3 ms·

If you don't want your corporation's supply chain at risk, maybe use your lobbying dollars to ask the executive branch to actually support foreign nations rathe

If you don't want your corporation's supply chain at risk, maybe use your lobbying dollars to ask the executive branch to actually support foreign nations rather than let them fall into civil war. Sudan has had a military dictatorship from 1989-2019 (led by Omar al-Bashir). In 2017, both President Obama and President Trump lifted sanctions on Sudan, after al-Bashir reneged on a promise to step down just two years earlier. In 2018/2019, price hikes resulted in massive protests and a subsequent revolution against al-Bashir. This finally resolved in 2019, when a joint military-civilian political agreement, constitution, and council were formed. At that point, lots of aid was needed in order to rebuild and stabilize the country, but as usual, actually getting that money was difficult. The bulk of it came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In 2021, there were two more coups. In 2023, a new civil war broke out between the military dictatorship and a paramilitary branch of it. That war is still persisting. War crimes are rampant, mass-murder and genocide persist, almost the entire country cannot afford food. The main backer of the paramilitary group preventing the conflict from ending is the UAE.

zdragnar 2y ago
What do you think the executive branch of the USA could have done to prevent any of this instability? al-Burhan hardly seems better than al-Bashir.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  1) don't reward a dictator after renegging on promises by allowing them more trade 2) use foreign policy maneuvers to pressure UAE to end its support for the paramilitary group 3) provide aid of our own which strengthens our position and gives us more options to end the paramilitary group's reign 4) install a new dictator. it's not a good option, but if the previous options don't work, I think the citizens of Sudan would admit it's better than genocide and starvation at this point. Remember back in "Trump 1.0", when he stopped us from being involved in foreign affairs "because America First", and there were warnings that a lack of American presence would create a power vacuum that our enemies would fill? This is that outcome. If we had been the ones providing aid instead of the Saudis and the UAE, this whole recent catastrophe might have been avoided. An important lesson for the current administration as they continue to end foreign aid to gain cheap political points. And granted, I know a whole lot of people go "so what?" to genocide and starvation, but also Coke & M&Ms are now more expensive, so maybe that'll matter to them.
InitialLastName 2y ago
That may be learning the wrong lesson. US corporations have used "securing supply chains" to justify encouraging the US government to incite a whole lot of strife and conflict around the world in the last century-and-a-bit.
- genewitch 2y ago
  yes please, find another ingredient that doesn't involve smuggling it out of a war-torn country, at the very least. Unfortunately i didn't know this when i bought some and now i got a giant tub of conflict gum that i'll probably never use. I got it to make "Chocolate Frosty" that wouldn't have the tiny ice crystals in it. It didn't work, i think you have to put it in something that is hot in order to activate it, and i didn't want to experiment to find out which part i could heat up without affecting the end result. there are other gums, too. And now that i know about the collection of gum arabic i'll avoid it in processed stuff, too. I already boycott nestle, and i can do without coca-cola, too.
  - Aloisius 2y ago
    Coca-cola itself doesn't appear to contain gum arabic, at least not in the US. Outside the US, there are Coca-cola products that do though like some Schweppes and Fanta sodas.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      I feel like people misinterpreted what i was saying. I will now, when i am looking at a processed food, look for Gum Arabic in the ingredient list, and not purchase anything that contains it. I know what it is, because i have bought it for its intended purpose prior to learning it was possibly smuggled from a conflict area. I don't have any problem not buying products for reasons like this. No problem whatsoever. So if a company wants me to buy its product, they can use another ingredient that doesn't involve smuggling it out of a conflict zone.
- mmooss 2y ago
  > strife and conflict Also, a lot of oppression in the name of stability.
ToucanLoucan 2y ago
Bold of you to assume the Government wouldn't install a dictator as their method of "supporting" a foreign nation. As though we haven't stomped popular left-leaning governments into the dirt via sponsoring military coups numerous times. Hell, I don't know anything about Sudan, but if you told me the CIA installed Omar al-Bashir to ensure the continued cheap supply of Gum Arabic, I wouldn't necessarily believe you, but I wouldn't call you a liar either.
- alexey-salmin 2y ago
  > Bold of you to assume the Government wouldn't install a dictator as their method of "supporting" a foreign nation. Well he immediately suggested to "install a new dictator" in the adjacent comment. [1] I figure dictators are OK as long as the spice keeps flowing. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43271206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43271206
BurningFrog 2y ago
Pretty sure the Sudanese civil wars are due to conflicts within Sudan, not US foreign policy.
drivebyhooting 2y ago
Ridiculous. The money is better spent establishing local production.

