I Come (Mostly) In Peace

by Michael Bear

category: Humanitarian Relief

Published February 26, 2009 @ 11:47PM PT

It's time, methinks, to lay the rumble to rest.   The Darfur advocacy rumble.  The Save Darfur Can't Save Darfur rumble.  I'd like to sue for peace.

Or, as Mr. Churchill said in one of his more sober moments: "never give in - never, never, never, never...never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."

(And yes, I'm comparing myself to Churchill.  If you can't compare yourself to heroic, alcoholic Englishmen, then why blog at all?)

I just spent the evening re-reading all the various posts and counter-posts and counter-counter-posts I've traded with my genocide co-blogger Michelle, and realized that I was painting with a rather broad brush, damning advocacy organizations like Save Darfur without acknowledging their achievements or potential.

After all, it's hard to argue with Michelle's statement that "activism against conflict and mass atrocity still has its place."

Further, as David at the Enough blog argued: "Nobody knows exactly how much leverage the United States, Europe or any combination of governments may have against Khartoun and the Darfur rebels, because there has been no consistent effort to use that leverage and lead a viable peace process..."

Hence the need for advocacy.  Got it.  Fair enough.  If Save Darfur and its brethren can help marshal an effective, multilateral response to the crisis, all the more power to them.

I think one reason that aid workers tend to distrust activists (generalizing, clearly), is that there's a certain cynicism - and arrogance, definitely arrogance - that comes with actual proximity.   Good intentions are rarely enough; the center doesn't hold, and shit gets worse.  It becomes hard to identify with people back in the States or in Europe whose involvement seems to center around slogans and demonstrations.

A recent article in The Guardian (Bringing You Poor Reporting From Afghanistan Since 1821) quoted an aid worker in Darfur, who clearly wasn't a fan of "western pressure groups".  According to the aid worker:

"They push this simplistic idea that there is a genocide by Arabs against Africans - which is not the case and never was.  There's a tendency to simplify and spin.  Darfur's so much more complicated than that.  There are so many different tribal groups, so many interests involved.  It's unfortunate because it gives the government ammunition to say it's all a conspiracy against Sudan and it's all made up."

The response from Michelle and others is that this view of advocacy organizations is hopelessly simplistic, confusing the part for the whole.

As Michelle explained: "There's an extent to which you need snappy catchphrases to 'rally the troops,' so to speak, to grow and energize a base of support that can then be channeled into higher-level, behind-the-scenes advocacy.  (Advocacy which the movement's critics often seem to assume is absent.)"

I'm certainly willing to grant the point, that advocacy organizations engage in far more nuanced advocacy than appears on their tee-shirts.

In fact, I completely agree with the main advocacy messages in Save Darfur's Darfur From Day One campaign, which calls for Obama to: 1) appoint a high level envoy, 2) lead a coordinated international effort to pressure the Sudanese Government and enforce existing bans on offensive military flights and arms trading, and 3) establish mechanisms for the prevention of future genocides.

That said, I do have one plea.  The same plea I've made before.  Let's at least be honest about some of the trade-offs involved, some of the risks that we run.

In their response to the Rumble, the Save Darfur blog said the following:

"I don’t think there’s an activist out there who wants to bring harm to aid workers, and many understand the potential risk that exists when there appears to be an association between their work and ours. But as David Sullivan stated:

Humanitarian relief is essential but it is no substitute for political strategies and conflict resolution policies that would actually help to end conflict.

Our belief is that the two approaches are necessary and must work in concert. One arm rallies for resolution, while another protects and supports innocent civilians."

Which is nice.  Unfortunately, it completely misses the point -  sometimes they don't work in concert. Sometimes you can't have both.  Sometimes advocating for conflict resolution endangers not just humanitarian operations, but also the very helpless civilians that such measures are meant to protect.  (Hello, ICC indictment.)

This isn't to say that such advocacy isn't necessary, but let's at least be honest about the risks were taking.  This point was put best by Wronging Rights:

"It is, in fact, morally defensible to argue that it is worthwhile to sacrifice civilian lives in the short term to achieve a lasting peace that will save more people in the long term, but it's a rare advocacy organization that is willing to engage in that kind of messy calculus. They can't. College students are just never going to march on Washington to demand that thousands of innocent people be abandoned to their grisly fates in the interest of a lasting peace.

Seriously, can you imagine the protest signs and chants? 'What do we want? A reasonable balancing of human security with progress towards respect for human rights and democracy! When do we want it? As soon as feasibly possible given the political realities of the situation!' Not bloody likely.

And this calculus is very messy: How many lives are we willing to sacrifice now for the uncertain prospect of peace later? Are all lives worth the same amount? Should we focus more on protecting aid workers than civilians, because if too many aid workers are killed, their organizations will pull out entirely?"

Just once, I'd love to hear someone who supports the ICC indictment, or a no-fly zone, or some other means to put pressure on Khartoum, simply say: "Yup, this might make things worse, at least for a while.  That said, it's a price we're willing to pay."

Just once.

[Image from www.isrealli.org]