Genocide and public opinion

Jim Hoagland, former foreign correspondent and now foreign affairs columnist for the Washington Post, wonders whether Kenya will join the ranks of other countries he once filed dispatches from in capital cities beset by destruction and war – Algiers, Tehran, Baghdad, Mogadishu, etc.

It is premature to compare Nairobi at this point to those other, more tumultuous capitals. But most of them -- as Nairobi certainly did -- originally had serious chances to succeed as workable or even important regional or international centers of governance, and they failed. Nairobi must now avoid their mistakes if it is to avoid their fate.

Hoagland makes the point that the global communications revolution may have connected people in visceral ways, but it has not been matched by “understanding of the Third World's dilemmas or a commitment to help resolve them.”

Unfortunately for aggrieved Kenyans, the nation's most serious troubles in its brief modern history arrive at a moment when international outrage is spread thin in Darfur, the Middle East, Iraq and elsewhere. The United Nations' unsuccessful struggle with Sudan to send into Darfur peacekeeping units that can protect themselves suggests that the once proudly proclaimed "duty to protect" abused citizens from their own governments is degenerating into something like the duty to scold.

Stop in the name of genocide
In a related matter, a story in the New York Times reflects on a far-reaching law adopted by the United Nations in 2005 to allow outside powers to intervene inside countries that are unwilling to stop genocide within their own borders. What some of the resolution’s original supporters claimed was a high-water mark for human rights around the globe has met certain cold realities on the ground. For one, the refusal of rich countries to deploy their well equipped militaries to hot zones like Darfur. Secondly, when troops finally do arrive, they are handcuffed by various roadblocks set up by host governments. (One aspect of this story that must be pointed out: its small sample size. This law has only been tested by the incidents surrounding the issues in Darfur.)

The resolution, nicknamed the “Right to Protect,” was something of a philosophical turning point for the United Nations, a body since its inception always upheld the rights of sovereign states. For proof, see the largely uninterrupted genocides by Hutu power groups in Rwanda, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and the Derg in Ethiopia. For the first time, the “Right to Protect” meant that sovereignty could possibly take a back seat in favor of stopping unabated bloodshed and violence.

The role of the public
Piggybacking on a theme brought up by Hoagland: What is the public’s responsibility in stopping genocide? Donald Steinberg, director of the International Crisis Group’s New York office, was a special assistant for Africa in the Clinton administration during the Rwanda genocide. He points out that during the slaughter, the U.S. government debated whether to jamming the hate radio that whipped supporters to a froth and organized the génocidaires or reinforcing the UN mandate in the country.

“But each time some of us pushed for these steps,” he said, “others would ask, ‘Where’s the legal basis for these actions, where’s the public outcry, the ‘Hallelujah’ chorus of support? Where’s the evidence to show that these actions will end the killings?’ ”

It’s an important point. Without public outcry, few leaders will act boldly against killings where a country has limited interests. The festering bloodshed in former Zaire is a case in point. So is the 2006 Israeli bombing of Lebanon – a pretty clear account of a military targeting citizens – which went unchecked by the U.S., who simply sent ships to evacuate the thousands of Americans on vacation in the country and the Lebanese holding U.S. passports.

On one level, Darfur does seem different. A large coalition has been built to force governments to act on the bloodshed. The media certainly has provided (relatively) extensive coverage. Keeping people aware of the killings may have abated the violence, but it certainly has not stopped. Neither have the warring sides been forced to come to the table.

Has the PR campaign against Darfur tipped the balance towards rectifying the situation? It’s difficult to tell. The intransigence of the Sudanese government may come about from the greatest trump card of all: sovereignty, and the belief that the power of the nation state holds supreme. All governments understand it, and in response to external pressures stemming from the “interdependence” of globalization, desire it.

There’s something else at work here. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, whatever the political motives debated in the United States, is largely seen around the world as a unilateral imperialistic attack on a sovereign state. The story points out that 150 countries originally supported the resolution. Many of these countries hail from the third world, and they are presently shying away from the “Right to Protect” because they feel they could be the law could be enforced in their own backyard.

One could also argue that geo-politics plays a roll with Darfur. Many in the West look to China’s patronage of the Khartoum regime as a reason for the political stalemate in solving the problem. It’s more complicated than that. While Washington scolds the Sudanese concerning its government role in Darfur, the two countries enjoy a cozy relationship over the war on terror.

The debate over democracy and sovereignty remains unsettled. But there’s another matter at work here. The convictions of the person on the street. A dedicated clique attuned to the injustices in Darfur is one thing. What about the rest of us? Like Hoagland pointed out, the world at large displays a limited attention span. Issues like Darfur became significant when the public’s attention was already stretched by other issues: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine.

