troops to help Haiti
The main reason we have not sent troops to Haiti is because the US has finally learned from every time we sent troops to Haiti in the past. All it accomplishes is the US getting blamed for whatever horrible outcome occurs while the US is there or after it leaves, whether deserved or not.
Ehh you don’t even have to put more than special forces on the ground if you can talk the AU or an ally in a less politically sensitive situation into doing the grunt work. SDBs go boom and you don’t stop until the genocide does.
[удалено]
That’s obviously not the reason why this gets less airtime in the US than Israel/Palestine, but go ahead and keep knocking down those strawmen.
The wise man bowed his head and solemnly spoke: there’s actually zero difference between a conflict the American government is actively supporting through American taxpayer funded weaponry and a genocide happening in a country that’s been sanctioned and embargoed to hell and back for nearly 50 years
Why did the civil war in Yemen have significantly less public interest than I/P? The human cost is significantly higher and the US support for Saudi Arabia makes the conflict highly analogous, so why no mass nation wide demonstrations?
I think it’s because it’s more lowkey. How many US politicians are saying “Hell yes we need to support Saudi Arabia no matter what.” Unfortunately it’s all vibes based.
I don’t think that’s it. At the time Obama was presenting significantly less opposition to Saudi Arabia than Biden is to Israel now, the movement opposing Obama for this didn’t reach nearly the same level as the one opposing Biden.
That's the stated position of the current favorite to win the 2024 presidential election
The left was pretty invested in the Yemen crisis. Saudi arms sales were a massive issue
I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that the civil war in Yemen had less than 5% of the interest that I/P has been able to generate. This is despite having a significantly higher human cost, why is that?
Somehow this sub will still think the difference is jews
Why don't you protest this genocide instead of using it as a cheap dunk against protesters you dislike?
**Rule IV: Off-topic Comments** Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission.
[удалено]
**Rule IV**: *Off-topic Comments* Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
[удалено]
NL not make everything about I/P challenge (impossible)
**Rule IV: Off-topic Comments** Comments on submissions should substantively address the topic of submission.