Blog Action Day 2008: Poverty and Genocide in Darfur

by Michelle

Published October 15, 2008 @ 04:26AM PST

Genocide and poverty are often unfortunate bedfellows.

Poverty is the foundation of the Darfur genocide--a forced, intentional poverty, entrenched through economic and political marginalization, beginning with colonialism and perpetuated by Khartoum's violently racist ideology. Competition for scarce resources in an increasingly harsh environment generated conflict, but the arming of one side against the other and the incorporation of the disputes into a larger framework of racial domination generated genocide.

Poverty does not cause genocide, but has proven to be a significant underlying factor not only in Darfur, but in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda as well.

In his Blog Action Day post on poverty and Darfur, Mark Hayward at Train for Humanity quotes

the Program Director at Darfur Peace and Development (DPDO):

"Poverty is a big reason for the current crisis in Darfur. It is a kind of poverty so far beyond what most American know - and could have been radically altered 5 years ago if even 50% of the millions of dollars shunted into advocacy had been consistently redirected into programs on the ground that strengthened the health, education and ability of Darfuris chart a way forward."

This makes for an interesting point for discussion. Surely, direct poverty alleviation is sorely needed in Darfur, and organizations like DPDO and many others make valiant efforts to provide relief despite severe restrictions on access and constant interference and meddling from Khartoum.

But in the context of genocide, when the racist ideology of the perpetrators looms over the violence, and the poverty is purposeful and enforced, what is the best direction for international assistance? Direct service provides immediate help for those affected by the violence, but how far will that go if genocide continues--if Sudan continues to bomb villages and direct Janjaweed attacks?

This is NOT to discount direct aid for poverty alleviation in Darfur--again, it is sorely needed. But when faced with a limited amount of international financial assistance, what is the proper balance between direct service and advocacy efforts aimed at ending the genocide all together? It's not an either-or situation, but involves some sort of interaction and overlap between dual efforts with the same goal. The exact nature of that relationship should be a source of serious discussion.

Thoughts?