I tend to take a more positive viewpoint of the campaign to keep Darfur in the media. Think of the counterfactual: What would be taking place there if the public awareness campaign was never hatched? An imperfect solution, yes; but it beats doing nothing.

The Kenya subtext
The subtext, of course, to both of these articles is as unmistakable as their timing. Kenya, a former stable country, is apparently on the verge of chaos. Regardless of the U.S. press’ swing-and-miss on the history of ethnicity and tribalism in the country, ethnic violence appears to be taking place. How far must this escalate before the world’s powers draw up a list of conditions before it contemplates intervention? Better yet, when do the t-shirts and bumper stickers get printed for “Stop the Killing in Kenya”?

How do you say AFRICOM in French?

“Some 1,653 troops from West Africa and France will participate in Exercise DEGGO XXVII, a command post and field training exercise starting at Thies, Senegal, Afriquenligne, said. Other than Senegal, the armed forces of Burkina Faso, the Gambia, Guinea and Mali will take part.

The 11-day exercise would strengthen the capacity of the Task Force (TF) component of the ECOWAS Standby Force (ESF) towards making it functional by 2008 .

The task force component comprises 1,500 of the 6, 500 strong ESF being created for deployment in Peace Support Operations (PSO), as specified under the African Union security architecture that requires that regional peacekeeping forces become operational by 2010.

The exercise will test the deployment and sustainment capabilities of the TF, the Command and Control of the various Headquarters in PSO at the operational and tactical levels and the strategic relationship with partners in the areas of troops lift/deployment, logistics and operational support in the field.

Or, are the militaries preparing for Darfur?
This announcement comes hours after the UN admitted equipment difficulties and obstacles created by the Sudanese government put in jeopardy the United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, known as UNAMID.

"If no appropriate offers for these missing units are identified by early 2008, it may become necessary to revert to the Council to consider options to mitigate the lack of air mobility,” Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Marie Guéhenno told IRIN. “This may require an increase in troops. But more troops will not 'replace' military aviation and they would also require more logistic support, more land, more water, and would likely not appear in Darfur until late 2008. Another sub-optimal last-resort measure would be to 'borrow' these capabilities from other missions."

He said that despite sincere efforts by the UN to address Sudanese concerns about the composition of the force, which is supposed to be predominantly African, the Government is yet to approve units from Thailand, Nepal and Scandinavia.

The Government has also not facilitated the acquisition of land and flight operations rights for UN aircraft, impeding the ability of UNAMID to carry out its mandate, while some of its proposals for the status of forces agreement with the UN "would make it impossible for the mission to operate."

Mr. Guéhenno said that unless these sorts of problems are resolved, the international community - which agreed at the end of July to authorize the deployment of UNAMID to quell four years of fighting and suffering that has killed more than 200,000 people and displaced at least 2.2 million others - may soon face a hard choice.

"Do we move ahead with the deployment of a force that will not make a difference, that will not have the capability to defend itself, and that carries the risk of humiliation of the Security Council and the United Nations, and tragic failure for the people of Darfur?"

The case of the missing Darfur refugees

I swear I had a lot of interesting and incisive things to say about the strange and sad story of L’Arche de Zoé and its attempts to provide safe white homes, er, medical treatment to more than a hundred orphans, er, children from Darfur, er, Chad.

You get my point.

At this moment, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy has met with his Chadian counterpart Idriss Deby and secured the release of three French journalists and four Spanish flight attendants. Three members of the flight crew, four Chadians and an elderly Belgian pilot remain in custody. As do all six members of the group L’Arche de Zoé, who will most likely will be charged with extortion and kidnapping. According to the Guardian, if convicted, they could face long sentences of forced labor. (IRIN points out that Chad does not have a law against child trafficking, which may complicate the case.)

It’s been more than a week since the story broke. Journalists are now on hand and just starting to piece together the interweaving narratives behind L’Arche de Zoé and the case of the missing Darfur refugees.

Here is what I can piece together. Members of the French NGO L’Arche de Zoé told approximately 50 French and Belgium families that the NGO was working on a humanitarian mission to save children from the ravages of the war in Darfur. The Belgian and French families were going to house the children and apparently ponied up good cash for that right. However, the families first told investigators that L’Arche de Zoé had brought the kids merely for medical treatment. The kids were just going to stay with them while they received that treatment.

UNICEF claims the kids weren’t sick and the group pointed out they weren’t orphans, either.

Finally, members of the French NGO informed the children’s parents the group would be providing schooling for their children at a project site somewhere else in Chad. The parents claimed they had no knowledge their children would be flown out of the country into presumably nice homes in what I picture to be a cozy existence in suburban France and Belgium.

The French government claimed no part in the case, although in August the French Foreign Ministry released a warning on L’Arche de Zoé, claiming there was no guarantee the children were orphans.

