Darfur Activism: Fact & Fiction

To argue that activist focus on peacekeeping pushed money away from humanitarian relief in Darfur is completely baseless. And yet, in an article that apparently missed the fact-check department at an otherwise prestigious publication, Marc Gustafson spuriously asserts that activist aims actually "hurt the very people who needed help."

Alex Meixner at Save Darfur thoroughly picks apart Gustafson's false assertions and apparent misunderstanding the US government's aid structure (and I highly encourage you to read his entire post), but he neglects to mention an important point: The Save Darfur movement was not alone in advocating for more robust international peacekeeping. The humanitarian groups themselves were instrumental in pushing for a force in Darfur because it is necessary for their operations.

Since the beginning of the conflict, humanitarian operations in Darfur have faced mounting security threats and obstacles. According a report on aid agency advocacy in Darfur, public statements from humanitarian groups increasingly emphasized the protection needs of civilians as well as their own operations, pointing to rampant insecurity and sexual violence to push for an international response.

A friend and former USAID staffer who worked on the humanitarian response in Darfur offered the same assessment, noting that humanitarian agencies pushed for more US funding for peacekeeping "because they were getting killed." Several agencies were already on the case in April 2004, before the Save Darfur Coalition was even formed. Contrary to Gustafson's claim that funds were diverted from aid to peacekeeping, the AID staffer recalled that a high level decision was handed down early on in the crisis to prevent the tapping relief funds for peacekeeping --- the money would have to come from elsewhere.

Even more, to implicitly argue that the peacekeeping force was unwarranted, or not deserving of funding, is ridiculous. UNAMID, and the African Union force that preceded it, may not be perfect, but the troops have a positive impact on the ground for the civilians and humanitarian operations they serve.

Finally, you can debate the "genocide" designation on its merits, and on the evidence available, but one thing is absolutely certain: The term "genocide" was not speciously applied to Darfur to attract attention, as Gustafson suggests. Experts at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum declared Darfur a "genocide emergency" in July 2004, and a US State Department investigation reached the same conclusion shortly thereafter. Advocates in the Save Darfur movement concur with these conclusions.

Gustafson's liberties with historical interpretation fall into exactly the same trap he attributes to the Save Darfur Movement: mischaracterization and sensationalism.

[Photo from eHistory: Member of the military component of the United Nations-African Union Hybrid Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) speaks with one of the villagers during a patrol routine.]