A Letter To The Save Darfur Coalition

30 Responses to “A Letter To The Save Darfur Coalition”

1. aaron on April 5th, 2007 7:05 pm

   Well stated Drima, I think I would add ( hypothetically of course ) that in place of UN troops there should be a real push for international support for the AU mission there. And by support I mean $$$ and supplies that an underfunded body like the AU peace keepers so sorely need.

   Now keep in mind I’m not sure whether my idea is good or not, just throwing it out there. What do others think?

2. Roman Kalik on April 5th, 2007 7:08 pm

   In general, it is a very good letter. It touches all the important and relevant issues. A little too personal-sounding though, but that’s a matter of style.

3. Nick on April 5th, 2007 7:19 pm

   I agree with your points from a theoretical standpoint. I’m not sure how we as American/World Citizens can put pressure on al-Bashir or any of the rebel groups to sit at the table. To me the UN effort is a good way to “force” some type of resolution to the issue.

   On a broader scale, the US Senate Banking committee is discussing a Divestment Act, which could take $ away from Sudanese interests. This is already being done by many states and is also beginning to gain momentum.

   I’d like to hear your thoughts on ways we can make a difference on the ground in Darfur.

4. Mark on April 6th, 2007 3:59 am

   Hey, Hey. Don’t you know that the save Darfur Coalition is concerned about convincing themselves and others that they care. You pointing out that the situation is not as simple as they would like it to be, makes them seem more like ignorant hippies rather than heart-felt concerned citizens. Well I hope you are happy with yourself.

5. The Atheist Jew on April 6th, 2007 5:33 am

   DRIMA,
   You’ve been tagged.

6. howie on April 6th, 2007 4:21 pm

   Drima-

   I understand your points…but consider the following:

   If you are drowning…at that moment you have one thing and only one thing in your mind…air…I have been there and I know…air.

   If it is your mom, kid, wife etc. being killed RIGHT NOW…or starving…or living without shelter…you want some relief…right now…air…give me AIR. If it is your mom at the end of a janjaweed rape or your brother not getting enough to eat…you are not terribly concerned about peace talks.

   I agree that this ultimately has to be resolved through peace negotiations, but that is going to take a long long time and Khartoum….well…will they rush to resolve this?

   So I don’t care if it is the UN or whatever…but something has to be done quickly to at least provide some significantly increased protection and relief.

   I do think it is an embarrassment that the overall Arab/Muslim establishment has, essentially, not raised one finger and would rather obsess about the Palestinian issue.

   Where’s the Saudi “peace plan” for Darfur?

   http://www.damanga.org/newsroom/press_releases/2007/press_022807.html

7. jonah84 on April 7th, 2007 2:10 am

   It is a decent letter but I am not sure the organization like that really put significant effort trying to understand root cause and try to put their energy on feasible solutions. However, I command them for their concern and effort.

8. JMac on April 7th, 2007 4:31 am

   Drima, I wholeheartedly agree with you. The problem with SaveDarfur is they are a political organization, not a humanitarian one. What bothers me is that most Americans donate money for Darfur through them, thinking they are helping innocent victims. I personally am offended by some of the e-mails they send out, because they are so very misleading, along the lines of “click here to send money now or this baby will die!” (an exaggeration, but not too far from one). And, let’s not forget the one sponsered from Sen Bill Frist, urging us to call “Pres Bush today!” Bill Frist? Come on!

   This organization has oversimplified what is going on in Darfur, narrowing it down to a bulleted list on their website. For those who have actively followed the news from Darfur, it seems a bit ridiculous, almost offensive.

   My wish is that they would use their leverage to bring together folks who do have *real* solutions to the root cause of the conflict (lack of water, transportation systems, education for starters). Sanctions and use of force will solve nothing. Peace cannot be forced. More innocent people will die.

   Thank you for sharing your letter. It sounds very respectful and honest. I might have to send one too!

9. JMac on April 7th, 2007 4:38 am

   PS, found this article today, thought you might be interested. It’s a bit stale, but an interesting discussion on possible solutions:
   http://www.tpmcafe.com/discussiontables/foreign_affairs_table/2006/dec/24/darfur_sudan_and_context_for_other_than_simplistic_solutions

10. JMac on April 7th, 2007 4:46 am

    OK, sorry to be stalking your blog! But here is an excellent post in the Sudan Watch archives in re: SaveDarfur:
    http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/07/savedarfurorg-wants-to-spend-50000-on.html

    You’ve already read that , no less, but others might find it helpful to fully understand your point. Keep on truckin!

