Last Words on the Rumble: We All Know the Stakes

It seems that "The Rumble" finally hit a brick wall.

What started as a debate between myself and Michael Kleinman over the merits of the Save Darfur movement turned into a multi-blog conversation, which increased in passion and vigor as we approached, and then reacted to, the arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) last week.

After months of debating, both on and offline, we've come down firmly on opposite sides of that brick wall. As Michael explained perfectly in his post yesterday, he believes that our imperative is to address the immediate humanitarian concerns created by the crisis, to deal with the situation we have at hand, right now, in order to prevent the loss of as many human lives as possible. I believe that our short-term response must be considered through the lens of a longer term solution, or at least the hope for one. Both of us recognize that our stances are fraught with complication and unknown outcomes and consequences.

What upsets me is when, as we watch the catastrophe in Darfur unfold before our eyes, the debate moves from its merits and into attacks and accusations, when the genuine care and concern of activists and policymakers --- who at some point in their lives were moved by the Holocaust, Rwanda, or any number of other atrocities --- are dismissed as "self-indulgent," or they are told that they just "don't get it." Of course we "get it." That's why we are here.

I'm speaking generally, less in reference to Michael --- though still occasionally --- and more regarding the larger conversation over this issue. Michael's recent posts have been directed at individuals, but it's difficult to separate his criticisms from those of the larger movement these individuals represent. I take issue, for instance, with the title of Michael's recent post, "The Real World Darfur," as it suggests a monopoly on reality, as if those on the other side of the wall are at best naïve, and at worse delusional.

Neither side makes any mistake or pretense, or has any misunderstanding of the realities on the ground on Darfur. Rather, we have a fundamental difference of opinion as to as how we, as individuals and as an international community, should respond to those realities.

Both sides have merit, both sides have trade offs, and the tensions between the two exemplify exactly what is so frustratingly difficult about working in this field. We must constantly negotiate gray zones, considering a calculus of least-worst options with no certain outcome, other than the certainty of unintended consequences. It is this constant and irreconcilable dilemma that keeps me awake at night, and I know that I am not the only insomniac in this field.

We are all intensely passionate about our involvement, our arguments, and our positions, precisely because we know what is at stake. People are dying. But we are at our best when we do not stray from the fundamental and deep-rooted respect that should come from the fact that we all seek to work for the greater good, despite our many disagreements on how best to get there.

And with that, I call truce.

[Photo shamelessly stolen from Michael's post.]