I also "wonder how this crude picture strikes the political scientists on this list"
My layman, non-political scientist's guess is that in addition to all the other complex causes of this latest military coup, seething immediately below the surface is the spectre of Sudan's al Bashir being handed over to the ICC – a venue at which he may or may not be likely to give some details about the chain of command thereby implicating some of those along that chain who we are to assume executed some of the orders, progressively from above.
The likelihood that some of the generals now calling the shots in Sudan were in that chain of command, as a partial reason for the coup that should save Bashir being shipped downriver, should be more understandable, that they too would like to save their own skin.
The BBC reported today that Sudan's neighbours and members of the Arab League do not share the African Union's enthusiasm for the extreme measure they have decided to adopt against the fellow Arab Brethren of Sudan's new management.
We are to suppose that the much-needed financial assistance will come from good friends, in order to avert the total state collapse that's being forecast.
I think that in future negotiations with Sudan's governing military, granting or guaranteeing Bashir some kind of immunity could help bring about the desired goal of reducing tensions and relieving the people of Sudan from unnecessary further suffering.
The military said that they took over in order to prevent the country from erupting into civil war.
They will of course promise to restore the country to democratic civilian rule by holding general elections within a reasonable time frame - and if they say this, shouldn't we be patient and hold them to their promise?
i have this simplistic notion that the militaries in many parts of the world profit from their power by taking control of the money, of the economy, of the land. they are predators. in sudan the general leading the coup said it was necessary to "protect our interests." i get that point. here's what the bbc said: "Not only was the army commanding a vast - and still-increasing - share of the national budget, but military-owned companies operate with tax exemptions and often allegedly corrupt contracting procedures."
the interests of the people vs the interests of an oligarchy, call it a military oligarchy.there are african states that protect against that; others that depend upon the military and in order to stay in power, prop up that military with granting them control over businesses, mines, land in exchange for their guarantees of power.
i wonder how this crude picture strikes the political scientists on this list who would have a more accurate assessmentken
kenneth harrow
professor emeritus
dept of english
michigan state university
Listserv moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To subscribe to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue+subscribe@googlegroups.com
Current archives at http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
Early archives at http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USA Africa Dialogue Series" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to usaafricadialogue+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/usaafricadialogue/65d8d7a9-e719-4b30-89a8-c55bd00df50en%40googlegroups.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment