Politics/Work/Sorry
Today Deborah Dwork asked me if I thought the ICC had acted imprudently, considering the impact the arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al Bashir has had on the ground in Darfur - the Sudanese government promptly expelled 13 international NGOs and dissolved 3 Sudanese NGOs that were crucial for distributing much needed aid to over 1 million people.
My answer was no.
There was no credible peace process, people were dying slowly as it was, their government long ago having abdicated - and in fact flagrantly violated - its responsibility to protect them. Am I horrified that now people might die more quickly? Yes. Do I think the status quo was ok, and that it was worth it to continue letting the Sudanese government act with impunity? NO.
In our discussion Deborah mentioned that the debate over whether or not to respond to Sudan vigorously reminded her of the Holocaust. I mentioned something about American Jews being unwilling to protest, or to call for the train tracks to Auschwitz to be bombed for fear of even more reprisals against the Jews by the Nazi regime.
Deborah reminded me that it wasn’t the train tracks European Jewry wanted bombed. Train tracks could be repaired. Rather, there’s a lot of testimony from Auschwitz inmates who tried to get the message out to their supporters: “just bomb us.”
They were telling the international community that they were dying a slow death anyway - so they were willing to accept a quick death, in exchange for the Nazi regime being unable to inflict the same damage on anyone else (at least in Auschwitz). Destruction of Auschwitz - though it meant a certain and much more imminent death - would be a powerful signal to the Nazi regime that the world knew what it was doing, and was unwilling to stand idly by. For the inmates, their lives were their last card, and they were laying it on the table to be played.
The international community never played it, and the killings continued.
In the Kalma and Kass camps in Darfur, tens of thousands of internally displaced people are refusing Sudanese government aid in the absence of international NGOs. First, they don’t trust the government - which for over 6 years has been actively seeking their destruction. But more importantly, they are unwilling to act as pawns for the Sudanese government, unwilling to be an example of how the government can and does take care of its own people (with the implication that, therefore, the international community should just back off).
From the Los Angeles Times yesterday: "We want the international (aid groups) back," said Ali Abdel Khaman Tahir, the chief sheik at Kalma, speaking by telephone because the government refused to give journalists access to the camp, which is on the edge of Nyala, the capital of Southern Darfur province.
"If we allow them to distribute the food, then the government will be able to say to the world that everything is OK in Kalma," said Mubarak Shafi, a camp activist. "We want all the other problems solved first."
I think the Darfuri people in Kalma/Kass are laying down their last cards. Are we going to play it for them?
My answer was no.
There was no credible peace process, people were dying slowly as it was, their government long ago having abdicated - and in fact flagrantly violated - its responsibility to protect them. Am I horrified that now people might die more quickly? Yes. Do I think the status quo was ok, and that it was worth it to continue letting the Sudanese government act with impunity? NO.
In our discussion Deborah mentioned that the debate over whether or not to respond to Sudan vigorously reminded her of the Holocaust. I mentioned something about American Jews being unwilling to protest, or to call for the train tracks to Auschwitz to be bombed for fear of even more reprisals against the Jews by the Nazi regime.
Deborah reminded me that it wasn’t the train tracks European Jewry wanted bombed. Train tracks could be repaired. Rather, there’s a lot of testimony from Auschwitz inmates who tried to get the message out to their supporters: “just bomb us.”
They were telling the international community that they were dying a slow death anyway - so they were willing to accept a quick death, in exchange for the Nazi regime being unable to inflict the same damage on anyone else (at least in Auschwitz). Destruction of Auschwitz - though it meant a certain and much more imminent death - would be a powerful signal to the Nazi regime that the world knew what it was doing, and was unwilling to stand idly by. For the inmates, their lives were their last card, and they were laying it on the table to be played.
The international community never played it, and the killings continued.
In the Kalma and Kass camps in Darfur, tens of thousands of internally displaced people are refusing Sudanese government aid in the absence of international NGOs. First, they don’t trust the government - which for over 6 years has been actively seeking their destruction. But more importantly, they are unwilling to act as pawns for the Sudanese government, unwilling to be an example of how the government can and does take care of its own people (with the implication that, therefore, the international community should just back off).
From the Los Angeles Times yesterday: "We want the international (aid groups) back," said Ali Abdel Khaman Tahir, the chief sheik at Kalma, speaking by telephone because the government refused to give journalists access to the camp, which is on the edge of Nyala, the capital of Southern Darfur province.
"If we allow them to distribute the food, then the government will be able to say to the world that everything is OK in Kalma," said Mubarak Shafi, a camp activist. "We want all the other problems solved first."
I think the Darfuri people in Kalma/Kass are laying down their last cards. Are we going to play it for them?