To start us off, here is Tim Nonn’s piece – unabashedly focused on the question of what advocates can do to strengthen the movement and increase political will, it does not attempt to come up with policy solutions. Engaging with this within those parameters:
I recall some discussions of civil disobedience for Darfur a few years ago, and the questions I had then, I still have. The main one is that while I understand the power of civil disobedience when you are challenging an unjust law in your own society (the classic example of breaking segregation laws), I find it hard to transfer the model to this context. If the proposal is not aimed at civil disobedience by Sudanese citizens, then how does the model work? What does this proposal look like in practical terms if it is primarily seeking to engage people outside of Sudan?
Charting a New Course for the Darfur Movement
Tim Nonn (U.S.A.)
Recently the Darfur movement has taken several body blows from critics and supporters. Nicholas Kristof, who alerted the world to the Darfur crisis in March 2004, wrote in the New York Times last month that the movement has “run out of steam.” He was reviewing Mahmood Mamdani’s harsh critique of the Darfur movement, Saviors and Survivors. While Kristof thought the book was biased (“His writing is infused with a tendency to indict European colonialism for inflaming tribal tensions and producing other disasters.”), his concern over the movement’s direction and strategy must be taken seriously.
Another blow came last week from Alex de Waal in a blog post titled, “Can Sudan Activism Transform Itself for the Obama Era?” Prof. de Waal, an articulate critic of the Darfur movement, argues that activists have reached an impasse with the Obama administration. The movement’s strategy of “forcible intervention” in Darfur doesn’t fit into Pres. Obama’s strategy of “coalition building” in international relations. Also, the movement has been made largely irrelevant since “the killing has just about stopped and the humanitarian crisis is under control.” Prof. de Waal chided activists who find it difficult “to let go and take their moral fervor elsewhere.” And he criticized activists for interfering in the political and diplomatic process in Sudan, arguing that the “real” work will be done in private and involve compromises that activists would find objectionable.
I agree that the Darfur movement has reached an impasse, and that its future relevance will be determined by its capacity to change course. But Prof. de Waal and Mandami are mistaken to believe that the Darfur movement is, at best, a tool of Pres. Obama’s strategy of “coalition building,” or, at worst, a weapon of Western imperialism. I don’t think it’s possible to understand the activists in the Darfur movement by forcing them into these rigid ideological frameworks. To understand the movement, and where it is heading, it is necessary to understand what actually motivates activists in the Darfur movement. It isn’t ideology. It’s compassion.
After organizing five national campaigns on Darfur since 2004, I have worked with thousands of ordinary people in local communities who are driven not by ideology but by a sense of conscience and compassion. These remarkable individuals are the spiritual heart of the Darfur movement. The movement’s vitality, creativity and endurance are the result of local activists reaching out to every sector in their communities to educate the public about Darfur, raise funds for humanitarian relief and engage in political advocacy in support of an end to the genocide.
It’s easy to denigrate compassion as a sentimental emotion or a paternalistic attitude toward people who are suffering and dying. It’s neither of these. Compassion is an ethical practice; it’s a way of life that affirms the value, equality and dignity of every human being. It expresses a consciousness of our interdependence and mutual responsibility to one another. Activism isn’t separate from our everyday lives. Through the ethical practice of compassion, activists around the world are finding ways to connect their personal lives to their community and to the broader society in which they live. They are connecting their local communities to global movements that are addressing genocide, global warming, hunger and other global concerns. And they are finding points of convergence between these global movements.
“Compassion is not religious business,” the Dalai Lama said. “It is human business, it is not luxury, it is essential for our own peace and mental stability, it is essential for human survival.”
Although the Darfur movement isn’t driven by ideology, that doesn’t mean activists lack the capacity to understand what is happening in Sudan. On the contrary, I would argue that the ideological frameworks of Prof. de Waal and Prof. Mandami prevent them from seeing what is happening to real human beings in Darfur. This makes it easy for them to dismiss the views on peace and justice that are voiced by the Darfuri people. The views of the vast majority of Darfuris don’t fit neatly into their rigid ideological frameworks; so they have no choice but to ignore them.
