What If, Ummmmm, Things Don't Get Worse in Darfur

Don't get me wrong - I love being alarmist, or at least as much as the next person. (Hard to generate much excitement by writing "things alright, or at least same as before".)
And nothing in the past few months provided as much opportunity for wonderfully dire - if not apocalyptic - pronouncements than the Sudanese Government's decision to expel many of the largest aid agencies from Darfur.
I recently looked back at some of my earlier posts - let's just say I didn't waste any time. The day after the expulsions, I wrote a post titled "Things Begin To Fall Apart in the Camps".
Yet things didn't fall apart. The situation in some areas has certainly deteriorated - i.e. not a good time to plan that move to Zam Zam camp - but all in all it wasn't the Darfuri end of days.
Reluctant to let go, I simply moved my prognostications of doom forward. Things might be alright now, but they'll get worse in a few weeks, or a few months. (Showing a stunning lack of imagination, I titled the post in question "Darfur: The Worst Is Yet To Come".)
All in all, I still do think the situation will get worse - but, at the same time, beginning to admit that I have no idea. Maybe it won't. Maybe the heroic efforts of the UN and other NGOs to fill the gaps will actually work.
If the situation stabilizes, what does that mean? What does that say about the conflict, or about the role of NGOs?
Does it mean that things weren't quite as bad as we thought? Does it mean that perhaps we weren't quite as essential as we thought?
[Woman in Darfur - Photo from www.lynseyaddario.com]








COMMENTS (10)