zdragnar 2y ago

What do you think the executive branch of the USA could have done to prevent any of this instability? al-Burhan hardly seems better than al-Bashir.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago
1) don't reward a dictator after renegging on promises by allowing them more trade 2) use foreign policy maneuvers to pressure UAE to end its support for the paramilitary group 3) provide aid of our own which strengthens our position and gives us more options to end the paramilitary group's reign 4) install a new dictator. it's not a good option, but if the previous options don't work, I think the citizens of Sudan would admit it's better than genocide and starvation at this point. Remember back in "Trump 1.0", when he stopped us from being involved in foreign affairs "because America First", and there were warnings that a lack of American presence would create a power vacuum that our enemies would fill? This is that outcome. If we had been the ones providing aid instead of the Saudis and the UAE, this whole recent catastrophe might have been avoided. An important lesson for the current administration as they continue to end foreign aid to gain cheap political points. And granted, I know a whole lot of people go "so what?" to genocide and starvation, but also Coke & M&Ms are now more expensive, so maybe that'll matter to them.

InitialLastName 2y ago

That may be learning the wrong lesson. US corporations have used "securing supply chains" to justify encouraging the US government to incite a whole lot of strife and conflict around the world in the last century-and-a-bit.

genewitch 2y ago
yes please, find another ingredient that doesn't involve smuggling it out of a war-torn country, at the very least. Unfortunately i didn't know this when i bought some and now i got a giant tub of conflict gum that i'll probably never use. I got it to make "Chocolate Frosty" that wouldn't have the tiny ice crystals in it. It didn't work, i think you have to put it in something that is hot in order to activate it, and i didn't want to experiment to find out which part i could heat up without affecting the end result. there are other gums, too. And now that i know about the collection of gum arabic i'll avoid it in processed stuff, too. I already boycott nestle, and i can do without coca-cola, too.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Coca-cola itself doesn't appear to contain gum arabic, at least not in the US. Outside the US, there are Coca-cola products that do though like some Schweppes and Fanta sodas.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    I feel like people misinterpreted what i was saying. I will now, when i am looking at a processed food, look for Gum Arabic in the ingredient list, and not purchase anything that contains it. I know what it is, because i have bought it for its intended purpose prior to learning it was possibly smuggled from a conflict area. I don't have any problem not buying products for reasons like this. No problem whatsoever. So if a company wants me to buy its product, they can use another ingredient that doesn't involve smuggling it out of a conflict zone.
mmooss 2y ago
> strife and conflict Also, a lot of oppression in the name of stability.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago

Bold of you to assume the Government wouldn't install a dictator as their method of "supporting" a foreign nation. As though we haven't stomped popular left-leaning governments into the dirt via sponsoring military coups numerous times. Hell, I don't know anything about Sudan, but if you told me the CIA installed Omar al-Bashir to ensure the continued cheap supply of Gum Arabic, I wouldn't necessarily believe you, but I wouldn't call you a liar either.

alexey-salmin 2y ago
> Bold of you to assume the Government wouldn't install a dictator as their method of "supporting" a foreign nation. Well he immediately suggested to "install a new dictator" in the adjacent comment. [1] I figure dictators are OK as long as the spice keeps flowing. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43271206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43271206

BurningFrog 2y ago

Pretty sure the Sudanese civil wars are due to conflicts within Sudan, not US foreign policy.

drivebyhooting 2y ago

Ridiculous. The money is better spent establishing local production.