If the Darfur movement is to move beyond the current impasse, it must build on the foundation of compassion as an ethical practice. With this in mind, I propose a new course for the Darfur Movement that focuses on the moral and legal obligation of the international community to protect the Darfuri people from genocide. In brief, I propose a global campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience in the hundreds of cities where Darfur activists live.
From its beginning in 2004, the Darfur Movement has been guided by the central assumption that the international community would eventually take decisive action to end the genocide in Darfur. Tragically, this assumption has been long on hope and short on substance. The recent votes by the African Union and the Arab League to shield Sudanese President Bashir from the International Criminal Court drove home the point that the Darfuri people have few friends within the international community.
Today, activists have become frustrated with a strategy that depends on an apathetic international community. The Darfur Movement is faced with the choice of sticking with a losing strategy based on a shaky assumption or adopting a new strategy that takes into account the international community’s systematic betrayal of the Darfuri people. If the Darfur Movement doesn’t change course it will continue to lose steam and grind to a halt.
What would be accomplished by a global campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience?
First, it will shatter the illusion that the international community – including our own government – has a viable plan for ending the genocide in Darfur. The impasse between the Darfur Movement and the international community cannot be overcome if we continue to place our faith in this cruel illusion.
Second, it will deepen our solidarity with the Darfuri people by demonstrating that activists throughout the world are willing to jeopardize their own freedom and well being for the sake of ending the genocide.
Third, and most importantly, it will strengthen the movement’s spiritual and moral foundation by transforming conscience and compassion into civil initiative to uphold international laws on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Civil initiative in defense of just laws – such as the UN Convention on Genocide — will enable activists to control their own destiny instead of depending on an apathetic international community. The defense of just laws isn’t a crime. It is the moral and legal duty of every citizen. When activists allow themselves to be arrested for violating local ordinances to protest the genocide in Darfur, they will force their governments to decide whether or not to punish those who seek to uphold international laws on genocide. They will compel the public to ask if their governments are fulfilling or neglecting their legal obligation under international law to protect people from genocide. A government that would rather end protest against genocide than genocide itself will find itself in a morally and legally untenable position.
A global campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience is a radical shift in strategy for the Darfur Movement. It rejects the passive strategy of waiting for the international community to take decisive action to end the genocide in Darfur. Instead, it embraces the active strategy of challenging governments to arrest and put on trial those who seek to uphold international laws on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
There are many historical precedents for such a campaign. For example, in the 1980s, activists in the anti-apartheid movement engaged in daily civil disobedience in front of the South African Embassy in Washington DC. Thousands were arrested, including religious leaders, labor activists, students, celebrities and members of Congress. Across the country, local activists engaged in civil disobedience in hundreds of communities to support the protests at the South African Embassy.
Changing the course of the Darfur movement entails risk and danger. But a greater risk and danger lies in waiting. While many activists want to give President Obama more time to develop a new policy toward Sudan, time is working against the people of Darfur and the Darfur movement. Further, the prospect of unfair Sudanese elections in April 2010 already is undermining the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and could lead to renewed conflict between North and South Sudan.
In his speech in Ghana this week, Pres. Obama reaffirmed our government’s commitment toward ending the genocide in Darfur:
“America has a responsibility to advance this vision, not just with words, but with support that strengthens African capacity. When there is genocide in Darfur or terrorists in Somalia , these are not simply African problems – they are global security challenges, and they demand a global response. That is why we stand ready to partner through diplomacy, technical assistance, and logistical support, and will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable.”
While Pres. Obama should be commended for his vision of a new era of global cooperation, his administration still lacks a viable plan to end the genocide in Darfur and bring its perpetrators to justice. Is it time to reduce political pressure or increase it? Would the weakening or collapse of the Darfur movement advance peace and justice in Sudan or embolden the genocidal regime in Khartoum?
