Darfur: If not for humanity, how about for PR points?

I just can't get past why President Bush isn't doing more anything for Darfur. Forget for a moment (if possible) that we vowed not to stand on the sidelines of genocide after The Holocaust. And then vowed it again after Croatia. And Rwanda. Try to forget 400,000 dead, 2.5 million displaced.

Sorry, I can't forget that they're raping women. Nor can I begin to comprehend why anyone would rape 3 year-old girls.

But in this mid-term election period when Bush needs to hit House majority--and desperately needs all the approval ratings he can get--why not, from a pure PR play, is he not helping this helpless region? Not only to get some fanfare here at home but to save some much-needed international face, too?

Mr. Prez, isn't saving lives a "faith-based" initiative? (psst: when I asked God he affirmed we should help others. As did Mom). Here's a 30-second spot asking how history will judge us:

Likely you guys will tell me what I already know--that all our money and manpower is fighting the war on terror. I can't begin to imagine the terror that the people in Darfur are living with. Here's a couple sources where you can sign petitions, write the president and learn just how lucky we are to have the problems we do.

Update: Katie of "Get Shouty" has given us two more tremendous resources. Even better she gave great advice in saying..."don't wait to be told the right thing to do: YOU are a leader, YOU are creative." Here are two more links in addition to the ones above:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/sudan/activism.html
(this is seriously good- split into hours that you're willing to committ)

Ten things you can do right now:
http://www.genocideintervention.net/advocate/tenthings.php

More updates: Cam Beck of ChaosScenario kindly provided this list of resources (Cam, I'm sorry this took me a few days to post): http://www.darfurgenocide.org/learn.php#Movements

Comments

[Paul McEnany]

He won't do anything about it because it's not that great of an issue for him. By that, I mean, the people who know and care about Darfur, aren't exactly in the Bush camp, and never will be, no matter what he does over there.

Bush got to where he is by pandering to his base, and what his base seems to care about is gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell testing and censorship. Believe me, if he thought saving Darfur would get him some extra votes, we'd probably be there already.

[David Reich]

This is just one more instance of a totally misguided, uncaring and dangerous Presidency that this great nation is suffering through. Many of the mis-steps Bush and his pals have made on the global scene will haunt us and our children's generations long after Bush is gone. Helping do something effective in Darfur should be more than "P.R." -- it should be an example of what this country (and others) should do simply as fellow human beings.

Shame on our Government... and shame on the 49% that put these bad people into positions of leadership.

[CK]

Thanks Paul and David. No wonder I value both your friendships so much. I'm sick over what is occuring in Darfur--and baffled that Bush wouldn't take this prime opportunity to use his faith-based platform to show how much he cares for the value of life.

I want us to go in their because we're human. No question. But if I were advising Bush, I'd make the "business case" for him, too. Sometimes people listen to the self-serving business case.

David, I am concerned that we will be haunted by these mis-teps long after he's gone. Paul, it's so sad to think that we've exhausted so much time over gay marriage (illegal to love someone?) and stem cells (illegal to cure people?) when these are not the moral issues, Darfur is.

[David Armano]

We as a nation did not do enough during Rwanda, nor are we doing enough now with Darfur. I say we because it's up to all of us, not just Clinton back during Rwanda or Bush now. As a nation overflowing with obsene wealth we should do much, much more to help in these extreme situations.

Forget politics, the change can start with us. My wife and I have supported a severely imporverished girl from Haiti over the past 10 years. I've watched her grow up and go to school through pictures and letters. It's amazing how far a little goes
in places like this. Actually it's embarrasing.

Thank you for this post CK, because it's a reminder that I personally need to do more—time to look into it.

[Lewis Green]

CK,

Paul and David have it about right, I think. Darfur simply is not on the nation's radar, 1) because the media and politicians aren't putting it there, and 2) Africa just is not a continent that we pay much attention to, with the exception of Egypt and Libya.

If we want our leaders to pay attention to Darfur, we Americans must make lots of noise. I don't see that happening. Although quietly making individual contributions is to be honored, those contributions can never make up for international outcry.

Lewis

[CK]

David: You are spot-on...it's "we" that need to act. And your comment about it being embarassing that it's so easy really hit home. I'm very open to how we can better help besides giving $ and generating awareness. Please do send thoughts and I'll surely post and act on them.

Lewis: Yes, an outcry is needed. I'm grappling with this right now as I want to find out how to better get involved (sans petitions and donations). If you know of any rallies/etc. please let me know as I'd like to participate and post them here.

[Gavin Heaton]

CK this is excellent stuff ... thought provoking, personal and passionate -- and I have been thinking about this (and your Fix post) all day.
Sadly the criticisms you raise of President Bush can also be levelled at the Australian Prime Minister (though we have fewer resources to tackle the challenges). In Australia voting is compulsory ... so 100% of us vote -- and we get what we vote for ;(
But hey, you have mid-terms coming up!

