A lively discussion about the Save Darfur movement was recently kicked off by Michael Kleinman, who blogs for Change.org. In his post, Kleinman restated remarks made by John Holmes, U.N. under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, during an interview with journalist Steve Bloomfield. As response postings, comments, counter-arguments and various viewpoints have been added to the discussion by Change.org blogger Michelle, the Enough Project’s David Sullivan, Bloomfield, and others, I see a few points that should be made and reinforced.
Save Darfur’s understanding of the situation on the ground has been questioned. One cause for this is the noted use of incorrect mortality numbers in a Save Darfur promotion published three years ago. (The error in this example was due to the improper use of the word “slaughtered,” not in the use of the figure “400,000,” which was used by other sources at the time.) Tragically, there is no “right” or “wrong” mortality number. The reality is: no one knows for sure. And there are pretty good reasons why no one knows – the Sudanese regime would not allow the epidemiologists into the country. Today, Save Darfur relies on figures published by the United Nations (300,000 dead and 2.7 million displaced), and not exaggerated data that the organization hopes will elicit the largest emotional response from the public.
There are also concerns that efforts to Save Darfur endanger humanitarian aid workers in the region. I don’t think there’s an activist out there who wants to bring harm to aid workers, and many understand the potential risk that exists when there appears to be an association between their work and ours. But as David Sullivan stated:
Humanitarian relief is essential but it is no substitute for political strategies and conflict resolution policies that would actually help to end conflict.
Our belief is that the two approaches are necessary and must work in concert. One arm rallies for resolution, while another protects and supports innocent civilians. Meanwhile, we do our part to stay informed about the situation on the ground.
Inaccurate representations of Save Darfur’s position on military intervention in Darfur have also been used to imply limited understanding of the conflict. The fact: Save Darfur has never advocated for military intervention (yet this was also the mistaken impression held by David Rieff, whom Kleinman quoted in one of his postings). Save Darfur has eschewed calls for U.S. military intervention and has advocated for the joint AU/U.N. civilian protection force that was authorized by the U.N. in July 2007.
Questions have also been raised about the use of the term genocide. Some imply that the death toll in Darfur is not high enough, and Kleinman goes as far as saying “it could be far worse.” These viewpoints seem to regard the term genocide as one that relies on quantity of death. But the term genocide implies intention, systematic approaches, and planned extermination to eliminate an ethnic group of people. Though we’ve witnessed systematic exterminations of people in short time spans, as in Rwanda, intentional campaigns to eliminate an ethnic group of people can take place over 100 years and still be labeled genocide. The idea that we shouldn’t advocate an end to the violence in Darfur because “it could be far worse,” is one we choose not to accept.
At the same time, the reduced number of attacks is a good point to raise. It doesn’t seem likely that the Sudanese government would have curtailed its genocidal campaign were it not for the increased attention that the Save Darfur movement has placed on the conflict. Nor does it seem likely that the civilian protection force would be in place, were it not for citizens lobbying their governments. So while civilian lives are still very much threatened in Darfur, the advocacy work of this movement has made a difference.
This discussion began with a blog titled, “Save Darfur can’t save Darfur.” But the notion that the Save Darfur Coalition itself would “save Darfur” has never been our calculus. “Save Darfur” was a name chosen as a call to actors around the world (world leaders, the constituency of conscience, in-country leaders, and others with leverage) to take firm action to end the suffering and violence.
In addition, Save Darfur has always supported Darfuris and Sudanese in their pursuit to find their own solutions to the conflict. We support institutions such as the Darfuri Leaders Network and civil society development in Darfur through vehicles like the civil society conference held in Tanzania in July 2008. The goal of these networks is to provide a forum for Darfuris to articulate a way forward for their own country.
Save Darfur’s work will continue. There is much to be done and the constituency of conscience will continue to advocate on this issue until there is lasting peace and security for all in Darfur and Sudan.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
gembury18 says:
I really enjoyed your post. I thought the writing was well thought out and indicative of the argument you were making. Continue the fight! I know I am too…