Hi everyone
I got a number of emails following my post yesterday and a couple of questions were raised (summarized below) that I thought were worth responding to publicly:
1. You mainly just give the names of “bad guys” you spoke with. It might have been helpful to include the names of some others. . . so readers don’t get the wrong impression that you only talked to those mentioned by name.
This was self-censorship on my part, and it stems from my (justifiable) concerns about the security of many people I spoke with.
One of the “good guys” (please know I’m using this as short-hand!) I met in a public space simply to have coffee with (not one of my “interviewees” as such) was detained by the National Security and Intelligence Services in one of their unmarked locations for three hours, for questioning about me. I will never forgive myself. Luckily he wasn’t mistreated, but it is still not okay. In all my interviews I was paranoid about meeting in private locations and doing what I could to ensure I wasn’t followed, but I let my guard down in this one instance to have coffee like a regular human being and this is what happened.
So yes, you can expect to see a bias in my blog – people who have nothing to fear from the NISS are more likely to be named than people who don’t. I don’t think that anyone who knows me will get the wrong impression and somehow believe that because of this I am only talking to one side, but if they do it’s a price I’m happy to pay.
Related to this you will notice that I do talk openly about my meetings with Lubna Hussein. In her case she has gotten herself into a position whereby the more exposure she gets, the safer she will be. There is a tipping point – for the majority of Sudanese human rights defenders and the like, talking to outsiders puts them at risk. But for the few that have developed an international profile, the publicity gives them protection.
2. Why do you think people like Musa Hilal agreed to meet with you?
I thought a lot about this. In the case of Musa Hilal I asked him directly. He said that it was because he wanted to correct the impression that the world has of him. For many people I think there was an element of this – a belief that in talking to me they could convince me they had been misunderstood. But many journalists and writers try to secure interviews by playing to this element and don’t succeed, so I think there is a little more to it.
In part I think that the current ambiguity in Sudan-US relations helped. The Sudanese are very keen for Gration’s position in the Obama Administration’s current debate on Sudan policy to win the day. Unplanned on my part, I became the beneficiary of this timing. A non-American with strong US connections, to whom they could demonstrate how ‘open’ they now are with foreigners in the run up to the 2010 elections. The other factor was that I went in without any sponsor or host organization. They knew I had no backing, which made me less threatening (it also made for some logistical challenges, but I’ll get to those stories in another post!).
In sum, I don’t know for sure. The above are just speculations. But I was determined to speak to all sides and so am grateful for the access I got – I think the book will be stronger for it.
Speak Your Mind