The humanitarianist manifesto
What we have is an overzealous NGO whose officers gravely overstepped their authority (and common sense) and decided to rescue these orphans from the ravages of war – even though it appears these children (who weren’t orphans) didn’t face the ravages of war. It appears that war, these days, can be tricky. So can humanitarianism.

One could be snarky and point out the case provides a perfect example of how westerners view Africa and its problems: Totally unsolvable without the intervention of well intentioned people just like me. They say it’s this savior attitude that lands a lot of people in trouble with the Nigerian 411 email scams. (But it also may be their gift at spinning juicy tales.)

Truth be told, I began worrying about the “adoption as development” scenario when hearing of the cases of Angelina Jolie and Madonna spiriting young children out of African countries and into their well stocked homes. I remember reading on a sports blog that adopting children from low-income countries is not only good for your family in a growing and loving sense, but it takes away a child from the harsh realities of poverty. (Don’t ask me what this had to do with on-base percentage, but I submit this as evidence that “rescues” like this is a commonly held idea.)

Instead of lecturing the blog writer, I’ll leave that to the friendly types at the Catholic Reporter:

The challenge of constructing coherent, balanced and sustainable development practices for Africa cannot be met by random involvement by Westerners, whether they are celebrities, high-profile politicians or ordinary people. Such approaches are attempts to respond to crises that result from the failure by Africans and the international community to evolve long-term development policy and programs. These interventionist approaches address symptoms while ignoring root causes.

Word.

The thing about Africans is they know perfectly well when they are being screwed – and when they are being taken advantage of. (It’s rarely the same thing.) And the baby adoption racket is an example of being taken advantage of.

Today, it’s still difficult to adopt babies in most African countries. One of the reasons, I surmise, is that governments would like to cut down on the number of babies being what they term “sold” on the international market. White people will stop at nothing from taking what they think is rightfully theirs, the thinking most likely goes, and protecting naïve families from themselves (and the cash of white folks) is the job of a caring government. (Now, if we could just get them to make those damn horse races illegal.)

In Muslim countries (like Chad), adoption to westerners is not even considered. In fact, in Islam, adoption in general is mostly looked down upon. According to S. Abdullah Tariq, here’s why:

Adoption of a child neither changes his blood group, nor his genes and DNA. It means nature does not allow the change of parentage of a person and Islam is the Religion of Nature...

Today we can trace the lineage of a person to particular family even after an interval of centuries on the basis of DNA test. An adopted child can only be traced to his true ancestry and not to the artificial progenitors. Nature rejects the false relationships while retaining in its record the true blood relationships...

The immediate damage of an adoption could be felt by the rightful owners of the inheritance, causing enmity in the family. The adopted child is prohibited from marrying some of those whom he has a right to marry. With the development of anthropology, today more than at any time in the past, we are families and races. Adoption is a false linkage in this process.

Yet, he points out that in Islam, the system of adoption can be justified – for two basic reasons:

An adopted child fills the vacuum in the life of a couple and an unprotected orphan receives the love and protection of his new parents. As far as childless couples are concerned, Islam does not stop them from acquiring an unprotected child and providing him with material and emotional support. But the fact remains that neither 'Nature' nor 'The Religion of Nature' i.e. Islam will accept the adopted child as their true descendant.

But let’s get back to the getting screwed/being taking advantage of dichotomy. As the Dark Angel of West Africa, Lydia Polgreen, put it:

The current episode has a particular sting because Europe has been writing increasingly stringent rules to keep Africans from migrating there, culminating most recently in a new French law that in some cases requires DNA testing to get visas for family members. Taking a planeload of children away in secret while thousands of Africans drown in the Atlantic seeking to migrate to Spain strikes many Africans as hypocritical.

File that under Africans understanding when they are getting screwed.

Take two
All I have to humbly add is that in Africa the definition of orphan is different. From countries I know and claim to understand, children who lose either parent is considered an orphan. This also applies to young adults. For women who die in childbirth, the infant is usually placed in an orphanage for up to a year until the father can take care of the baby. For older children, relatives may be asked to help…but they are often also given time to prepare.

What is so foreign about these traditions is that family bonds appear to be much stronger in Africa. And families are much larger. Most of Africa’s population is predominately rural. Because families in rural areas often live together in the same courtyard, aunts and female cousins can easily step in and care for children if mom is busy.

On the other hand, it’s not uncommon for teenagers (and younger) to leave home for schooling or to find work in a city. In most cases, family bonds still remain strong with these émigrés, but I surely can’t speak for every person in every situation. People will undoubtedly bring up the ravages of AIDS unraveling families or the global flotsam of workers with no possibility of returning home, but most people are tightly bound to their families through occasional trips home, functions like weddings and remittances.

