Can We Overcome Our Short Attention Spans?

Critics of the Darfur movement often accuse activists of being single-minded in their focus on Darfur while other conflicts with far worse human indicators rage elsewhere across the globe. I agree that attention on large-scale humanitarian and human rights crises can be oddly selective, but I disagree that there is a containing ideology behind this choice. I agree that this selective attention results in a disproportionate donor-driven distribution of resources, but I disagree with implications that those receiving aid in more "popular" contexts are any less deserving that than those in under-served contexts.

Writing in the Boston Globe, Joshua Kurlantzick of the Council on Foreign Relations asks, "In two regions with similar human-rights problems, what makes one an international media darling, and leaves others scrabbling for attention in obscure policy meetings?"

It is a legitimate question that activists and policymakers alike must answer to --- and it is a constant topic of internal debate within the Save Darfur and broader anti-genocide advocacy community. How can an effective movement be broadly responsive to human rights problems writ-large, but still sensitive to the specific concerns of each particular context?

The Darfur movement, especially in its early days, is often criticized for being too simplistic and out of touch with the reality on the ground. Where is the balance between a "clear human rights strategy," as Kurlantzick calls for, and situational specificity necessary for effective interventions?

Kurlantzick places too much of the burden of blame on the shoulders of the public, arguing that "when policy-making follows public sentiment - which it often does - it becomes ad-hoc, jumping from one problem to the next." But it is not purely a matter of policymakers following fickle public sentiment --- policymakers frequently fail to show sustained, comprehensive attention to any issue, and often pay lip-service or cut corners on public demands.

(He also gives far too much weight to the influence of celebrities, Sure, they help elevate and attract attention to an issue, but which came first: the celebrities, or the movement?)

So why can't global civil society and policymakers handle sustained attention on all of the world's nasty places all at once? Why can't we have a systematic and evenhanded approach to humanitarian and other interventions to protect those at risk?

The answer lies not only in changing the way we respond to large-scale international crises, but in changing the nature of policy-making more broadly.

[Photo: Dharamsala, India, March 10 2008: More than 100 Tibetan exiles in India set off to applause on a symbolic march home as part of pro-independence protests ahead of the Beijing Olympics.]