Comment by _8j50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _8j50 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Probably an unpopular opinion, but my view is that not a single country should interfere with this.

Self-determination is a critical element of sovreignity. While all the concerns and empathy for the sudanese is something I agree with, it is the responsibility and burden of all sudanese adults to self-determine their fate and the fate of their children.

Now, if some element of either side of the conflict allies itself with outside entities I have no problem with them receiving aide, whether that be military assistance ir something else.

You cannot force peace. Fighters from both sides of the conflict made a choice to abandon peace. They must want it back if it is ever to come back to them.

If any outside party decides to get involved for whatever reason, they better have a long term plan to colonize sudan.

You must understand, soldiers need to eat, sleep, get medical care, fuel and parts for their weapons and vehicles,etc... this is how lasting peace is made, when those who crave violence get their fill at the hands of those who would give up their lives to gain peace.

> not a single country should interfere with this

I'd rather say "a single country should not interfere with this". IF we have a "simple" internal conflict between local factions, then it should be an international community (the UN, or an agreed conference of major international and local powers) that steps in and ensures mediation. However, this happens very rarely. The reasons it happens very rarely is that major powers such as US, China, Russia, pretty much always have some opposing interests even in local conflicts. When there are no interests, conflicts just end up forgotten and nobody cares, but that's not good either.

So my take on "should the rest of the world interfere" is - yes, but only if the rest of the world does so by agreement.

What authority does "the rest of the world" have over a sovreign country? The people or the land are not subjects of some world government.

It is because of this post-colonial interference they are still having this war. Sudan was a product of europeans drawing lines on maps.

Also, when you say the rest of the world, what that means in reality is rich and poweful countries and everyone else who aligns with them to avoid their displeasure because that is worse than giving a shit about Sudan's sovreignity.

Alex de Waal argues for democratic and humanitarian support. He seems to be honest and I guess it should be the right thing to do.

But I don't trust western meddling and motivations anymore.

What is the real objective?

Do they know what they are doing?

Maybe Sudan is doomed anyway but did US politcs any good:

April 2019: democratic revolution (ousting of al-Bashir)

"Although Washington and its European allies have expressed admiration for Sudan’s democrats, their support has been hollow."

The quad (United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Washington and Riyadh ) is not really interested in democracy.

2021 joint SUF/RSF coup

April 2023 SUF/RSF fighting

"By this point, it was far too late for the mediators—let alone outside powers like the United States that had failed to offer high-level engagement since the 2021 coup—to do anything to stop them"

"The hope is that the Saudis can convince Cairo and Abu Dhabi not to fund or arm their respective favorites, and the United States can champion the democratic movement that it has so shamefully betrayed"

I think they already knew already Sudan will be a failed state, just not this fast.

> Fighters from both sides of the conflict made a choice to abandon peace.

There is little choice here when you need to earn money for your family - either on the payroll of the army or the RSF.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com