Ground Control to Nicholas Kristof

by Michael Bear

category: Humanitarian Relief

Published March 05, 2009 @ 11:04PM PT

Nicholas Kristof writing in Wednesday's New York Times:

"When the International Criminal Court issued its arrest warrant for Sudan’s president on Wednesday, an 8-year-old boy named Bakit Musa would have clapped — if only he still had hands."

Accompanied by a picture of a mutilated little boy without hands, in case you needed a visual aid.

I am, literally, speechless.  On so many different levels.  A few quick thoughts:

1. Really?  You're a columnist for the New York Times.  You probably shouldn't write sentences - much less ledes - that on first glance appear to have been written by Jack Handey.

On further thought, this might play better if there were violins playing in the background.  Or if it was the voiceover at the start of a Lifetime original movie: "He Would Clap If He Had Hands".

In short - stylistically, I'm appalled.

2. Also a wee bit exploitive, the picture of the handless child.  Not so much best practice - at least according to the Red Cross / NGO Code of Conduct for Disaster Relief.  To wit: "In our information, publicity and advertising activities, we shall recognize disaster victims as dignified humans, not hopeless objects."

Which, translated, basically means - no photos of mutilated young children.

Now, as a journalist, Kristof clearly isn't bound by the Code of Conduct.  That said, one would hope he would be bound by basic decency, if not taste.  Or, apparently, not.

3. Perhaps most important - he just doesn't get it.

Kristof supported the the decision by the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Bashir.  Fine, well and good.   And, as we all know, Bashir has retaliated by expelling most major NGOs, crippling aid operations in Darfur.

It's easy - too easy - to crucify someone for misreading the tea leaves.  So, he gets a free pass for writing in late February that Sudan wouldn't retaliate by expelling aid agencies.  (Or, as he put it: "I think all these fears are overblown.")

And yet, what's his response?  To enforce the no-fly zone and start bombing the Sudanese air force, if necessary.  Right, because there's no way Bashir would react to that.

Kristof imagines that there's the magical point of pressure, if only we do enough than Bashir will back down.  Which might theoretically work.

Yet what's delusional - if not dishonest - is the refusal to admit that perhaps it wouldn't work.  That perhaps escalating pressure on Bashir would simply lead Bashir to escalate in turn.  Perhaps by expelling other aid agencies, perhaps by attacking the camps themselves.

The debate around the ICC often seemed to take place in a fantasy land, a mystical, wonderful place where any concerns that Sudan might not play by the rules - concerns that Sudan might decide to retaliate instead of bowing to international pressure - were disregarded, if not outright ignored.

There was no talk of negative consequences; instead, this endless repetitive chant about the need for justice, and how justice would lead to peace.

And now Kristof is making the same fucking mistake again.  You can't put forth suggestions that affect the lives of millions of people and then shy away from discussing what might happen if things don't go according to plan.

At least be honest.  At least have the courage of your convictions.  At least say: "We're willing to keep applying pressure until Bashir breaks, even if it means that things get worse - perhaps much worse - before they get better."

It's not as though Kristof doesn't understand the stakes.  As he wrote yesterday: "[People in Darfur] are completely dependent for food, sanitation and health care on NGO’s, mostly international ones. Expel those aid workers and you kill Darfuris as surely as if you machine gun them."

Yet it doesn't seem to cross his mind that if you bomb the Sudanese air force, they might cut out the middle man and just start gunning down Darfuris directly.

Also - "It is imperative that the international worker stand up to Bashir and ensure that the expulsion is reversed."  Ummm, what?  By "international worker," are you referring to the solidarity of the oppressed working masses?  Because in that case, you're a few decades late.

Or are you referring to international aid workers?  The same ones who are being harassed, detained, sometimes arrested, and forced to leave Sudan?  If so, how exactly are they supposed to stand up to Bashir? Strong words?  Futile hand gestures?  Any other suggestions?

[Photo of Nicholas Kristof from cbsnews.com]