damanga responds to arlene getz' article

July 08, 2008

         Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy was astonished by the article in Newsweek by Arlene Getz entitled “Do-Gooders Gone Bad”. In this article, Ms. Getz made the claim that the issue in Darfur has affected the CPA by hampering the sources that should go to the South of Sudan. Besides this flagrant statement, she has also indicates that by bringing the issue of Darfur “into people’s living rooms”, Darfur activists have done more harm than good.

       In relation to the first issue, to say that the aid going to Darfur has affected the CPA is unfair. First and foremost, while the CPA was progressing, the region of Darfur was entirely excluded when it is common knowledge that Darfur is part of Sudan. Ms. Getz, along with Mr. Alex de Waal (who seems to be of similar mind on this issue), should stand to ask themselves this simple question: why was Darfur so blatantly neglected at this time? Answer that question first and then consider why, now that the CPA is failing, there is no hesitation in using this neglected region as a scapegoat.
As for the second issue, Darfur has been ‘brought into living rooms’ so to speak, by those who are concerned. These are the people who feel that the issue of Darfur in not only an issue specific to one region, but as an issue of humanity which they have a responsibility to amend. They are attempting not only to bring this issue into the living rooms of the public, but to bring it into their hearts as well. These activists are heroes to the people of Darfur.
       

         What is happening in Darfur is genocide, and it is the only genocide thus far in the 21st century. This genocide has remained unresolved as of yet because of the reluctance of the United Nations working in tandem with others, those writers who claim to be humanitarians, who are manipulating and undermining any progress that has been made. How can we even begin to look at other conflicts, such as the larger Sudan or the Congo, how can we look at larger pictures when, for 13 years the global population has not been able to end the ongoing crimes against humanity happening in Darfur. They still have not been able to hold those committing these crimes accountable, the global community and international organizations clearly do not yet have the necessary credibility to get things done effectively, even on a small scale. It thus seems illogically ambitious to try anything larger. Is it not better to focus on one issue first? To eliminate that with an effective strategy that can then be applied in tackling other issues with renewed force and motivation?
     

          It would be unfair to automatically assume sabotage; however, the language Ms. Getz applies does seem to suggest a diversion that could redirect the attention of the world with a decoy while the genocide in Darfur continues to rage on. Clearly Ms. Getz is a logical thinker; her argument is well thought out and put together, however it is a shame that such a brilliant mind could not be redirected to something more proactive, such as using that same logic practiced in her Newsweek article to encourage the United Nations to send the promised 26,000 peacekeepers into Darfur.

         Solutions that the people of Darfur have been waiting for, to them, seem just barely out of reach yet almost close enough to touch. I would like to ask Ms. Getz if she could be insensitive enough to explain to those people why she believes the greater global community should redirect their aid and attention. That, it would seem, is something that no one with a heart or conscience could do. In conclusion, it is only logical to look at things from various perspectives and to explore alternative routes of action, but it might be more prudent, before tearing down a method already in effect, to have a new one ready to take its place so as not to stop progress all together, because lack of forward motion is the very last thing our world needs.