Search Results for "ground control to nicholas kristof"
Ground Control to Nicholas Kristof
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]
Ahem - Ground Control to Michael Kleinman
Published March 08, 2009 @ 03:38PM PT
All's fair, and if I'm willing to call Nicholas Kristof delusional if not dishonest, I certainly can't complain when others take me to task.
As has my genocide co-blogger Michelle, who somewhat pointedly requests that I stop criticizing others (Mr. Kristof, the Enough Project) for their reaction to the crisis in Darfur, and explain what I think should be done. As Michelle writes in her post Ground Control to Michael Kleinman:
"Ok, then, what would you have us do? Nothing? You either shoot down or disregard every option presented without coming up with an alternative of your own --- and you assume that no one is fleshing out the list of hypothetical consequences for any particular action, but that's all it is: An assumption. And speaking from the perspective of someone who works on the issues everyday, I can tell you, with authority, that it's a baseless one."
Or, put more simply, man-up.
Fair enough. I think the US, the UK and France should work with the Arab League, the AU and China to broker a deal - the Security Council suspends the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Bashir, and Sudan allows the expelled aid agencies to resume work.
Now, as for the consequences:
1. But doesn't this mean Bashir wins?
If you want to see it that way, yes.
2. But doesn't this undermine - perhaps fatally undermine - the ICC, and make it that much harder to deter genocidaires in the future?
Perhaps. Certainly a possibility.
3. Why do you think that Bashir would even honor such an agreement? After all, he is a war criminal - not a group noted for keeping their word.
Tough one. A risk I'm willing to take.
I don't deny that there are very real costs to suspending the arrest warrant. That said, I still believe that the humanitarian consequences of continuing to threaten Bashir outweigh all the negative consequences above.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Peace and justice don't always move hand-in-hand. Sometimes you have to make a choice as to which is most important, at least in terms of deciding what to do next.
I don't pretend that I'm infallible. (Well, not often.) Perhaps, in the long run, continuing to press forward with the ICC proceedings would deter other would-be Bashirs.
That said, at least be honest that there are real consequences to holding this position. Consequences that might mean people dying. Perhaps a lot of people. As I wrote about Kristof:
"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.'"
Oh, and by the way, I agree with Rob Crilly's anonymous UN official when he said: "[The ICC] is the ultimate in Western self-indulgence."
[AP photo of Sudanese protesting the ICC decision shamelessly stolen from Michelle at genocide.change.org]
Aid Agency Accountability: Who's Your Sugar Daddy?
Published June 16, 2009 @ 08:29AM PT
In a perfect world, aid agencies would be accountable first and foremost to those they help. Also, in a perfect world, it would rain lemonade. And there would be unicorns.
Don't get me wrong, important steps have been taken. Especially on the graphic-semantic front. We tend not to exploit pictures of starving children. (At least, not most of us. Except occassionally Concern.) We try to use terms like beneficiaries - or, even better, partners - to show that we're all in this together.
Yet at the end of the day, realities are realities. And the reality is that you can't work if you don't have funding. Which is why the findings from the 2008 HAP Humanitarian Accountability Report aren't particularly surprising.
In a survey of over 650 staff working for NGOs, the UN, donor agencies and research institutions, only 25% reported that humanitarian agencies were "highly" accountable to beneficiaries. On the other hand, 74% reported that agencies were highly accountable to donors.
According to the report: "there remains an inescapable and consistent result from all four surveys [2005-2008]: that the pecking order for accountability is always towards institutional donors first and disaster survivors last."
It's too easy to cast stones. (Except, ummmm, when it comes to the Concern Cure Starvation Appeal. Or Nicholas Kristof.) Humanitarian operations cost money. Especially when you're trying to respond to a massive, complex emergency. It's difficult to feed and shelter hundreds of thousands or millions of people on good intentions alone.