11. Rancher on April 7th, 2007 4:55 am

    Howie, that was a very powerful argument for the old axiom to do something, make some decision, follow some plan, take some direction, because waiting cost lives. A corrallary to that is do something, make a dicision, even if it is wrong it is better than doing nothing. That said I don’t profess to know the answer here. A British unit was was carrying out a UN mandated inspection and was pirated by the Iranians. The UN backed up its forces by giving a watered down condimnation. The UN is worthless I’m sorry to say.

12. howie on April 7th, 2007 5:28 am

    Rancher-

    The UN is not worthless…they are experts and wasting time, money and picking bad causes to support.

    On a less cynical note…even a broken clock is right twice a day…sometimes the UN has done some decent stuff.

    Darfur is complex…to me…settlement is a long ways off…but something has to be done meanwhile just to help get these guys some relief…Once again…if you have a nail in your foot…your only concern is getting it out and you can worry later about who was responsible.

13. howie on April 7th, 2007 5:32 am

    Experts AT wasting time…shesh

14. aaron on April 7th, 2007 2:28 pm

    Howie I’d be interested in knowing just how much expertise you have in working with a body like the UN in a country like Sudan. Or are you just a backseat political commentator that likes to make witty metaphors?

15. Roman Kalik on April 7th, 2007 9:10 pm

    The UN will not be of use, be it by way of supplies or by way of peacekeepers. If it’s temporary relief we’re after then private NGO’s are a better option. And better funding for the AU troops who will protect them.

16. Matt on April 7th, 2007 9:34 pm

    As a person on the ground in Darfur supporting the African Union and United Missions “light footprint” towards this peacekeeping mission, I can honestly say the UN can significantly help the African Union.

    The AU was formed recently, as some of you may know, and are trying to take on a scope of operation way beyond their capability. They have grown rapidly, and their administrative support in Addis, Khartoum, and here has tightened, but it’s still very loose (as a result of a number of factors to include poorly trained, disciplined, and inexperienced African management, rapid growth without a solid administrative infrastructure, funding problems, and most recently the AU mirroring the same size mission in Somalia, which they most certainly are not ready to take on.)

    The latest stint has been not being able to pay the troops (many since late 06). Now this one factor is a combination of the donor nations not releasing the funds to the AU, but that can also be attributed to little faith in the AU administration to handle the money properly. (Unfortunately the AU cannot generate cash without donor nations supporting their cause so they will always be plagued unless they develop a consistent funding base.)

    In addition, the AU soldiers out here are spotty. The Rwandans are well trained and dedicated but the majority of troops, like many of the Nigerians, run for cover with any sign of danger. Few want to risk their lives.

    I agree the diplomatic and correct route to go in maintaining a level of confidence in the Arab and African world for this crises in Darfur must include an “African Solution for an African Problem”, but the current solution on supporting the AU as the primary and only route for success isn’t going to have short term success.

    There have been African bodies in the past formed to solve their problems, all of which have crumbled over time. I’m not saying the AU will crumble, but it will take some time to establish an administrative foundation to handle these types of missions, plus training and uniformity. (The actual mandate setting the parameters for this mission didnt get distributed to all the troops until after they were on the ground for over a year.)

    These are examples which show the AU needs help. Sudan has agreed to let the UN in under their “light footprint” plan, which is essentially administrative support. The “heavy footprint” is still in negotiations with Bashir and co where it would make more of a joint mission.

    Despite the UN’s shortcomings, its slow mobilization and bureaucracy, they do have experts on staff which have handled these types of missions before and can really assist in tightening up the AU. You could call it consulting if you like.

    As far as the backlash of seeing the bluehats on the ground, I have seen students protest against the UN one day and then the very next day they protest for more UN presence. The protestors are all paid anyway and from my perspective dont care one way or the other.

    The one thing I know about this mission is that a lot of people in Darfur are making money and the last thing locals want is to lose the international presence. It’s kind of a sick balancing act the rebels are playing with the GOS and locals, causing enough destruction to keep the media and outside world in tune, but not enough to reak havoc and collapse the existing efforts, which like I said, is very lucrative with all the outsiders bringing peacekeeping business to the marketplaces. (One thing that is a major underlying motivational factor in keeping the rebels from uniting together - they all make money in staying apart. There’s going to have to be financial incentives or a major commitment of infrastructure and development (which really is what the rebels wanted in the first place) by the GOS to the Darfur people if the rebels leaders want to give up what they are getting now.)

