The ‘is Save Darfur really saving Darfur’ debate rumbles on.
Wronging Rights asks the question no-one really wants to ask: is the only way this can end if one side wins?
“We put our trust in talismans of advocacy -bans of diamond imports, a no-fly zone over Darfur, more peacekeeping troops- and in the belief that if only people knew, if only they were aware, then the atrocities would stop. If only enough righteous anger could be summoned, enough people clapping their hands and exclaiming “I DO believe in genocide!” then everything would be okay.
“That advocacy story, however, fails to acknowledge that behind nearly every mass atrocity is a power struggle that won’t go away just because the international community is giving it mean looks. And it certainly fails to acknowledge that the easiest way to resolve power struggles is to let the stronger party win, even if they’re war crime committing jerks; and come to think of it, the weaker party probably isn’t such great guys either.”
And in a piece from El Fasher, the Guardian’s Simon Tisdall quotes an anonymous aid worker who also bashes the activists:
“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.”
By the way, while we’ve been engaged in an albeit rather interesting ‘is-it-really-a-genocide-and-even-if-it-isn’t-how-do-we-stop-the-killings’ debate, the Sudanese army has taken the town of Muhajiriya. Didn’t Bashir announce a ceasefire not so long ago?