Let’s make a deal
Of course, this doesn’t answer anything about the case of the orphans of Darfur. These kids, mostly between three- and five-years old, were much too young to leave home, it seems; even for free schooling. Who knows what sort of negotiations between the families and the French NGO really went on in those courtyards?

What about the NGO workers? I’ll go back to the point with the email scams. You can’t get caught in the web of so-called Nigerian 411 scammers unless you believe you can help some African out of a jam. Oh, and if you’re greedy. But where is the line drawn between altruism and avarice?

So where does this put us with Africa? Well, not everyone would invite a Darfur refugee into their homes. And few people would try to fly refugees out of Chad. But none of us has any problems getting misty eyed over the poor, sorry continent. Nor do Western NGOs have any shame in pimping this guilt.

I have a suggestion. Next time you’re down about the state of Africa, please think about my uncle, who works as an accounts manager of Abbey National PLC, and has an irresistible business proposition:

On December 12th, 2001, a German contractor with the British Pertroleum co-orporation, United Kingdom ,Mr. Olaf Partetzke made a numbered time (Fixed) Deposit for twelve calendar months, valued at US$ 17,350,000.00 (Seventeen Million Three Hundred Hundred and fifty Thousand Dollars only) in my branch.

Upon maturity, I sent a routine notification to his forwarding address but got no reply. After a month, we sent a reminder and finally we discovered from his contract employers, the British Pertroleum co-orporation that Mr.Olaf Partetzke died from an Automobile accident further investigation,

I found out that he died without making a WILL, and all attempts to trace his next of kin was fruitless.

Late: Darfur talks postponed

Sorry, wrote this up yesterday and forgot to file.

Two rebel factions continuing to boycott and Sudan still putting a full court press on the proposed deployment of a 26,000 African Union peacekeeping force forced UN lead mediator to postpone talks on Darfur for three weeks.

"Only after that period ... of approximately three weeks, will we go into substantial negotiations," Mr. Eliasson told the Associated Press on Sunday.

Another chapter for Darfur

Sometimes it's hard to believe that Lydia Polgreen and I live on the same continent. The stories from this New York Times reporter based out of Dakar has always appeared hell bent to prove that in in West Africa the glass is half full. This may say more about her choice in story assignments than her intellectual bent. If there's a war, any sundry tragedy, an airplane crash, she's usually one of the first American reporters filing stories for her newspaper. In her defense, there is plenty of tragedy to go around a handful of West African countries: Nigeria, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea. Throw Sudan and its blood-stained region of Darfur, where most of her datelines appear, one must wonder if she's gunning for a spot in the Baghdad bureau. Throw out the Darfur stories and my question has always been: Isn't there more to life in West Africa than kidnappings and greedy warlords?

This week she deserves kudos for single handily dousing some of the high spirits accompanying the announcement of a giant underground lake found beneath the northern part of the Darfur region in Sudan. Researchers who found the lake – and some groups observing the Darfur crisis from afar, including the United Nations – argue that the crisis is built around environmental issues that could be rectified by this new bountiful water source.

Don’t bet on it, Polgreen says.

That hope is built upon an argument, advanced by a United Nations report released last month and an opinion article in The Washington Post by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, that environmental degradation and the symptoms of a warming planet are at the root of the Darfur crisis.

“There is a very strong link between land degradation, desertification and conflict in Darfur,” said the United Nations Environmental Program report, which noted that rainfall in northern Darfur has decreased by a third over the last 80 years. Exponential population growth and related environmental stress have created the conditions for conflicts to be triggered and sustained by political, tribal or ethnic differences,” the report said, adding that Darfur “can be considered a tragic example of the social breakdown that can result from ecological collapse.”

The idea that more water — unearthed through a thousand wells sunk into the underground lake — could neatly defuse the crisis is seductive. Messy African conflicts, from Congo to Liberia, from northern Uganda to Angola, have a way of defying all efforts to solve them.

Instead, they seem to become hopelessly more complex as they drag on, year after agonizing year. A scientific explanation for the problem (environmental degradation) along with a tidy technological solution (irrigation) gratifies the modern humanitarian impulse.

But the history of Sudan, a grim chronicle of civil war, famine, coups and despotism, gives ample reason to be skeptical.

Polgreen backs up her argument by skirting environmental issues and investigating the human roots of the Darfur crisis, taking readers through the bloody tour of Sudan’s colonial and post-colonial history. It's a wonderfully clear-eyed and educated analysis. As a reporter based in West Africa, she still relies too heavily on Western scholars in her work – no Africans were interviewed for this story that appeared in the Week in Review. I’d like to see her get a little more creative with her choice of story assignments, starting with visiting a few different countries and increasing her datelines in, say, Mali, Mauritania, Ghana and Burkina Faso.

Anyway, all this mucky-muck aside, Polgreen brings a healthy dose of reason to this issue.