The Darfuri people have been betrayed by their own government and the international community. They have every reason to lose hope. Their very survival is a miracle that inspires activists throughout the world. The Darfur movement has endured because the people of Darfur have endured.
If the global Darfur movement continues to lose steam, it won’t be the result of indecisiveness and inaction by President Obama or the international community. It will be the result of the movement’s failure to shift from a passive to an active strategy to end the genocide in Darfur. It is our decision to make.
Let our governments be forced to decide whether to arrest us and put us on trial for violating local ordinances in defense of international laws on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. They will only succeed in putting themselves on trial for their failure to defend the Darfuri people against genocide.
The question of whether nonviolent civil disobedience can be effectively applied to the Darfur movement can be answered by looking at past movements, such as the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. In the US, for example, activists didn’t challenge unjust laws that directly affected them; but their civil disobedience helped to launch the movement and make it effective. Thousands of local communities were involved. Another example can be found in the environment movement. This hasn’t been tried yet in the Darfur movement. There have only been sporadic attempts at nonviolent civil disobedience at the Sudan embassy in Washington DC and in other cities.
The central significance of this radical change of course is the shift from a passive strategy — that relies on the international community taking effective action — to an active strategy — that takes control of this process by making our governments respond to our actions in a way that reveals their indirect complicity in the genocide through the lack of effective action. How this gets worked out will be determined by local activists. The best ideas have always come from them.
We are working on a strategic plan for this campaign that will offer some ideas to local activists without setting up a new organization. I agree that it needs a clear objective, target and coordination to be sustained and effective. And we must find a way to connect the campaign to the struggle of the Darfuri people themselves. You can email me at timnonn@att.net if you want to discuss the campaign.
This campaign should not be a centralized, hierarchical effort that is directed by a small group of activists or organizations. I believe that it must emerge and be directed at the local level. The Darfur movement is a decentralized, community-based movement. Its vitality, creativity and endurance are the result of local initiative.
An ongoing balance must be maintained between planning and action. Such a campaign must be planned carefully with broad input; but at some point people must take a risk and begin local actions. The process of constant reflection on actions will allow us to improve the campaign as we go along. The Internet allows us to do this together globally. I don’t think it takes large numbers to get something like this going. If the goal is reconciliation and people act through compassion rather than anger, it will develop in an organic way from the bottom up – just as the Darfur movement has done over the last five years.
I think you are very right Tim. I personally have written letters to U.S. Senators and know that tens of thousands of letters concerning Darfur have pounded D.C. political offices time and time again with little results.
In a way, our government has acknowledged us but still refuses to get heavily involved. The Bush administration called Darfur what it was: genocide. Obama has appointed a special envoy for Sudan. We have sanctions against the regime in Khartoum.
But millions remain in refugee camps, rape continues, and the region continues to be destabilized…
Perhaps it is our fault for not taking a stand on basic human principles sooner. I was struck when John Prendergast stepped over the line at the Sudanese embassy and was arrested for it. His action made headlines. Now, imagine if thousands were doing that, could the government ignore it then?
I also would like to point out that our government’s refusal to become more involved is also a major moral issue that must be voiced during these peaceful civil disobedience protests. The simple fact that the Obama administration is now responsible for allowing the crisis in Darfur to continue means I personally will not be voting for him if he runs for reelection. For me personally, and for thousands of others, I do not want our leader to be a man that allows the mass murder of civilians, starvation, and rape to go on unabated in places like Darfur.
No, the U.S. can not be involved everywhere all the time. But when something as big as Darfur comes up, it should not even be a choice on whether or not our government gets involved.
I think you are dead on Tim. We would be wrong to not take this to the next level. Tens of thousands of activists have done this the way our government asks us to with zero results. We’ve been polite, we’ve requested action where it is so very needed, and we have been denied. We have to remember that millions of lives are on the line and to not act further would be to become bystanders.