Front Page > World > Article Title/Fixture Title

Front Page > Editorial

Email | Print | Subscribe

Click-2-Listen

advertisement

How to save Darfur

By William Reed
November 23, 2007

The way to "save" the people of Darfur is simple: Help bring about a lasting peace there. Attaining a comprehensive peace for people in that region to return home and build their homes and lives will require a change in the mentality and approaches we employ toward the people and the issues there.

World leaders, such as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are trying to improve the terrifying humanitarian situation in Darfur and eastern Chad and institute processes that will allow the two million refugees to return home, receive stipends and live productive lives. In contrast, Washington's politicians continue practices that cuddle rebel combatants, dodge peace talks and cling to demands that "a large and robust" force of armed peacekeepers be placed in the region.

Instead of bellicose demands for "strong sanctions" and Western interference against the government of Sudan, isn't it time for us to cease hindering processes that could produce peace? It's time that Americans concerned about Darfur's humanitarian situation be told the truth: There is a war occurring there, and peace can only occur when the shooting stops.

People want peace for Darfur; Washington wants a more pugnacious approach. To the chagrin of the Save Darfur Coalition, a group of international elder statesmen that recently visited in Darfur say, activists must change tactics and begin to "promote peace." The group included Nobel laureates, former President Carter and South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu; British tycoon Richard Branson; and women- and children's-rights advocate Graca Machel, who also is the wife of Nelson Mandela. Mr. Carter said Washington's use of the term genocide to describe situations in Darfur was "unhelpful." He said: "There is a legal definition of genocide, and Darfur does not meet that legal standard... I don't think it qualifies to be called genocide."

Through the powerful Save Darfur Coalition lobby's practices, Washington is the sole world capital claiming that "genocide" is occurring in the ongoing war. Washington politicians and lobbyists cite "genocide is occurring in Darfur" with regularity in Congress, political forums and even on the presidential campaign circuit. Using the term as an issue that crosses all religious, race, class and political boundaries, Save Darfur activists have captured Americans' attention, but like "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," we are alone in those proclamations. Although they live right next door, no African leader labels events in Darfur as "genocide"; and a U.N.-appointed commission of inquiry said it found "no genocide."

The Save Darfur Coalition spent $15 million in 2006, and none of that money went to aid any groups or people on the ground in Darfur. They say they help the people of Darfur by "utilizing media outreach, public education, targeted coalition-building and grass-roots mobilization to pressure policymakers and other decision-makers in the United States and abroad to help the people of Darfur." Their agenda toward the Darfur issue is U.S. interference, anti-Chinese involvement and downplaying the efforts and suggestions made by countries in the African Union (AU). The movement's current activities do not illustrate it as having its abiding goal being focused on helping people on the ground in Darfur.

The conflicts in Darfur and the region stretch back to the 1950s. Many Americans forget that the countries in Africa were artificially made by imperialists with no regard to ethnicity or cultural heritage. Subtle racism is now at play when in our self-absorbed beliefs we think that we understand their problems despite the fact that we don't know their histories or dispositions. Earnest activists and advocates now need to address "alternative" means in order to save Darfur.

Peace talks on Darfur continue to stall. Negotiations between the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels that were to have occurred in late October have now been postponed until December. U.N. and AU envoys complained that bringing the rebels together was akin to "herding cats." Though they started the fighting that has spawned the Darfur disaster, there are more than a dozen splinter rebel factions; and the main rebel chiefs say they boycotted the talks because the U.N. and AU mediators had invited lesser groups.

Click-2-Listen

Front Page > Editorial