[Katie Chatfield]

Thanks CK- this is all quite Shouty stuff.

I'd like to send a challenge:
If not you then who? If not now then when?
and another:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that the good do nothing.

I remember getting a simple text email from Eli Parsier early in 2002, and how much the call for calm and reason was needed. MoveOn is a great example of what happens when good people become accidental activists.

There is enormous power in getting really peeved. The challenge is to channel it into action. Aren't we all in the profession of influencing people to act through emotion to get them to do things? How about do something other than create a purchasing decision?

As David says (and shines in the doing) the rewards of making a difference are vast.

I'm involved in Embrace International- the great thing about giving is that the more you do the more you can do. I simply call it karma credits and hope that in some way the work I do for them counters my ad-slag debt.

Become the change you seek!

[CK]

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that the good do nothing."

Thanks Katie (good to see you here :-). Indeed this has been weighing on my mind/heart. Specifically, what can I do...how best to use what I have to make a difference?

Besides sending donations, what these groups are asking for are more people to lobby (more people making noise = more pressure on gov't to send relief efforts). Those two sites above have a lot of info. and campaigns.

If anyone knows of more, please share. I really appreciate everyone's feedback and ideas.

[Mack Collier]

And if Bush did anything for Dafur, his critics would say he needs to be spending that money at home. No President from either party is going to help a country such as Dafur unless doing so makes an economic impact on THIS country.

[CK]

Mack: Which is why I'm trying to build the "PR Points" argument...thinking if gov't can think it's in our best international favor, then maybe it will seem "worth it" to them to do what we all know we should be doing in the first place.

And heck, Bush is all about faith-based. I say God is calling. BIG time.

I may be grabbing at straws, but to make a business-case out of it may better encourage action. That and many people signing petitions--and volunteering/meeting up at the orgs that Katie (aka 'Shouty') suggested.

[SHDenny]

CK:

I'm stuck on this issue and don't have the answer, so hopefully you, your readers and maybe George Clooney can help me understand something.

Darfur is as bad a humanitarian disaster as exists on earth. What are we supposed to do about it?

The Sudanese, corrupt as they are, don't think they have a problem. They just threw out the UN Commissioner Jan Pronk (his blog is here: http://janpronk.nl/index120.html).

The President has his hands full with international conflicts in Afghanistan (hailed as a masterpiece by many watchers) and Iraq (not hailed as such); potential hot spots (Iran, NoKo); and the possibility of a new congress that will not only hinder our efforts but may just kill funding for the war on terror (Vietnam all over again). So what do we expect him to do?

A. Do we intervene and send US troops in to stop the fighting (Somalia)?
B. Do we send them in to stop the cause of the fighting, meaning overthrow the government in Khartoum (Iraq)?
C. Do we let the UN (please... hold the laughter for the punchline) send in troops to do either of the above?
D. Is it possible that this is an African problem that should be solved by Africans -- whether neighboring countries (Chad, anyone?) or regional powers (South Africa? Egypt? Nigeria? Never mind...)?

I still believe in the Woodrow Wilsonian view that American foreign policy is an extension of human morality. We aim to do the right thing. Stopping genocide in Darfur would be the right thing. So what -- exactly -- would the right game plan be? And who in the American political spectrum would support it?

[Cam Beck]

Realistically, Darfur isn't the only area replete with sectarian/tribal violence on the African continent over the last several decades. It just happens to be the one in fashion right now.

This is precisely the sort of thing the U.N. was formed to try and stop. Frankly, though, when you rely on an organization that encourages the participation and even leadership of notoriously brutal regimes for the protection of human rights, this is the sort of ineffectual result you're going to get. So much for keeping them at the bargaining table.

Sanctions have already been offered and the Security Council has been consulted, but the bloodshed continues. Were America to really do "all that is necessary" to protect the innocent IMMEDIATELY by "going at it alone" or even by forming a "coalition of the willing," I guarantee people would still be unhappy about it.

It's a no-win situation for America, and although coming from a family of Marines I can appreciate the quality of our servicemen and women, I seriously doubt America's military can be everywhere at once, against everyone at once, especially with real threats to American security in the form of the North Korean situation and the constant threat of China making a play for Taiwan.

Without outside provokation, the international community simply woudln't stand for another American military intervention -- even one for a cause such as this. Sadly for Darfur, it's the U.N. or bust.

[SHDenny]

Cam: yep, I think I agree -- it's either the UN or it's pan-African. I don't see how this thing goes, otherwise.

Paul McEnany, David Reich, David Armano, Katie Chatfield, Lewis, and CK -- not to put any/everyone on the spot here, but you've flamed the president for not doing *something*. What do YOU guys think is that *something*? What is a realistic American response?

