The Brown Darfur Action Network

The Darfur tragedy has gutted the Washingtonian isolationist imperative. The allowance of genocide by states with the means to prevent it has become tantamount to complicity in that heinous act – for good reason. As national indignation grows over the Darfur insult, Brown’s Darfur Action Network finds itself a part of a wave that has yet to crest. The group has, through mindful leadership, tactfully avoided entangling ideological debates in its voyage to deliver the Darfuris to the shores of freedom.

The voyage has been difficult. The death toll of the conflict stands, as of this writing, at 400,000, with an estimated 2 million displaced. A massive region is being systematically cleansed of non-Arabs by the government-backed Janjaweed, resulting in one of the worst racially-based atrocities in human history. The 7,000 African Union forces stationed in Darfur (currently the only semblance of a multilateral force) are predictably ill-equipped and ineffective, without a mandate to protect civilians. While there has been a recent lull in the violence, it is highly likely the Sudanese government will slash again at the throat of the Darfuri people.

The international community has closed its eyes whilst Darfuri blood is splattered in their faces. The United Nations has yet to even declare the conflict to be genocide — a disgusting display of appeasement characteristic of that body. Individual nations have different reasons for inaction: the United States is militarily overstretched as it is, the Western Europeans are apathetic, and Russia and China nakedly pursue their own oil interests in Sudan while weakly arguing for the sovereignty of the Sudanese government.

The United States is the only significant Western nation to have any kind of Darfur anti-genocide movement, and it can be best described as “embryonic.” Public outrage over the atrocities has manifested itself in the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, signed into law in October 2006. The Bush Administration made a distinction the international community was afraid to make, openly calling the conflict “genocide” and suggesting the expansion of the African Union forces’ mandate. Awareness of the situation is spreading, thanks to the attachment of high profile celebrities such as George Clooney to the Darfuri cause, as well as a dedicated group of student activists.

Scott Warren ’09 is one of those. Scott has been directly involved with the Darfur anti-genocide effort for two and a half years in one capacity or another. Having worked with STAND – A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition – he decided to use his experience to found the Brown incarnation of STAND, the Darfur Action Network (DAN). While Scott is the acknowledged President of this group, meetings are often presided over by others in a rotating fashion intended to emphasize the primacy of the cause over position. This approach, or perhaps the dedication of the group’s members, has produced a flurry of anti-genocide activities and events, notably the Afrobeat benefit last semester.

The political makeup of DAN members is reportedly quite progressive — though this is a reflection of the Brown student body, and little else. This progressiveness becomes problematic, however, when the technicalities of the Darfur genocide issue are discussed. For instance, should Brown’s group support the creation of a so-called Chapter 7 UN force (with authority to shoot to kill) to intervene in Darfur? Or is this, in light of the current blockage of the approved 20,000 UN troops by the Sudanese government, a course that will yield few results? Should DAN then support US-dominated NATO in a multilateral intervention in the region? And what of the fact that neighboring states as well as the Sudanese government itself will see the employment of any force, be it unilateral or multilateral, as an unacceptable infringement of Sudanese sovereignty? What is the best way to draw the international community to the cause: do you spur them into acting, or shame them?

While STAND, DAN’s umbrella organization, has clear answers to these questions, the Brown group does not. STAND supports whatever it takes to end the genocide, including the possibility of a NATO force. It considers concerns over Sudanese sovereignty unfounded and irrelevant, arguing that in taking up reins of terror, the Sudanese government has forfeited its sovereignty in the eyes of humanity. Warren’s group, facing great intra-organization differences in opinion as to the best course of action, has decided to focus on the cause and not the solution. In its letter-writing campaigns, it is stressed that the Brown organization desires a strong peacekeeping force, but no mention is given as to how that will come about.

The Spectator sat down with another dedicated member of the group, Eliza Sweren-Becker ’09, to get an idea of the opinion differences present. Sweren-Becker, like STAND, favors a multilateral solution to the conflict. But unlike STAND, she would not support a NATO force to intervene in Sudan, citing simmering political concerns associated with the invasion of a force so closely identified with the US. She refused to label the selfish actions of Russia and China, which have blocked meaningful intervention in Darfur, as evil. Rather, she characterized those nation’s misdeeds as “morally wrong” from a personal perspective but hesitated at the thought of considering such acts as objectively wrong. She believes that Sudan, in supporting the Janjaweed, is complicit in genocide and as such has forfeited “some of its sovereignty.” But from the conversation it was totally unclear what degree of sovereignty has been lost, as Sweren-Becker still voiced respect for the very UN sovereignty veneration which has engendered so much legal wrangling, making it impossible for the UN to deploy a recently approved 17,300 strong peacekeeping force in the region.

That peacekeeping force represented the greatest hope so far for peace and stability for the Darfuris still standing. It was squashed by the agitated baying of a tyrannical state, telling the elder wolves that it has the right to destroy its own nest. When any law, no matter how perfect its conception, in its effect violently hurls back human progress, that law is unsupportable. Furthermore, if there is little chance of the law being changed, then each man and woman has the moral right to rise up and depose their oppressors. Hence, every nation on Earth has not only the right, but the obligation to openly flout UN sovereignty laws which have prevented decisive action in Darfur. An aggressive stance against genocide will anger neighboring states, but their concerns are by nature invalid, as acting upon them will perpetuate human suffering. No nation should ever apologize for an anti-genocide stance; the perpetrators of such terrorizing acts certainly never will. Sweren-Becker goes too far in her efforts to accommodate the desires of other states; nations run by thugs are and always will be persuaded only by force.

Sweren-Becker’s reticence to take a firm grasp on morality is common in DAN, and this is precisely the reason why President Warren’s strategy of leaving solutions “up in the air” is well-conceived, especially in the movement’s early stages. Any attempt to take a serious stand on a remedy for the Darfur situation would critically weaken the Brown group at this important time in the movement’s existence. Taking a firm stand now would likely cause much of the support of the Brown student body to evaporate, as many, such as Sweren-Becker, are opposed to NATO intervention, while many are not. Many would support the denouncement of China and Russia, while others would see this as undiplomatic and counterproductive.

The Darfur movement is nationally at the “identification” stage in its life cycle – the focus now is on informing the public of the existence of the genocide. Like the American Civil Rights Movement and countless other historical struggles, public knowledge will breed public outrage. As the outrage grows and the importance of national organizations like STAND with it, factions will emerge that propose specific ways to stop the fighting. STAND already has a “solution package,” though I would guess from its allowance of serious differences of opinion from local groups such as Brown’s that they are willing to be persuaded in their convictions. The situation will be different in the future; at the height of the movement, one faction or another will win out with its vision for resolving the conflict. The Darfur genocide must end now. That much can be agreed upon throughout the political continuum, and it is what Brown’s Darfur Action Network has correctly emphasized. Warren, Sweren-Becker, and the rest of the group have thrown their collective effort into informing the public of this catastrophe, and deserve a great deal of the moral credit if and when it is stopped.