Just curious… Have some high ranking officials from … whoever got involved…, really hoped to reunite the country with a presidential election opposing two candidates each representing one the two communities they thought useful to separate eight years ago with a somewhat partition and some foreign troops to make sure peace reigns?
Did they truly hoped this election without any prior negotiation dealing with the status of each community, how it is governed, its relations with the “central or federal gov?, how the resources are shared, will not end being seen and felt as a victory of one community over the other with all the foreseeable consequences triggering the refusal?
So was it irresponsible to organize a presidential election designed to govern both communities separated for more than height years taking the risk of a confrontation, of getting civilians involved in a fight that isn’t theirs killed, when, obviously the motives that had lead to the somewhat partition in 2002 were still there and needed to be addressed before anything else, to make sure the parties would accept the results of a presidential election, the losing party at the conflict reassured by its known status negotiated before it?
If yes, well I guess La Haye Tribunal may be crowded for a while?
Truly everybody is right now under the impression that if the North wasn’t in the situation to rule the South, we wouldn’t have this conversation, the North remaining somewhat self administered and certainly not governed by the South? Not very credible for the UN to support different standards according to who wins or looses?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire