Dueling Over Darfur

Thank you Newsweek for finally covering Darfur. I would love it if the love soon grew back in Sudan.

Mr John Prendergast comes across as someone who seems to be still working for the American establishment that has a major role in the mess that Darfur is today, perhaps more than China. He and a few other rights groups were too strategic in calling what is happening in Darfur???Genocide". US Governments' interests/foreign policy on Sudan is not hard to imagine in the context of growing number of nations with oil deposits becoming unfriendly towards it. Where were these activists when the killings were at its peak? Why aren???t they vocal about the killings in Iraq? The human rights groups instrumentalised by US Government can only speak in favour of the government actions. Has any of the activist groups bothered to find out from where the rebel groups receive their arms and training? Have they voiced any public opinion about Sudan???s neighbouring US allies training rebels with blessings from Washington? I am also not surprised about the Genocide Olympics Campaign... Why no similar campaign was aimed at US Government during the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? It is a shame that human rights groups haven???t learned their lessons after Somalia and many others that a military intervention would not solve the issue. A UN Force would not be as successful as a strengthened African Union Force in Sudan. I am surprised to hear voices from Church pulpits in the form of comments to the debate.. as if they knew everything that happens in Darfur from their rooms...

ADW and JP and all: It goes like this. Reply to ADW questions: Before we start, has Harvard divested from Sudan?
1/ Certainly not the focus of NGO activist groups that are specifically focused on preventing further destruction of the society in Darfur. The groups raise the issues to push GOs to act. Without a doubt, the vast majority of activist engaged in Darfur were in Diapers for most of the history of the N / S issue. If a shifted focus has happened, and has resulted in a degradation of the performance of a N / S peace, it is on the professional and elected government officials who have failed. Activists usually do not get a seat at the table, and if they do it is powerless beyond there ability to shout, or fight and most don't fight (its against the law).
2/ The Bush administration's stance and rhetoric should be formulated out of the (hopefully) well informed views of its various intelligence, state and defense apparatus. Not an email from Jane and John Doe Activist (including Mr. Waal and Mr. Pendergast). Mr. Pendergast fairly clearly outlines why the administration did not do more in Darfur. Bush's rhetoric may have emboldened the rebels, short term, but certainly there strategy is more informed by the N / S conflict, than Bush's rhetoric or activsm on the net. The rebel leaders are informed as to what the west has achieved to bring justice and peace to Africa, and it is not a great track record.
Bush's comments, perhaps almost singularly for Domestic consumption and perhaps secondarly in a hope that another western (or eastern) nation would take the lead. Don't know if any body has noticed, but all this talk of the U.S. leading anything anywhere is currently off the plate. We don't lead and when we have lately, we've fallen on our face. By the way, 'we've fallen on our face,' is spoken by a Save Darfur Coalition activist in the film However, the activist hasn't fallen on his face, current actions to end the crisis have. Its a tough nut to crack, and unfortunately the first step is political will, and not enough of it exists around the globe to tackle all of the shitty and violent situations aroud the world. Darfur Now (which may be in a theater near you). Regardless, what comes out of any U.S. presidents mouth, isn't on the back of activists.
3/ Genocide...its on the plate and the prosecuter from the U.N., Ocampo, believes crimes against humanity have occured. Its up to the Sudanese government to show up to trial and fight the claims. Difficult to see how an activist campaign that believes genocide has occured, would close its mouth, cover its eyes, and muffle its ears to that fact. 200K or more dead, 4.5m displaced. Should the actions activist have taken in Darfur, to stop what legally looks like a genocide, inform activism and activism elesewhere? Of Course.

ADW and JP and all: It goes like this. Reply to ADW questions: Before we start, has Harvard divested from Sudan?
1/ Certainly not the focus of NGO activist groups that are specifically focused on preventing further destruction of the society in Darfur. The groups raise the issues to push GOs to act. Without a doubt, the vast majority of activist engaged in Darfur were in Diapers for most of the history of the N / S issue. If a shifted focus has happened, and has resulted in a degradation of the performance of a N / S peace, it is on the professional and elected government officials who have failed. Activists usually do not get a seat at the table, and if they do it is powerless beyond there ability to shout, or fight and most don't fight (its against the law).
2/ The Bush administration's stance and rhetoric should be formulated out of the (hopefully) well informed views of its various intelligence, state and defense apparatus. Not an email from Jane and John Doe Activist (including Mr. Waal and Mr. Pendergast). Mr. Pendergast fairly clearly outlines why the administration did not do more in Darfur. Bush's rhetoric may have emboldened the rebels, short term, but certainly there strategy is more informed by the N / S conflict, than Bush's rhetoric or activsm on the net. The rebel leaders are informed as to what the west has achieved to bring justice and peace to Africa, and it is not a great track record.
Bush's comments, perhaps almost singularly for Domestic consumption and perhaps secondarly in a hope that another western (or eastern) nation would take the lead. Don't know if any body has noticed, but all this talk of the U.S. leading anything anywhere is currently off the plate. We don't lead and when we have lately, we've fallen on our face. By the way, 'we've fallen on our face,' is spoken by a Save Darfur Coalition activist in the film However, the activist hasn't fallen on his face, current actions to end the crisis have. Its a tough nut to crack, and unfortunately the first step is political will, and not enough of it exists around the globe to tackle all of the shitty and violent situations aroud the world. Darfur Now (which may be in a theater near you). Regardless, what comes out of any U.S. presidents mouth, isn't on the back of activists.
3/ Genocide...its on the plate and the prosecuter from the U.N., Ocampo, believes crimes against humanity have occured. Its up to the Sudanese government to show up to trial and fight the claims. Difficult to see how an activist campaign that believes genocide has occured, would close its mouth, cover its eyes, and muffle its ears to that fact. 200K or more dead, 4.5m displaced. Should the actions activist have taken in Darfur, to stop what legally looks like a genocide, inform activism and activism elesewhere? Of Course.

