Let Your Voice Be Heard

I went to go see a guy named John Prendergast this week. He's an activist, currently with ENOUGH Project, whose mission is to "prevent genocide and mass atrocities by promoting Peace, providing Protection, and Punishing the perpetrators". He's currently part of the Darfur activism movement, considered one of the leading experts in the field, and just co-authored a book with Don Cheadle (Hotel Rwanda) on the subject. In the mid 1990s he was an adviser to the White House and the State Department, later serving as a Senior Adviser at the International Crisis Group and was an electoral observer recently in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda.

It was a good presentation, introduced by the speaker of Colorado's legislature (himself a fabulous public speaker, sponsored CO's divestment bill). He discussed the crisis, why nothing or very little has been done, how important the activist community is and what we have left to do.

But despite his experience and his high profile, it was a speech I'd heard three or four or more times over now. It seems to always be the same, occasionally accompanied by graphic images (Brian Steidle's presentation a few years back being what got me into Darfur activism to start with) or harrowing personal accounts (such as the stories of the Southern Sudanese "Lost boys" who often speak at such events, or Paul Rusesabagina's presentation also a few years back).


www.americaabroadmedia.org/programs.html
I found I wanted a more critical look. It's not enough to tell me about the crisis, of mothers who must watch their children die or of orphans and refugees, and IDPs. It is also no longer a secret that China constitutes or is responsible for many of the obstructions that have prevented peacekeeping forces from intervening or SC resolutions from being passed. I am interested in comparing the genocide in Darfur with the genocides in Rwanda, or Kosovo, or Armenia--what the international community has done (or not) to hinder or resolve further violence. I want seemingly cold-hearted Realpolitik issue addressed as well, as to how and why we should be involved--even though I would consider the violence taking place to constitute a moral imperative.

What I found interesting were his three Ps, his suggestions for dealing with this crisis: Peacemaking, protection, and punishment. The middle one is obvious, and fits well with most UN peackeeping mission mandates, insofar as those peacekeepers are allowed to defend with force (though arguably their presence alone in Rwanda was enough to mitigate the violence in many siuations). The former suggestion is far too complex to even begin to be adequately addressed within the context of an hour-long presentation and is in fact the subject of many books, several of which are (as yet unread) on my bookshelf. But it's complicated, and depending on where you think the conflict started and why (is this an ethnic conflict? Is there even such a thing--as some scholars discount? Is this economic, or religious, or political, or or or?). This area also includes, in the words of our fear(clue)less leader, "winning hearts and minds", somehow negotiating and implementing a peace process, and rebuilding institutions. Not just easy as pie, and though it sounds nice as a soundbyte, it may or may not be possible.

It was his last P, punishment, which particularly interested me. The theory behind the Truth and Reconciliation Tribunals in South Africa was not retributive justice, but rather restorative justice, exchanging amnesty for the truth. While the aggregious and gruesome violence found in other parts of africa (you do not even want to imagine the violence of the LRA in Uganda or the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) of Sierra Leone, but there are plenty of pictures of people learning to live without hands, ears, or other body parts if you are interested) is such that, in my opinion, there should be no amnesty. But that aside, threatening punishment can deter rebels from peace talks, leading to a prolonged conflict and more death.

I don't know what the "right answer" is, or where to draw the boundaries of justice, nor whose conception of it we should respect. Ending the conflict should be the first goal, preventing resumption of violence the second, and punishing the perpetrators (or at the very least, preventing them from committing these crimes again) should be the third priorit. Given how infrequently and under which difficulties peace agreements are signed, combined with the high occurance of "relapses"--all of which is only too well known to Mr. Prendergast--I should think his third P should be 'prevention', so that Sudan doesn't turn into the DRC.