Darfur

May 14, 2006 2:22 PM

Darfur reality: More killings, more rapes| Despite a cease-fire, the horrible situation in Darfur persists. Based on Google Trends data, it appears that, as of January, people are becoming interested in Darfur again (or at least they're researching it more), which may be a catalyst for politicians to act. Or maybe not...
posted by ashcan (27 comments total)

NOW I see the point of google trends. I didn't really 'get it' before.
posted by tiamat at 2:25 PM on May 14, 2006

It's showing up more in American pop culture too, like recent episodes of ER. Sort of a chicken vs. egg thing, did public interest in Darfur cause the television coverage or was it the other way around?
posted by ktoad at 2:59 PM on May 14, 2006

I was very happy to see that story on the front page of the NY Times; I guess Kristof has shamed them into paying more attention. It's shameful that the situation has been allowed to degenerate for this long.
posted by languagehat at 3:00 PM on May 14, 2006

There is a chilling portrayal of the ongoing violence in Sudan in the film The Constant Gardener. I've written a bit more about it on my blog.
posted by sindark at 3:01 PM on May 14, 2006

It's because the Janjaweed stole Dr Pratt's pants.
posted by cillit bang at 3:16 PM on May 14, 2006

FWIW, Blogpulse shows a handful of spikes in the first few months of the year, and then a major, sustained bump in the last month or so. Though it looks like the last datapoint is back down to the high points of the winter months.
posted by aaronetc at 4:23 PM on May 14, 2006

Had to be done...
posted by nmiell at 4:35 PM on May 14, 2006

When the politicians "act", what exactly would like them to do?

"Stop the killing" is a goal, not an action. What action would you like them to take, which would be effective at accomplishing the goal of stopping the killing?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 4:39 PM on May 14, 2006

I gotta go with Mr. Den Beste on this one. I see a lot of calls to action, but no recommendations as to what more action politicians should take. This is a regime that only understands war; diplomacy is meaningless to them.
posted by mischief at 5:04 PM on May 14, 2006

The thing is, the actions one might like to see are never going to happen. For example, how about attacking the availability of small arms?

I'm not up for a big research spree here, but there is this from 2000, New Book Takes Hard Look at Small Arms Trade:

'Developing clear international law barring small arms supply (usually covert) to sub-state actors would be one of the most meaningful policies that concerned governments and NGOs could pursue to curb further dangerous small arms proliferation,' recommends Lumpe.

As Lumpe points out, the US government employed this practice routinely throughout the cold war, most devastatingly in Central America, Afghanistan/Pakistan and Angola/Zaire conflicts, and refuses to renounce the practice, continuing to see it as a useful and justifiable tool of foreign policy.

In line with this position, the US government actively opposes proposals by Canada for an international treaty to ban gun running by governments to insurgents.

Apparently there was some development in 2002, U.S. Views: Ban on Transfers of Small Arms and Light Weapons to Non-State Groups (didn't read it, seems applicable), but I have a feeling it hasn't really got much to do with limiting small arms in practice.. After all the US doesn't support the land mine ban either.
posted by Chuckles at 5:49 PM on May 14, 2006

How about creating and enforcing a no-fly zone? Given the helicopter support that is being provided to the militias by the Sudanese government, it could directly impact the level of violence being directed against civilians, with virtually no risk of casualties.

That alone is not enough, of course, but it would be a reasonable start.
posted by sindark at 6:08 PM on May 14, 2006

Of course, all this horror was happening in southern Sudan throughout the 1990s, and there was even less media coverage of that than of Darfur right now.
posted by dw at 6:09 PM on May 14, 2006

No-fly zone? No adequate and friendly airstrips close enough to enforce a no-fly zone.
posted by mischief at 6:23 PM on May 14, 2006

"For example, how about attacking the availability of small arms?"

That might work at stopping the next one -- but are you going to go in there now and ask nicely for everyone to give up their rifles and pistols?

Because of course they'll quite willingly give them up just because you asked.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:10 PM on May 14, 2006

By the way, most of the killings in Rwanda were performed with machetes and other big blades, not with rifles and pistols.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:12 PM on May 14, 2006

Chuckles, the Landmine treaty is a joke. It doesn't ban all landmines, it only bans "antipersonnel" land mines.

The treaty permits anti-vehicle mines -- and they're permitted to have anti-tampering fuses, which is to say that they're permitted to have fuses which will set them off if pedestrians come anywhere near.

So what differentiates "antipersonnel" mines from "anti-vehicle" mines? It turns out that from a strict reading of the treaty, the difference is intent. A mine is legal if you say it targets vehicles but can be set off by pedestrians. The exact same mine is banned if you say it specifically targets pedestrians.

But as a practical matter, it turns out to be a function of explosive load.

Small mines, intended to cripple, are banned by the treaty. Big mines, intended to kill, are not banned. By analogy to firearms, the treaty bans bolt-action rifles but doesn't ban machine guns.

