Stop Genocide

Darfur Debate Ends With More Questions Than Answers

Published April 17, 2009 @ 04:58AM PT

The following is a guest post by Semhar Araia.

In no less than 24 hours since the much anticipated Mamdani-Prendergast debate on Darfur at Columbia University on April 14, bloggers have run amok with all kinds of biased summaries of the event. Reading the Twitter and blog posts, it really sounded like there wasn't any substantive discourse on the issues and that Darfur activists really were "under fire".

But my non-Columbia affiliated perspective took away much more from the debate than what's been posted so far and I think it's time for a more thorough overview and analysis of the evening.

First, let's be clear. The purpose of the debate was simple and outlined by the moderator, Columbia University Law School professor, Peter Rosenblum. It was to discuss the problem in Darfur and to identify ways forward for Sudan.

These questions were intended to reveal just how in-depth and thought provoking the debate was supposed to, despite the flashy questions on the event flyer regarding the definition of genocide and the role of activist organizations.

The debate was also organized to let the public listen to a healthy and vigorous exchange from two of the most vocal and notable Africanists on Sudan, Columbia University Professor Mahmood Mamdani and John Prendergast, Co-Chair of the Enough Project.

One, an academic. The other, a practitioner. Now, I know and have worked with Prendergast and I follow Mamdani's arguments regularly. So for Sudan junkies like myself, it was just too good to be true.

I sat nervously waiting for the verbal bloodshed and onslaught that was about to happen. But it never did. Gone were the inflammatory remarks, finger pointing, and short tempers. (Maybe not completely, but you get the idea.)

Instead of a huge collision, we watched a race that was slow to start and ended on two completely different roads. Not surprisingly, both panelists walked away thinking they won the debate!

Question 1 - What is the Problem in Sudan?

Prendergast: Prendergast answered with a narrative of a displaced Darfuri woman fearing for her life since the Government of Sudan expelled the humanitarian aid groups last month. He raised Sudan's colonial history, its nation building challenges, the North-South's war and its fragile peace and finally, Darfur and the Government of Sudan's use of militia and brutal violence to quash the rebels. It was not a history lesson, nor did it claim to be. It was a review of the real challenges Sudan and its people are facing today and have faced for the last fifty years.

Mamdani: Mamdani explained where his fascination with the Darfur advocacy movement stemmed from and why he focused on mortality rates released by groups like Save Darfur and the World Health Organization. He provided a historical overview of the origins of the civil war in Darfur, his concerns with Save Darfur and its messaging, the ICC arrest warrant for Sudanese President Bashir, and emphasized the de-escalation of mortality rates in Darfur since 2005.

Question 2 - What Is the Way Forward for Sudan?

Prendergast: Prendergast presented five opportunities for peace in Sudan and emphasized that Africa remains a place full of hope and strength, with solutions for its own future. He proposed possible political, humanitarian, economic and military measures that could be undertaken by the Sudanese and the greater international community. He also examined the role of the Government of Sudan, the rebels, Sudanese civil society, permanent members of the UN Security Council, and global activists in the United States and abroad.

Mamdani: Mamdani stressed that justice should not be the driving motivation for the international community and Darfuris should use their own voices for justice. He argued that regional organizations and Sudan's neighbors should help solve the problem in Darfur, not the international community. He said the public was being misled on the crisis in Darfur and blamed media for the sensationalized stories we hear today. Mamdani also dismissed the notion that China and Russia had a critical role to play in helping achieve peace in Sudan.

Instead of providing new solutions for Darfur, Mamdani diverted the discussion from examining the actual problems in Sudan to the external problems affecting Sudan. How unfortunate during this critical time, he chose to focus his energy on messaging, statistical analysis and semantics, when 2009 has wracked the people of Sudan with the harshest realities on the ground imaginable.

Question & Answer Session

Darfuris, other Africans, and even some brave Columbia students, used the Q & A session to challenge Mamdani on the fallacy of his arguments, his factual errors, and seemingly apologist rhetoric on behalf of Khartoum.

For over an hour, audience members directed heated questions and comments to him, holding back their anger and confusion over his repeated dismissal over what so many Darfurians have been saying for years.