I hate to communally thump us all on the back here, but I'd bet you that the best and brightest in our culture tend to gravitate to business, not politics. And we all know that marketers in general are smarter, better educated, and usually far better looking than our peers down the hall... so what do we smart people really think needs to happen?

[CK]

SHDenny & Cam: Many thanks for such thoughtful comments. Pardon my late reply, I've been traveling and unwired a lot lately.

I too am also very stuck on how we can move relief actions forward. It's looking like the U.N. route, but the efficacy of that initiative concerns me.

We do have the military occupying many regions so there are only so many resources, especially with so many risks that may require force (NoKo, Iran). Leaving it to the African nations concerns me as that has not prevailed to date--especially given that replacing one brutal regime with another is not the answer.

That 'something' that I'd like to see is the President and his cabinet reaching out to the international community to enact solutions and/or press on the U.N. for more action, and quickly. My post spoke to "PR points" because I'm trying to present a business case that works in the self-interest of the administration so as to incent more action...that's what my marketing brain thought might work. It's also an opportunity to bring the international community together (which is desperately needed).

It seems the way to move the President to make this more of a priority is to make more noise. So there are some "small things" we can do right now like signing up with the orgs I linked to in my post, writing letters to federal and state representatives and working to get more people to sign up (i.e. via blog posts). Surely these are small scale but, with enough support, they move to place more pressure on the issue...and might amount to getting that "something" done. I'm very open to more suggestions.

[SHDenny]

All:

Very interesting link here from the Coalition for Darfur blog from the US Asst Sec of State Jendayi Frazer:

http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2006/10/darfur-open-letter-to-american-people.html

Lots of detail on current involvement, a reliance to date on AMIS (African Union Mission in Sudan) and an acknowledgement of its shortcomings. Apparently, the African Union, too, is stretched to the breaking point.

I think this is the right place to put the enforcement issue and I think it's appropriate to look to other interested parties to play an appropriate role. This isn't an American Issue, but a World Issue.

At least this post gives us a good tempurature reading of where things are today.

[Cam Beck]

I recognize that the U.S. government seems a strong candidate to be a major force of change in Darfur because of its (seemingly) unending resources. And information gets spread so quickly around the Internet that it seems logical that with influential bloggers creating buzz, the government has no choice but to follow our collective decree.

But the fact of the matter is that government doesn't respond without a compelling reason to do so -- one that is directly tied to either electoral victory or any U.S. "interest" (in which order these are addressed, it depends on the politician). The Internet can serve as a powerful rallying and organizational tool, but money still seems to be the way to get things done.

That leaves us with several choices. We can pool our resources to buy influence in any number of governments in order to motivate them to act in a way we want them to act, but then we risk being corrupted by the influence we're peddling. The growth rate of lobbying organizations and the corruption that has run in them for generations -- even for "noble" causes -- should demonstrate this to be true.

Or we can invest our time and money in the NGOs who are already on the ground in Darfur and elsewhere, seeking to make a tangible difference in the lives of the people at risk. This sometimes helps remove them from the problem, and other times it helps strike the problem at its source.

Here is a pretty good list of organizations already trying to help: http://www.darfurgenocide.org/learn.php#Movements

Please add any you find.

[Dave]

Before you guys keep jumping into the mindless sea of pity to help those who need it, please read the following blog. http:\\real-dave.blogspot.com . You all are quite informed, and I do not doubt your intelligence, but this is Somalia number two. While in Somalia the death toll is a little lower then it was in 92, it is a lot more then it would have been had we just kept our nose out.
For every argument you all are making to send aid to Dar-fur, I could pull out a news clipping on Somalia that says darn near word for word the same thing.
Now let me pose this situation to you. - The UN and the African Union both jumped in to stop this madness (and that is what Dar-fur is going through sadly enough). The reason they ask our help, and are encouraging us to do so, is that they have made little progress on their own.
It is true we can get there, kick ass and take names,but then what? Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan are prime examples of what happens when we jump in. And yes- we are still in all three. In some cases, over 10 years later.
So let me ask you this- Let's say we go to Dar-fur, and oust the rebels. Just like in Iraq, they do not fight fair, and would seriously draw it out, making the casualty rate continue to pile up. Eventually, our technology, numbers, and determination will prevail. But at what cost?
Also, please keep in mind that this so called 'genocide' is not truly that either. You see Dar-fur is made up of several peoples who live in other places then just Dar-fur. Therefore, a genocide it would not be if their numbers were wiped out in Dar-fur.
Now, how much more do you think will die, if we get involved? You see, recently I lost a good friend in Iraq. A good man, and a good father. How many more mothers do you want to give condolences to? Also, do you honestly believe condolences mean anything to an orphaned family?
The US is going through alot of this right now, and needs to recover before we go out into another Somalia.
Thanks for your time,

Dave