If the treaty were ratified by everyone and followed by everyone, it wouldn't prevent anyone from using land mines. Rather, it would cause everyone to use larger, more powerful, more deadly mines.

This is good?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:25 PM on May 14, 2006

No-fly zone? The Janjaweed ride horses.

So, there are two basic parts of Sudan where people are getting massacred by the (Arab, Moslem) gubbermint: Southern Sudan, which is mostly black people who are either Christians or Animist / indignous religious believers; and Darfur, which is half black people and half ethnically Arab people, all basically moslem.

In the south, the Christians being opressed garnered the attention of the American churches -- it is concrete embodiment of the (basically crazy) idea that lots of conservative Christians have that Christians are a pursecuted minority. When the SPLA made peace earlier this year, the war in the South basically ended; no more Christians persecuted, no more Church interest.

Anyway, I would speculate that the lull in interest you're describing represents one group of Americans winding down operations in celebration of a victory followed by a different group winding up operations to take up the slack.
posted by hob at 7:33 PM on May 14, 2006

There is a chilling portrayal of the ongoing violence in Sudan in the film The Constant Gardener.

What the hell are you talking about? That movie was set in Kenya. There wasn't even that much violence.
posted by delmoi at 7:48 PM on May 14, 2006

Seems like people in the netherlands are about as intrested in Darfur as American Idol.
posted by delmoi at 7:50 PM on May 14, 2006

If the treaty were ratified by everyone and followed by everyone, it wouldn't prevent anyone from using land mines. Rather, it would cause everyone to use larger, more powerful, more deadly mines.

Well, you could argue it would be a little more humane...
posted by delmoi at 7:52 PM on May 14, 2006

What the hell are you talking about? That movie was set in Kenya. There wasn't even that much violence.

Oops, after reading your blog post, I'm reminded of the scene in Sudan.
posted by delmoi at 7:54 PM on May 14, 2006

did public interest in Darfur cause the television coverage or was it the other way around?

You could say it was any number of things - blogs for example, if you really believe that blogs have a major influence in shaping public opinion. But it's more that these things arise simultaneously, as a result of mindless flocking trends in public awareness. Internet culture and its fetish for immediacy only seems to have sped up the pace with which the flock randomly refocusses its attention. In that sense, the internet facilitates abuses and totalitarianism because it serves as the ultimate kaleidescopic distraction device.

Anyway, Darfur. America doesn't have the money or the troops or the will or the desire to intervene. And Europe certainly doesn't. Canada might send an observer or two. Like the ones we had handy in Rwanda. I don't see much hope for the people there, to be honest.
posted by slatternus at 11:10 PM on May 14, 2006

Africa just can't get it together, and Jared Diamond has never really fully explained it (bad luck, Western Imperialism, etc.). I wish someone would.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 3:26 AM on May 15, 2006

Yes Steven dB any agreement against using landmines is a step forward. Small anti-personnel landmines are a nightmare to clean up and an disaster for the local population where-ever they are used as you no doubt know.
It is very difficult to get governments to agree to ban weapons, so any step in that direction is a worthwhile step. The present ban on small anti-personnel landmines will hopefully be expanded to include all anti-personnel landmines in the future.

As regards suggestions as to how to stop the killing, I must admit I do not know enough about this particular case to be able to make any intelligent suggestions. However, I am sure there are plenty of people who have been thinking about exactly this problem. Conflict resolution is a difficlult and complex task, much more so than conflict initiation as the situation in Iraq has once again demonstrated to the worlds sole military superpower.
posted by asok at 3:36 AM on May 15, 2006

@Hob,

No-fly zone? The Janjaweed ride horses.

"The AU claims there is photographic proof of the Sudanese government's Russian-designed military helicopters strafing villages in conjunction with janjaweed attacks."

(Source: The Economist)

"Government-sponsored mounted Arab militias, known as the janjaweed, continue to murder, rape and pillage with impunity, while the Sudanese airforce's Russian-made helicopter-gunships and aircraft still bomb and strafe civilians as well as rebels, despite a UN Security Council resolution decreeing a no-fly zone for military aircraft over Darfur."

(Source: The Economist
posted by sindark at 3:57 AM on May 15, 2006

What action would you like them to take, which would be effective at accomplishing the goal of stopping the killing?

Support the African Union. Give them money and backup. I read a heartrending interview with an AU soldier who said they would have been able to prevent a lot of the killing if they'd had more men and supplies, but they were forced to withdraw and just let it happen.
posted by languagehat at 5:49 AM on May 15, 2006

One small problem with sending in African Union peacekeepers is that the rebels they are supposed to protect have attacked and kidnapped African Union soldiers within the past year.

This conflict also has historical roots in that during the days of global slave trade, the farmers captured herders and sold them in to slavery.
posted by mischief at 8:57 AM on May 15, 2006