Left-Wing Western Idealists for Darfur

11 Responses to “Left-Wing Western Idealists for Darfur”

1. Andrew Brehm on August 30th, 2008 12:00 pm

   “the debate on Darfur in the West is still mostly based on a simplistic narrative of good Vs bad.”

   Do the rebels have a militia that rides around killing random civilians?

   I think there is a definitive good vs bad involved here. I don’t think there would be rebels if the government hadn’t started a war.

   “Less feel-good activism, more dispassionate analysis please.”

   Sounds good.

2. PeacefulVanguard on August 30th, 2008 2:02 pm

   I think it is very important to distinguish that although people and nations often do not go about safeguarding their rights appropriately, they still have those rights. We often forget this fact when people get spastic and ugly because that’s all we see. We seem to forget that people become dysfunctional for often-correctable reasons, and it’s not because they are inherently “retarded” or evil.

   Much of the problem with Darfur is that there is still no regional or international strategic plan outlining methods and goals to change the situation in a way that would directly improve the lives of the people on the ground, both Darfurian and Janjaweed. This provides a lot of room for the Sudanese government to harbor and perpetuate paranoid conspiracies about ulterior motives; and for the rebels to exploit peacemaking to make territorial gains. There is a legitimate desire to alleviate the situation in Darfur by the int’l community. However, without being part of a larger, transparent blueprint to improve the situation for all the region’s stakeholders, their well-meaning behavior is often misused by both sides for insidious, rather than humanitarian, agendas. What is needed is a comprehensive plan of development that includes rebel disarmament in return for tangible results in the improvement of Darfurian lives and safety, which should include creating a professional regional police force and other best practices.

   The Darfurian conflict is primarily about a competition over resources (in which the tribes have some differences that are highlighted and manipulated) because of government and regional corruption; lack of public-private partnerships and civil liberties; and failures in the distribution of goods, resources, social services, and the defense of human rights. Over the course of time, this has turned the situation into a tinderbox and humanitarian disaster. Nevertheless, these things are all changeable with a strategic plan and concerted effort. But as we’ve seen in Darfur, Gaza, the Niger Delta, etc. the international community is still not interested in focusing its energy on social development and in instead prefer to point their fingers and complain (read: doing the bare minimum) about stagnation and violence as they do nothing substantial to change the status quo while self-righteously patting themselves on the back over how ethical they are.

3. digital on August 30th, 2008 2:58 pm

   Man Im sick and tired of this issue, for gods sake either pull a “shock and awe” on Khartoum or just drop it!

4. Howie on August 30th, 2008 3:54 pm

   Drima-

   You have a point of course. Nothing in life lines up in plain old good guys and bad guys. Maybe WWII was about as close to that as we have come…maybe the USA Civil War…maybe…

   But AB has a point…how can one not primarily place blame on a government that went about and goes about fighting the uprising in the manner that they have?

   Of course the issue gets politicized…and people all over milk it for their own ends, Jews included…nothing new there.

   But there is a right and wrong here…with the rebels doing some bad stuff for certain…but what the government of Sudan did…that wasn’t bad, that was evil and I think this has hugely tilted the debate.

5. Drima on August 31st, 2008 1:54 am

   Guys, of course the government is the one ultimately responsible and what they have done - and continue to do - is utterly evil. There is no question there.

   However simplistic narratives that don’t take into account the many complexities don’t do us favors when it comes to formulating solutions and strategic initiatives to appease this issue.

6. Ron on September 1st, 2008 4:51 am

   I think the argument that it is a complex problem goes to clouding and masking atrocities. The same arguments have been made in Sudan for over 30 years now. The northern opposition in Sudan is the same as the ruling party - the communists, brotherhoods, unionists, islamists and whatever specific name they come up with this week. The Ummah party has no moral standing because of its history.

   Then to make the marxist - resource argument is tired. That argument had its run in 60’s, 70s’s, and 80’s.

   I could easily argue that Israeli/Palestinian issue is just as complex and that the Arabs are trying to make this out to be a good versus evil scenario. We all know the Arabs would not go for that.

   The Black Book broke it down and provided support that no one has been able to definitively counter. The use of self-identified Arabs to slaughter women and children is a black and white issue in my mind.

   When the rebels slaughter thousands of Arab women and children then that is when the complexity comes into play.

   It does not make any sense for the rebels to sign a peace deal the NCP without compensation and retribution and a return to the status quo. If the NCP had a history of honoring their committments then the rebels would be under pressure to come to the table.

   The Sudanese government can fight the rebels without killing civilians in refugee camps. If the rebels are hiding in refugee camps you can separate the rebels from the women and children.

   If Israel attacks a refugee camp the Arabs scream bloody murder and cry genocide. They call Sharoun the Butcher. They call a man of peace Sadat a traitor. I really cannot take the opposition in Sudan seriously.

   Salaam

7. Rob on September 1st, 2008 9:11 am

   Drima,
   Thanks for flagging up my post. And I’m not surprised to see that many of your contributors are unconvinced by my position. The debate on Darfur has been dominated by the skewed perspective of the Save Darfur movement which has consistently exaggerated the death toll (the discredited 400,000 figure for example) and accused the government of crimes it has not committed (bombing a school in Shegeg Karo earlier this year, for example). This is not to say that the government is not guilty of crimes against humanity. It is. But the rebels have also been responsible for killing civilians and preventing the delivery of aid. This is a war of bad guys against bad guys.

8. Andrew Brehm on September 2nd, 2008 1:20 pm

   “If Israel attacks a refugee camp the Arabs scream bloody murder and cry genocide. They call Sharon the Butcher.”

   They will always call the Jew the butcher.

   It didn’t matter to them that the attack on the refugee camp was done by (Arab) Christians and that the person responsible defected to Syria afterwards.

   Ariel Sharon was simply the most-closely associated Jew, hence he is responsible and a, as you say, butcher.

   Anybody know why there isn’t peace yet?

9. Ron on September 2nd, 2008 9:34 pm

   As African American muslim this issue hold a special meaning to me. The last thing I want to see black on black and muslim on muslim violence. However, I have to be objective and identify the bad guys from the good guys. If they all happen to be bad guys, I can also deal with that. However, we know that some guys are badder than the others. This issue will not go away anytime soon.

   Nigeria, Niger, Mauritania, Chad, Mali, CAR, and Sudan will be dealing with this divide for sometime. We must come to model of peace before another regional war engulfs the Sudan (meaning its historical boundaries from Mali to Sudan).

   Salaam

10. The Raccoon on September 3rd, 2008 12:52 am

    It’s not even a question of bad or good, it’s a question of solving the issue while minimizing damage.

    But hey, solving issues is much more difficult than sitting in judgment.

    It doesn’t seem to me “the world” is really trying to find a solution. The problem is localized; Sudanese oil flow is uninterrupted; the government doesn’t cause any particular problems outside Sudan…

    Burma only got any sort of attention due to its position as a global drug trade center. And they have it much worse than Sudan.

    So yes, it is reasonable to assume that the attention Sudan will receive from the rest of the world will be self-serving, as in using Darfur for a fix of righteous whining, yelling and judging.

11. Howie on September 3rd, 2008 4:28 am

    Of course politics is a huge issue…but pretty much murdering around a quarter million people…I mean…that is bad…and this ain’t exactly collateral damage…but direct intent to terrorize people into submission or to get them to run away…

    So…again…it isn’t morally relative…what the Sudanese government did is clearly wronger, or ah, wrongest…wrongier….

Leave a Reply