We have a researcher looking at why the Darfur story has run so big in the media – especially the American media – compared to other African conflicts and crises. Pedro is at the beginning of his study so we welcome any input.
My theory is that since March 2003 this has been a narrative given legs by a series of co-incidences. First the UN took it up, then certain key figures in the US media such as Nicholas D Kristof, and then some very committed and intelligent celebrities such as George Clooney. And for political reasons George W Bush was happy to back diplomatic efforts. So Liberal America has taken it up as its chosen international cause.
But it also shows the limits of media. Darfur is still a mess. It will need a political solution by Africans in the region, not America. It is a very complex issue as Darfur expert Alex De Waal will explain at an event at the Frontline Club on May 22nd.Concern are giving a public update on Darfur from their people in the region. Here’s details of their event:
Thursday May 15th, Commonwealth Club, 25 Northumberland Avenue, 8.30am Speaker Janu Rao, Concern Country Director, North Sudan. RSVP to Audrey.laffitte@concern.net
I think this is a fasinating issue. I’ve blogged about it before and I’ll blog about it again. The roots lie in the civil war of the south, when evangelical Christians from America found it easy to identify with a largely Christian population in the south pitted agains a Muslim, arab government in the north.
They carried their activity across to Darfur, bringing it the attention of many people who wouldn’t otherwise be aware of Sudan’s problems. But it has also attracted a bizarre mishmash of often conservative, religious groupings in an anti-Khartoum alliance.
Their black and white analysis has generally done more harm than good, and has sucked in people with a liberal viewpoint – including many of my esteemed colleagues in the press, who have a romantic notion that rebels are always the good guys.
As a result, the debate has been sucked into pursuing a military intervention while many people with a more complete understanding of what’s happening on the ground have said it is a bit of a red herring. The attention given Darfur by organisations such as the Save Darfur Coalition has ultimately harmed the cause of peace, producing solutions tailored to domestic public opinion rather than Darfur’s needs.
If you can adjust the typo in my spelling of fascinating I’d be very grateful
Christians fighting Arabs in oil-rich lands? The question isn’t why the story is big, it’s why it isn’t bigger.
Africa must be allowed to solve its own problems and the oil should be part of the solution, not the problem. These oil companies are always portrayed as innocents abroad, mere bystanders at an ethnic conflict. Yeah – right!
Darfur is without a doubt a very complex issue. However, let’s not forget that althoug an African solution would be ideal, the African Union already has troops on the ground in Darfur and has been unable to stop the violence. Meanwhile in Zimbabwe African leaders aren’t solving the problem either, in fact they are ducking it, here I’m referring to Mr. Mbeki of South Africa. Although solutions should be regional, it seems to me that the regional powers never are willing to enter the fray. This problem it is similar to that in the Middle East where Arab countries call for Arab solutions to crises but are unwilling to commit any kind of help, read here Iraq or Lebanon. I always find myself sympathizing with local solutions to local problems because locals know best, but eventually it always seems it is Western countries that have to decide whether or not to intervene in conflicts to end them.