Marc Gustafon: A Prescription for Darfur activists [Part 2]

This is the second of a two-part posting by Marc Gustafon.

A Prescription for Darfur activists [Part 2/2]

By Marc Gustafon

Ignoring the Peace Process

Use of the word “genocide” has also caused activists to ignore the peace process. Since most Americans had been convinced that only one side of the Darfur conflict was responsible for inflicting violence and death, there was little interest in supporting a peace plan. This is why, during the Abuja Peace Talks, activists were calling for military intervention and ignoring any progress towards reconciliation. In the end, the Talks were “severely underfunded,” according to Salim Ahmed Salim (Chief Mediator from the African Union), and rushed by American and British officials. During the same year, the US sent hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the deployment of international soldiers. Ultimately, the peace process failed because of the lack of funding and because the rebel groups were emboldened by their continued support from Sudan’s neighbors.

Darfur Today

Today, the situation in Darfur has changed dramatically from what it was at the height of the conflict in 2004. Most of the ongoing violence can be attributed to banditry, lawlessness and fighting between rebel groups. According to the latest UNAMID report, 16 fatalities were recorded for the month of June 2009 and none of them were linked to the conflict between Sudanese forces and the rebel groups. However, many activists continue to ignore these changes and argue that the government of Sudan is waging a large-scale assault on Darfur. The term “ongoing genocide” is still used frequently in activist literature and advertisements.

Suggestions for Change

In light of these mistakes, the ongoing mischaracterizations and the current situation in Darfur, I make the following suggestions to activists who wish to rework their strategy:

1. Discontinue the use of the word “genocide” for all the reasons mentioned above. The use of this word is the single biggest obstacle to the development of a peace plan and the reconciliation process. Whether or not the word “genocide” has legal resonance or accuracy is not the issue; rather, the mistakes of the Darfur activist campaigns have taught us that there are inherent problems with using the word.

2. Lobby and pressure the government to adequately fund and participate in the comprehensive peace process in both Darfur and the South, but avoid the seven mistakes usually made by external mediators.

3. Recognize the significant changes in the nature and scale of the violence in Darfur and correct the public misperceptions that the activist campaigns helped define. One idea would be for activist groups to publish the UNAMID monthly casualty and violence reports on their websites.

4. Redirect public pressure projects and lobbying efforts away from peace-keeping and violence prevention and towards boosting aid to Darfur development projects.

5. Emphasize the environmental and logistical threat of desert life for Darfurian refugees. This is a powerful story that will have the same resonance as stories of violence and genocide.

These suggestions may not apply to all activist campaigns, and some campaigns are beginning to incorporate these changes into their public message already. For example, the Save Darfur Coalition recently redesigned their website and significantly changed the educational section of their website to include information about the peace process. That said, all of the campaigns still have a long way to go.

Marc Gustafson is a doctoral candidate and Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford. He is currently writing his dissertation on political trends in Sudan: www.marcgustafson.com