Comments on: Evidence vs Dogma in Darfur

By: David Faris

David Faris — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:43:53 +0000

And I believe you know what you are talking about also. You’ve been to the camps like I have, so your point and his are well taken. Yes, we need to bring relevant solutions to the problem by knowing it as well as we can.
I’m so frustrated by the folks making money off of this crisis for as long as they can, be they Christian or humanitarian. This is not a time to build our houses on the Riviera on the backs of suffering people anymore. Help them restart their lives, help them get back and start again! And don’t help them restart the conflict or recruit child soldiers.

By: Bec Hamilton

Bec Hamilton — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:42:25 +0000

P.S. I’d be interested for you to articulate for us the basis of your claim that Darfur activists are driven by an anti-Muslim agenda. I know you know those on all sides of the Darfur crisis are Muslim. Is your rationale for this claim based on something about the Darfur situation, or are you deriving the claim from the comparative dearth of activism on Palestine?
At an individual level I have yet to meet a Darfur activist who is “anti-Muslim” (to be so would also be “anti-Darfuri”), but again would be interested to hear if your experiences are different.

By: Bec Hamilton

Bec Hamilton — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:28:12 +0000

Hey Rob
My response is up at: http://bechamilton.com/?p=1226
To summarize:
I agree you need the right analysis to get to the right solutions. I also agree, that “banditry, water and local issues need to be tackled if Darfur is to find security,” as should be clear from the comments in my original post. However you are actually arguing that the crisis is solely humanitarian (which is what your post reads like, but I’m not sure it’s what you really meant?) then that would be a clear point of disagreement between us, because I think the crisis is also very much political.
In addition to humanitarian solutions, what Darfur needs more than anything else is a truly inclusive peace agreement (that includes the Arab groups as independent actors, rather than assuming – incorrectly – that their interests will be taken into account by the government). Humanitarian solutions are a very important stop-gap measure, but a sustainable peace in Darfur will not be achieved just by addressing the humanitarian ‘symptoms’ – underlying causes must be addressed as well.
When I said the General Agwai’s comments on ‘the war is over’ were beside the point, I was not saying that Darfur needs a military solution – in fact I was saying the exact opposite. War or not war (I maintain my point about the difficulty in distinguishing a respite in hostilities from the end of them) there are very real issues on the ground to be resolved, and focusing on the “war” dimension (which has not been “the” issue in Darfur for quite some time now) shifts necessary focus from these key issues.
Cheers
Bec

By: Deontologist

Deontologist — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:28:46 +0000

“People like Norris will only stop when they have brought down the government in Khartoum…”
Actually, I suspect that people like Norris will stop whenever major donors like Pam Omidyar stop funding organizations that use that type of irresponsible language. That is, I don’t think Norris wants the GOS brought down, specifically. Rather, I think he simply wants whatever ENOUGH’s donors want. If his funders ever decide that they want to move away from using rhetoric that describes the war/genocide as ongoing, I think we’ll see Norris change his tune all of a sudden.

By: Toaf (at work)

Toaf (at work) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:35:30 +0000

Well said, Rob.

By: Rob Crilly

Rob Crilly — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:27:45 +0000

General Agwai is a man who was sent in to do an impossible job and had to watch his men being killed in the cause of trying to keep a peace that never had any signatories. He did that job with courage and resilience. He has spent years in a place that most commentators have never set foot in. I think he probably knows what he is talking about.

By: will

will — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:48:45 +0000

I believe that this was the wrong thing to say at the wrong time.
You talk about ‘agenda’, what is Agwai’s agenda? he has just come off the back of tour of duty in which most commentators, donors and government say has been a failure. He is pushing back, using the changing dynamics in Darfur as a smoke screen to the real failure of UNAMID and the issues now facing darfur – the shrinking humanitarian environment.
“As Darfur Fighting Diminishes, U.N. Officials Focus on the South of Sudan” this NYTIMES headline is exactly why Agwai’s statements are damaging – regardless of whether they are correct or not.
cheers