Fed Up

I haven’t posted for a few days because I’ve been focused on drafting Chapter 4 of my book.

It reconstructs the messy process through which we reached the (surreal) point in August 2006, of the UN Security Council saying it “invites the consent” of the Sudanese government to the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur. There are layers upon layers involved: The African Union, DPKO, NATO, the EU’s attempts to claim ground for its ESDP (European Defense and Security Policy) – and that’s before you really start adding the efforts of advocates into the mix. I’m half-way through and my overriding feeling is of depression borne of a sense that so many were focused on what it would take to be “seen to do something” to increase security in Darfur – while so few were focused on what it would actually take to increase security.

*****

Meanwhile, Alex de Waal just got in touch to say that Mamdani has written a reply to the criticisms of myself and others, and was interested to know what I thought. I read the reply – and was disappointed. I don’t think he has engaged seriously with the problems I raised – indeed he only touches on a couple of them. He acknowledges he was out by a year on a statement Bush made, as per my earlier post, meaning that Bush didn’t himself describe Darfur as a genocide until after Powell. But he says: “She (as in me) then asserts – wrongly, in my view – that this acknowledgment would change the interpretation that follows in the book.” In his book it was his assertion that Bush declared genocide before Powell that led him to claim that Powell “fell in line” with Bush. So I don’t understand how having accepted that Bush did not in fact declare genocide before Powell does not change the interpretation that Powell “fell in line” with Bush.

I could go on, but I don’t think I have it in me to spend the time responding again. Perhaps Moreno Ocampo is right when he says that getting caught up in this is just a distraction . . .Przepraszam, ten artykul jest dostępny tylko w języku angielskim

I haven’t posted for a few days because I’ve been focused on drafting Chapter 4 of my book.

It reconstructs the messy process through which we reached the (surreal) point in August 2006, of the UN Security Council saying it “invites the consent” of the Sudanese government to the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur. There are layers upon layers involved: The African Union, DPKO, NATO, the EU’s attempts to claim ground for its ESDP (European Defense and Security Policy) – and that’s before you really start adding the efforts of advocates into the mix. I’m half-way through and my overriding feeling is of depression borne of a sense that so many were focused on what it would take to be “seen to do something” to increase security in Darfur – while so few were focused on what it would actually take to increase security.

*****

Alex de Waal just got in touch to say that Mamdani has written a reply to the criticisms of myself and others, and was interested to know what I thought. I read the reply – and was disappointed. I don’t think he has engaged seriously with the problems I raised – indeed he only touches on a couple of them. He acknowledges he was out by a year on a statement Bush made, as per my earlier post, meaning that Bush didn’t himself describe Darfur as a genocide until after Powell. But he says: “She (as in me) then asserts – wrongly, in my view – that this acknowledgment would change the interpretation that follows in the book.” In his book it was his assertion that Bush declared genocide before Powell that led him to claim that Powell “fell in line” with Bush. So I don’t understand how having accepted that Bush did not in fact declare genocide before Powell does not change the interpretation that Powell “fell in line” with Bush.

I could go on, but I don’t think I have it in me to spend the time responding again. Perhaps Moreno Ocampo is right when he says that getting caught up in this is just a distraction . . .