    I think the haters, the Goverment of Sudan, Al Qaida, etc are voices and may influence a few, but not enough to cause hell if the UN comes in.

    I believe the ultimate solution is a combination of factors, but I do know status quo is not making a real difference to the lives that need it the most.

17. howie on April 7th, 2007 10:39 pm

    Aaron-

    “Despite the UN’s shortcomings, its slow mobilization and bureaucracy, they do have experts on staff which have handled these types of missions before and can really assist in tightening up the AU. You could call it consulting if you like.”

    I think Matt says it much better than I could.

    I am not a great expert on the UN…and yes I do like making witty metaphors.

    I do know that the UN has been helpful in places and in places they have be unhelpful. As an overall body…I don’t like them.

    Could I see “blue hats” being potentially useful in guarding groups of refugees and helping with logistics of communication and transport etc., yes…I think that could help. Could it make things worse? I guess that is a risk.

    But my metaphors still hold…you see…I do have quit a bit of expertise in human suffering…I have seen a whole lot of that. I also know that when you are in pain, fear and on the immediate edge of death or your loved one is in such circumstance…you pretty much want help and not committee meetings.

18. Roman Kalik on April 8th, 2007 9:46 am

    Unfortunately, the UN also has experts at redirecting required funds, sending the right people to the wrong job, the wrong people to the right job, the right people to the right job with a mission definition that effectively castrates them and makes them useless…

    So which experts will you get? The ones who will make matters better, the ones who will prance around like peacocks and pretend that this makes a difference?

19. Matt on April 8th, 2007 1:52 pm

    Roman - Are you getting your information from the news or from working within the UN? It’s very easy to apply labels from an armchair. And yes the UN does have shortcomings and past grievances, but I don’t see any real merit to your argument by classifying the entire organization as limp. If there was an easy fix to better the international body, it would have already been done. I can probably find similar grievances for any government. They are one facet to improving the mission which directly impacts the victims, so for that I support them. Like I said, I don’t think it’s necessarily the most efficient means to reach the solution, but all things considered, it’s the most realistic option at this point.

20. Roman Kalik on April 8th, 2007 3:38 pm

    The news? Matt, dearest, I don’t much care for mass-media, though it is certainly one of my sources of information. Like Howie, I am no expert regarding the UN, but I have reached several conclusions regarding the UN. One is that there is little to no good background checks done by the UN, checking troops volunteered by countries for peacekeeping. Two is that there is too much international politics influencing the UN, to the point of making several sections completely unable to operate per UN principles.

21. Roman Kalik on April 8th, 2007 3:49 pm

    Three is that the UN bureaucracy has become inefficient to the extreme. And four is that all of these problems have only been addressed by the band-aid method so far.

    So, will the troops be fully screened? One rape case and Bashir will turn it into a media circus, and kick them out. Will they have proper Rules of Engagement? Will there be an adequate amount of personnell, of equipment, and will the money go where it should?

    Screw this opportunity up, and the world will go back to sleep.

22. Roman Kalik on April 8th, 2007 4:03 pm

    And last but not least, yes the UN is like a government. Only governments, or good governments at least, examine their bad points in-depth every now and then and try to fix them. The frequent personnel changes help. And the fact that the political goals are, at least sometimes, put after the practical ones.

    You can discard this as a coming from a “couch-commentator”, of course. Or you at least try and respect what I say. Up to you.

    The UN has a bad image. And it’s not because the press hates it.

23. howie on April 8th, 2007 4:58 pm

    RK-

    Pretty much how I see it.

24. Matt on April 8th, 2007 5:49 pm

    Roman - I think you’re picking at some of the scabs. Let me elaborate a little more about the peacekeeping side of things, from a step back so you have an overall picture.

    To begin, everything in this world at any significant level of importance has a political undertone. The UN only accentuates it b/c they tackle many jobs no one else is capable or willing to face, all the while appeasing as many needs of its member states as possible. Politics will always play an underlying role in the organization.

    Plus the nature of peacekeeping in itself is a hard business. Donor troops are supposed to put their lives at risk for a cause many have no connection to. Most do it simply for the soldier next to them.

    Then you have the fact that these missions take place in the nastiest corners of the world. So there’s huge turnover, which often means two steps forward three steps back.

    And lives are the currency the operators are protecting, so quick mobilization often overshadows a commitment to the rulebooks.

    And then you have the human nature of people. The UN could probably screen its people more effectively, work on employee retention (despite the short term nature of most of the contracts), training, and focus on ethics and carry itself to a higher standard.

