Shouting Doesn’t Stop War, and Satirizing Advocacy Efforts Doesn’t Either

If there was any doubt in your mind, recent developments probably seal the deal: The so-called Save Darfur movement seems to top the list of favorite advocacy efforts to lampoon. In the span of just a week we’ve heard buzz about the new book Saving Darfur by journalist Rob Crilly, which argues that the work of Darfur activists is “leading us to the wrong solutions,” and a post on Change.org's War and Peace blog suggesting that the movement’s activities amount to “shouting.”

Sidney Traynham of War and Peace notes that the two Save Darfur rallies he attended were in 2006 –- after which he concluded that "I would not attend another" – and he goes on to assess the movement based on his experiences of four years ago. Needless to say the situation in Sudan has massively changed, and Darfur activists’ efforts have evolved, too.

As someone who was both an early adherent to the movement as a college student and who currently works for a prominent advocacy group in this space, I would encourage critics to take look at what Sudan advocacy is currently doing.

Let’s start out with the connotation of the movement’s name. Of course, in the mainstream media, the term Save Darfur is still widely used as a catch-all, but people with a more intimate knowledge of the advocacy effort should pick up on the fact that, more or less movement-wide, there has been a conscious shift toward speaking of an all-Sudan solution.

Through a few years of experience, and with guidance from academics and policy makers with long-standing and firsthand knowledge of Sudan, many U.S.-based activists now acknowledge the fact that while the government’s campaign in Darfur was particularly deadly, its motives there weren’t unique. Khartoum’s hand may be disguised as a janjaweed militia, the Lord’s Resistance Army, or a southern Sudanese rebel faction, but the end goal is the same. After more than two decades in power, the ruling National Congress Party has tested and perfected a strategy to destabilize large swaths of the country in order to consolidate power in Khartoum. As a result, the most prominent advocacy organizations focusing on Sudan today emphasize the importance of tackling this deadly pattern of marginalization throughout the country, focusing on critical, tangible milestones like the upcoming elections and ongoing negotiations over the North-South peace deal. (Of course, in the interest of space, I’ve summarized a position that my colleagues and I at Enough feel is central to the understanding of Sudan’s multiple conflicts; for more nuance, including references to the various players other than the NCP who are obstructing peace in Sudan, read some of our strategy papers.)

Importantly, Darfuris, and Sudanese in general, are quite supportive of advocacy efforts in the United States and elsewhere. Most advocacy organizations work in genuine partnership with Sudanese and view local empowerment as a cornerstone of their efforts.

Looking even beyond Sudan, an effort to create a permanent anti-genocide constituency emerged from what was once exclusively a movement to “save Darfur.” Organizations like Genocide Intervention Network, the Committee on Conscience, and the Enough Project are all working to encourage the U.S. government to strengthen its genocide prevention abilities, while also staying engaged with activists to foster a community prepped to respond when the next Rwanda or Darfur comes along, as it inevitably will.

As lawyer, author, and Sudan expert Bec Hamilton cited as one of her main criticisms of Crilly’s book: “Missing from Crilly’s narration is the vast realm of interests at play inside the ‘black box’ of policymaking, of which the calls of advocacy organizations form just one dimension (at times, quite relevant, but at other times not even fleetingly considered by those making the decisions).” The same can be said of Traynham’s argument. While he credits the advocacy movement with making Darfur “close to a household name,” he questions the success of the U.S.-based movement since most Darfuris displaced by fighting still live in camps, Darfur remains insecure, aid groups got kicked out as a result of the International Criminal Court’s call for the arrest of Sudan’s president, and Sudan chaired the G77 body at the Copenhagen climate summit. Sudan activists aren’t so confident of their influence to believe that they could have prevented or remedied all of these unfortunate developments. Where is the acknowledgment of culpability of policy makers and world leaders?

Finally, a recent project stands out in my mind whenever I hear suggestions that the Sudan advocacy community’s efforts amount to “just shouting at a Western rally or joining a Facebook cause.” In January, when advocacy organizations learned the date of a deputies-level meeting at the National Security Council to assess the new U.S. policy toward Sudan, the Sudan Now campaign (Full disclosure: Enough is a partner in this campaign) took out a series of ads in the Washington Post and Politico calling on the members of this highly influential, behind-the-scenes group by name to take an honest look at progress on the ground. The stunt was accompanied by a detailed paper endorsed by nine well-respected advocacy organizations that laid out the benchmarks that would constitute progress in Sudan. The combination of actions clearly caught the attention of intended targets. The NSC meeting was reportedly not as productive as one might hope, but this was hardly the fault of the advocacy groups.

When dealing with delicate, emotion-packed issues like genocide, constructive criticism is an important part of keeping advocacy on-point, sensitive, and honest. Indeed, as a blogger I can attest that critics (or even simply the fear of being called out) constantly force advocates to re-examine positions, look for more compelling ways of telling stories, and write with compassion. But before picking apart work founded in good intentions, it’s important to get the facts straight and up-to-date.

Photo credit: Joe in DC