Why do both of you spend so much time on "your" accomplishments and not on the suffering? Maybe it is the topic, but I think it has more to do with ego. Mr. de Waal, as an American citizen, I am free to speak out about any issue that moves me. Period. You may think that you have all the answers, but as far as I can see, innocent people are still dying in Darfur, and your peace agreement is close to unraveling. Instead of being "above" the movement, why not join us? And by the way, I believe that Africans are scholars of their own history and their own story, not someone who studies it. Be more forgiving and less argumentative, and maybe you could learn something. Remember the words of Albert Einstein "Great spirits have always encountered opposition from mediocre minds,"
Now Mr. Prendergast, I am a bit surprised by your reaction; you can do better. Yes, mostly you defended the movement, but often you belittled many of us by implying that we don't know all the details. Guess what? I know the details. But when I have 10 minutes in front of a church audience or civic group, my goal is to get across a simple message and give them a place to take their resolve. And the truth is, at its very core, it is not too difficult. The non-Arab population of Darfur is being run off their land in an attempt to make the region an Arab one. Not a nice thought I know, but a truthful one. I think that was quite clear when the leader of Iran went to visit Mr. Bashir and praised his work. Calling something what it is does not indict all members of that group, nor does it mean that someone is racist. It is simply the truth. Start saying it more. I realize that if you make an issue more complicated, it makes you look smarter, but does that really matter? We get it, you are smart. As for all the other complexities, they are a direct result of inaction. We sit and things get complicated. So now they need us, let's just do it. Because the truth is, the continent of Africa is becoming stronger and stronger, and sooner or later, we are going to need them. In fact, we already do.
So, please, no more telling us about living in Africa or your work in the Clinton administration, or how you, Mr. de Waal, were so brave in staying behind to find a solution. Because from where I sit, none of that matters. No one needs to go to Darfur to understand that this genocide needs to end. No one needs to study Africa or the Genocide Convention to know that we are obligated to end their suffering.
Take a bow, and then regain your humility. God will bless that.

First off, I want to commend both gentlemen for their passion about Darfur. I think it is that drive to do the right thing that is continuing this conversation. Unfortunately, much of the substantive dialogue concerning this topic is lost in this back and forth arguing. There is no doubt that this is a crisis that involves urgency and our attention. Still, there is no need for two well educated men to act the way that they are perceived in this article. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. After reading this, I don't see how they cannot.

It seems that if both would join a meaningful dialogue that put their differences aside and that put Darfur first and their egos second, than a lot more would be accomplished. It's amazing how much good we can all do if we don't care who takes the credit. It's blatantly obvious that these two conflicting parties cannot exist because of pure selfishness. This tragedy is not about mr De Waal or Mr Prendergast, it is about the people of Darfur, it is about humanity.

To me, this whole argument about the definition of genocide is nothing more than semantics. Whatever we call it shouldn't matter save the politicians. Darfur needs to be addressed and it only takes an ignorant person to miss what is going on.

I think there is room for both of these men to be right (if that is what they desire). For instance, I purchased Mr Prendergast's book. A) because it was one of the few books on Darfur on the market for me to educate myself by and B) because it was co-written by Don Cheadle (a well respected actor). The latter was reason enough for me and I'm assuming thousands more to purchase the book. Mr Cheadle gave the book an immediate legitamacy. I think having actors/activists such as Mr Cheadle help promote the cause can be a good thing.

The main problem outside of the ethnic rivalry in Sudan does not rest among these two men or institutions vs activists. The problem is with us. Pay attention America, there are people out there calling Darfur out....we just need to listen.

All too often we can get lost in our own cause rather than that of what we initially set out to help. I'm not questioning where either of their hearts are right now. To do that would be unfair to the many years that they have put into this very noble cause. All I am saying is that they take a harder look at the contradictions that many have caught them in. While they may very well be trying to stop hatred half way around the world...I don't think they have tried to stop it within.