    But it would take a total commitment to institutional change, which comes top down. I personally don’t think the players want to see the UN grow more powerful than any one nation, so again, politics hampers significant change.

    Plus, with a commitment to ethical change in this industry, you could be faced with incredible moral dilemmas (that’s an interesting thought). I’ll go out on a limb here; for instance…you have to mobilize a plane (the only one available) to rescue some people who are going to be attacked and die in a certain time frame…but the base country of the plane says, “Nope, it’s not taking off until you provide a little grease, a facilitation fee, to be PC, to get that plane off the ground”. The UN ethics committee would say “Ah…That’s not how it works. We do not bribe anymore. We are committed to total ethical solidarity, and you will loose your job if you bribe officials.” But you say, those people are going to die if I don’t get this plane off the ground.

    So you pay the fee and get the plane off the ground, then apologize later. It’s ultimately pardoned and this ease of regulation eventually snowballs and we get big media stories because people begin to take advantage of it.

    Or we get troops that are whisked into place, unscreened, African disciplined, and poorly managed by their African superior officers. But they are the only troops the UN can get at this point and are needed yesterday. The result, another snowball effect of abuse and ultimately rape toward the local women, as we have seen.

    Roman - It’s a dirty, hard and intense business because of the lives at stake, because of the political undertones, the constant media scrutiny, the harsh environments, the pressure, the turnover, and the fact that humans are only human, and unfortunately, can and will exploit system vulnerabilities.

    I don’t work for the UN, but I work with them. I’ve met good people and seen good programs. Yes, their bureaucracy is second to none and their overall image is mixed. (All those new york image consultants and advertising firms and they cant hire just one??)

    So I do agree with some of your points. But there’s always two sides to every story. And in international affairs, the realism is that most countries prefer to accept the lesser evils and pick their battles, usually ones with a direct “return on investment”. It’s definitely rarely a case of the “lets be selfless and do what’s right” school of thought. The UN is often the default entity to solve some of the worlds backside itches. And in this case, any help to the AU is better than no help.

25. howie on April 9th, 2007 1:25 am

    Matt-

    I have another metaphor for Aaron…

    You saying a lame horse is better than no horse…

    Well…again…if they can just provide some added protection…it seems worth it…but Drima seems to feel this would kick off all kinds of nationalist anger.

26. Roman Kalik on April 9th, 2007 6:06 pm

    Matt, I wish those were just scabs. More like stumps.

    And while I completely understand such moral dillemas, both personell and equipment can be arranged beforehand, in case of emergencies, to avoid these dillemas and save more lives. And it does not require more power than the UN already has, its mandate is not as weak as it appears. It’s a matter of organization and, by God, commitment to your goals. And from what I see, the UN bigwigs have a bad set of priorities.

27. Roman Kalik on April 9th, 2007 6:19 pm

    And in this case, we have the momentum of public awareness, and this momentum can be easily spent. And while every single life saved is a whole world in itself, not saving many more is no solution.

    And the UN, as I said before, can screw this up big-time if the wrong people are sent. There are enough vultures ready to exploit this.

28. Jakob on July 1st, 2007 5:02 pm

    This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title A Letter To The Save Darfur Coalition. Thanks for informative article

29. Save Darfur Coalition Pissed Off Aid Groups : The Sudanese Thinker on November 12th, 2007 7:02 am

    […] cannot believe I missed this five months old New York Times article. Remember the open letter I wrote to the Save Darfur Coalition criticizing their strategies? (They haven’t replied by the way). […]

30. maria on March 25th, 2008 4:58 pm

    Dear Drima,

    I also think that there are many issues related to taking action inside Darfur, which the Save Darfur Coalition has not yet considered. I am grateful that you are stating and elaborating on this problem, and so are all others, I am sure, who experience the situation in Darfur and have no way to speak up for themselves. Your suggestion of a ‘political solution’ to the problem is coherent and possibly effective; but, in my opinion, not very realistic. Because how could the UN, or anyone, persuade the two opposing sides to discuss without using direct force? As ‘Matt’ mentioned, “there’s always two sides to every story”. The problem with what you’ve proposed is that those directly involved in a conflict (in this case, the SLM, JEM and Janjaweed) can rarely accept, or even comprehend, any side of the story but their own. Therefore, discussion between them is one of the goals one should always strive to achieve, but usually doesn’t manage to do so. I must say that I honestly think your letter to be not only justified but necessary… However, I don’t know whether it can actually help, or make sure someone -besides concerned bloggers- realizes the faults in the Coalition’s strategy.

    Best regards,
    Maria

Leave a Reply