In Sudan, the SPLA or Sudan People’s Liberation Army, is in a fight of vigilante justice against the main Government body. The Sudanese government, under Umar Hassan al-BASHIR of the National Congress Party, or NCP is using his authority to kill innocent Dinka peoples of Southern Sudan and the Darfur region. With the assistance of militia groups such as the Murahaleen and Janjaweed, the Sudanese Army, is attacking rebels groups and villages in the Darfur area, similar to conflicts years ago in the South. The SPLM or Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, which gained some government power in 2005, pulled out of the legislature in October 2007. Primarily, this was because of the poor representation of the Southern Sudanese people in the government. Also, another reason is because of the atrocities in the Darfur region in Sudan. However, before this, the main Sudanese government tried to recruit the assistance of SSIM or Southern Sudan Independence Movement members, which had partially broke away from the SPLM, in its agreements with the main Government. A number of times the United States’ government has sent aid to the SPLA. However, the overall credibility of the SPLA is imprecise. The SPLA’s overall alliances with organizations such as the NDA or National Democratic Association, and even at times with the government, has hurt their reputation and their motives are uncertain. The fact that the SPLA is also using Child Soldiers in their efforts to “Save the Dinka People” has also hurt their appearance.
If they cannot be trusted, should the US continue to help them, or search for other ways to save the people in Darfur? And even the South? Even more alarming, is the question of how assisting the rebel group may actually help or hurt the conflicts in Darfur or Southern Sudan?
This Link explains more in-depth on how the SPLM is having trouble:http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/11/africa/AF-GEN-Sudan-South.php
Follow this Link to see a video of some of the conditions of the SPLA:http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?m=49750&cl=139229&ch=87581
Another Link shows how the United States has helped the SPLA in the past:http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=611(be wary of potential bias)
To get a better idea of what's going on now check this link out:http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25317
And if interested in researching further on the SPLM/A, I recommend this website: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/spla.htm
9 comments:
The situation in Sudan sounds terrible, but it resembles to many other African countries. The similarity being a civil war between a rebel army and the government's army. Other countries, such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.) and Sierra Leone, also have child soldiers fighting these wars.
Reading and learning the facts about this, a part of me wants the US to continue to help them; but getting ourselves more involved in this would put us in way over our drowning heads. The US is trying to be everywhere at once like a person who can't say no, and it is hurting us badly. We have already bitten off more than we can chew, taking on another project would detrimental to economy. Economy, being our country's financial spending and debt. Getting more involved would mean more money out of tax payers' pockets. So, the real question is should we really get more involved in this? And I say no!
I completely agree with Ryan in this situation. The entire world expects us to help the Sudanese people, but the truth is, they know that we will get involved so why should they? If America gets any more involved with the situation in Sudan, then we will just be putting another brick on our shoulders. How many bricks can America support before it falls? Because of our falling economy, I personally believe that America should pull completely out of Sudan. I have little sympathy for the people, however, it is a terrible thing. The people need to work their own problems out by themselves.
While I don't think that we should necessarily assist the SPLA, I think we should at least attempt to do as much as we can to end this civil war and the related genocide.
I think that this talk about our "failing economy" is a bit ridiculous. To me, a government's attempt to wipe out an entire group of people is substantially more important than paying a few extra dollars for gas and bread. A "failing" economy is a fairly temporary problem, however when the Dinka are eliminated, they won't be coming back. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want that on my conscious, knowing that I / My country could have helped save these people, but didn’t to save a few dollars.
As I've read on this situation further, I am starting to distrust the conflict altogether. The United States, or United Nations, should wait before they take action, and I bet your asking why I believe this? Well, the only difference between these groups is that some are being persecuted, while others are not. I must question whether things would be different if, let's say the Dinka people were in charge of the government. Or at least would the country be divided by then into Northern and Southern Sudan.? Another problem is that oil is a major player in this battle, as it is in several modern world conflicts. Any actions made must consider the adverse effects it will have on the countries that buy Sudanese oil, and the current appeal of the United States. The US is in already speculated against about Iraq about oil, and there’s the possibility that the US could take heat from this as well. I am not asking the US to be a hesitant leader. I am asking them to be cautionary, for the sake of international peace, because if anything is going to stir World War III, its going to be oil. Finally, I think the quickest solution to this problem would be to separate these ethnic groups, and divide the country. Such has been partially successful in countries such as India and Pakistan, and more recently, the controversial conflict in Serbia with Kosovo. While this may create more conflict at first, I believe in the long run, it would settle the conflict or at least create a sort of lasting peace.
I agree with Sam that we probably shouldn't assist the SPLA,but we should stop the civil war. Because we are one of the world's strongest powers, it is our duty to help other coutries who need our assistance. This event reminds me of Hitler and his genocide. Because we didn't do anything to stop him, millions of people were killed. We shouldn't just sit by and watch this happen. If appeasement isn't working, then we should change our policy and stop these mass killings. We souldn't get involved in the war, but the United States should try to find more peaceful solutions to save the people in Sudan.
I dont believe that it's "our duty" to help the other countries, because we are one of the most powerful nations in the world. I agree that the U.S. has enough to deal with right now and we don't need to be getting in other nations conflicts. I'm not saying that the U.S. should be selfish, I'm just saying that the U.S. should learn how to help ourselves before we can help others. We aren't Superman, and the world seems to think that.I think the U.S. realized that and just thought that they were invincible. Well I hate to break it to them, but their not. And the U.S. needs to stop trying to be a superhero and save the world.
As for the Sudanese people, they are just going to have to find a way to help themselves and resolve all of this conflict.
I agree that the U.S. shouldn't try to support the SPLA. I don't think we should be there at all. America needs to stick with a few things at a time so we can actually finish something for once and finish it fast. So with that said, the fact of not only going into Africa, but supporting an army that may be treating the people unfairly? Completely out of the question. There is no reason we should be helping the SPLA at all.
After reading "What is the What" I have to say that I am against the idea of supporting the SPLA. Although my opinion may be based on a biased book, I believe it is solid based on personal morals, if that's possible. The SPLA is a rebel group, FIGHTING with a government force. Not only are they fighting, but they are forcing their own CHILDREN to fight with them. If the United States were to help them, what kind of morals are we representing and do we really need the reputation of helping out a group with boy soldiers? Not only would it look bad, but it's a common fact that we don't have enough men, money, or time to be stretching ourselves as thin as helping them would do.
At this point the United States is already pulled into so many conflicts that I don't think it would be smart to get involved in yet another. There are always going to be harsh conflicts in the world and there is no way one country can make world peace. It's time other countries step up to the place and take a stand for something they believe in, instead of always volunteering the United States.
Post a Comment