Ultimately, Prendergast's proposals seemed to fall on the deaf ears of Mamdani and a majority of the audience. Clearly many came with their minds made up and chose to focus on Save Darfur and all its activist baggage - not on Darfur and its crisis.

So sadly, just as it began, the debate ended as if on two separate roads and the original purpose was again drowned out by the flashier, sexier side of who's really to blame for Africa's problems.

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (1)

  1. R Mike

    OPEN UP YOUR EYES TO ATTROCITIES SPONSORED BY THE WEST NOT ONLY BY CHINA: SEE BELOW

    Open letter from Global Centre for R2P: "Mass atrocities" in Sri Lanka

    The situation in Sri Lanka has reached a point of extreme urgency. With the government having resumed its military offensive after a two-day pause, the approximately 100,000 civilians trapped between the army and the rebel force, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), are now at grave risk of mass atrocities. The LTTE continues to shoot at non-combatants who try to leave and to use them as human shields, as a result few civilians were able to leave during the brief lull in fighting.

    Government forces, which have engaged in intense shelling and aerial bombardment both of the combat area and of an adjacent "no-fire zone," are believed to be preparing a final assault. John Holmes, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, has stated that "a bloodbath . . . seems an increasingly real possibility."

    We are writing to you as members of the Security Council because we believe that the very grave risk of mass atrocities compels the international community, and the Security Council specifically, to take measures to protect civilians, as states pledged to do when they adopted the "responsibility to protect" at the UN World Summit in 2005. At the core of this norm is the obligation to act preventively to protect peoples from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, rather than waiting until atrocities have already occurred, as states have too often done in the past. There can be little doubt about either the magnitude, or the imminence, of the peril civilians now face in Sri Lanka. Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that casualties may reach "catastrophic levels" if the fighting is not stopped.

    We recognize that in the face of a ruthless insurgency the government of Sri Lanka has not only the right but the responsibility to protect its people. But states engaged in armed combat do not have the right to perpetrate atrocities against civilians; nor does the cruelty of an armed opponent absolve states of the responsibility to protect citizens from atrocities committed in the course of such a war.

    We recognize as well that the current threat of mass atrocities arises at least as much from the behavior of the LTTE as it does from the Sri Lankan army. Nevertheless, the state has the sovereign obligation to protect its own people; and when, according to the terms of the World Summit Document, a state is "manifestly failing" to do so, the international community is obliged to act. While we view the two-day pause observed by the government of Sri Lanka as a preventive act in the spirit of the responsibility to protect, the army states that it has now returned to "normal operations." The resumption of hostilities directed indiscriminately at military and civilian objects constitutes manifest failure both by the state and by the LTTE.

    There is widespread agreement about what must be done immediately: The LTTE must allow those civilians who wish to leave to do so; in return, the government of Sri Lanka must agree to observe a more extensive ceasefire, guarantee the safety of those civilians and treat them according to international standards governing internally displaced peoples. Donors and others with close ties to the government of Sri Lanka must press for action, as must those with influence over the LTTE.

    However, it is the Security Council, according to the terms of the 2005 agreement, which must authorize "timely and decisive measures" to prevent or halt mass atrocities. The Council must be prepared to bluntly characterize the violence in Sri Lanka as mass atrocity crimes; to demand that the government of Sri Lanka grant access to the conflict zone to humanitarian groups and to the media, both of whom it has barred until now; to dispatch a special envoy to the region, and/or to consider the imposition of sanctions. And ultimately, it must help facilitate a durable political solution to the fighting.

    Signed:

    Jan Egeland, Director, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, and member of the International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, former Australian Foreign Minister, and Co-Chair of the International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Juan Méndez, President, International Center for Transitional Justice, former UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and member of the International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Mohamed Sahnoun, President, Initiatives of Change-International, former Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General, and Co-Chair, International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Monica Serrano, Executive Director, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Ramesh Thakur, Founding Director of Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow, The Centre for International Governance Innovation in Waterloo, Professor of Political Science at the University of Waterloo in Canada, and the member of the International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Thomas G. Weiss, Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, and member of the International Advisory Board, Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect

    Posted by R Mike on 04/18/2009 @ 04:32AM PT

  2. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Michelle .

Michelle became involved in the anti-genocide cause at a young age, and has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns, ever since.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.