dontdrinkthewater

Endgame in Darfur?

2007-08-21T16:39:00.000-07:00

The British newspaper The Independent reported on the 14^th of July, that the Sudanese government is moving Arab settlers, mostly from North African states, into areas depopulated by the fighting in Darfur. To top this off, Sudanese President Omar Bashir said in a speech in El Fasher on the 22ed of July that “During our visit we confirmed that most of Darfur is now secure and enjoying real peace” showing that the government believes it has achieved its war aims.

The Independent story explained that the UN has reported upwards of ‘30,000 Arabs have crossed the border in the past two months.’ The article continues to explain that these Arabs look to be in Darfur as settlers since they arrived with belongings and herds of sheep, goats and other animals. According to the story the Arab settlers ‘were greeted by Sudanese Arabs who took them to empty villages cleared by government and janjaweed forces.’

It appears as well that this resettlement appears to have been well coordinated. The story reports that a diplomat interviewed suggested that this may be an attempt by President Bashir to bring in new support in anticipation of the election in two years, the first since he seized power in a coup in 1989. In the election Bashir’s ruling party and his seat as President will certainly face stiff competition with many anticipating a minority government situation maybe even the defeat of the current ruling National Congress Party all together.

These events reinforce the endgame scenario that seems clear to have been the case for some time now. It is evidence that the war phase in Khartoum’s plans for Darfur is over. The government has achieved its war aims and now a new phase in the socio-economic reconstruction of the country is beginning.

As the UN and the rest of the world continue to act as if events in Darfur are a breaking crisis the government is cleaning up from its victory in Darfur. The UN and the rest of the world, at least those who cared at all anyway, have been played by the Sudanese governments like a fiddle. It seems once again, the humanitarian international has been complicit in this kind of socio-economic reconstruction, as has been seen in the past the Balkans and elsewhere. By facilitating the amassing of displaced in camps around the few major centers in Darfur the plan to urbanize the Darfurian population seems to have succeeded. Now with the new nomadic residents being brought in to occupy the space left by the displaced the government can maintain control of the rural hinterland and gain a control over the Darfurians who were up until recently quite independent from the central authorities.

Many have missed the apparent war aims of the central government in Darfur. As with most wars it was about control. Control over a group of people who did not require the government in any way has long been what Khartoum desired. With many internal enemies the Darfurians were a variable that the traditional elite in Khartoum could no longer allow as growing dissatisfaction in the West and the East threatened to combine with that of the Southerners which would certainly oust those currently in power. Now huddling in their refugee camps, relying on relief assistance to bolster the meager incomes they gain from the few labor jobs in the major towns they now inhabit the Darfurians are effectively reliant on the system that will keep the current powers in Khartoum in their plush thrones.

To top it off the masses of displaced persons are also now in a situation where they are rendered customers of the overpriced, poor quality goods of the mercantile elite from Khartoum, who are all linked with the Army. The merchants made fortunes selling the stolen wealth of the Darfurians and are now making even more by selling them basic items such as flour, soap, etc. Products that the self reliant people in Darfur never needed to buy as they found sufficiency in their village lifestyles. It was the independence that this lifestyle allowed that the government felt the need to destroy.

One of two scenarios seems plausible considering the recent reports of the Arab settlers being moved into Darfur. Either the government will secure its war aims and cement control over Darfur with the support of the nomadic groups to keep the Darfurians huddled, dependent in the camps and urban sprawls. Or, somehow, someway either through the upcoming elections or though continued violent uprising (with or without the support of the SPLA/M in the South), the Darfurians will be able to resist the oppressive designs of the Mercantalist, Arab elite in Khartoum. Unfortunately, it seems the endgame is in sight with Khartoum able to rebuild part of Sudan to reflect the socio-economic structure they desire.

Recent events it seems have revealed what the war in Darfur has been about and also how, yet again, the international community responded with an urgency that allowed a response, just in time for the crisis to be over, just as the government predicted it seems.

The Genocide Olympics

2007-08-21T16:24:00.000-07:00

In the July 23^rd edition of the Boston Globe there was an article by two Harvard academics about why China’s role in Sudan was not negative. I could not believe what I read. The absurd article is below. Here are but a few points in response to the frustrating article ‘China’s Delicate Role on Darfur’. Unlike the two Harvard writers I think the term Genocide Olympics is quite appropriate and also think countries who are concerned about what is going on in Africa should be boycotting them. This article made me wonder who Harvard is hiring these days; no wonder Princeton beat them out in the rankings this year.

1. Beijing's limp efforts on Darfur are actually the result of Western persuasion/pressure. China's deep involvement in Sudan began in 2000. Half of China's African investment ($6 billion of $12 billion) is in Sudan, but Chinese diplomacy on the Darfur issue only began in response to the Western crescendo. The only reason they care is because we care. The issue is embarrassing to them.

2. Beijing's humanitarian/development aid in Darfur amounts to little compared with its total investment in Sudan, or to the humanitarian aid of Western countries with much smaller economies. An indication of the true motives of Beijing is their reported purchase of a yacht for Bashir worth more than a million.

3. If China’s strategy in Sudan is as Qian and Wu propose, “humanitarian and development plus influence without interference” than it is one that has been widely discredited. It is well accepted that palliative humanitarian relief with no substantive political action can lead to more harm than good.

4. And the Question isn't merely one of China's influence over the Bashir regime - an influence which is no doubt overstated by Western activists. China directly contributes to the violence in Darfur through its arms sales to Sudan. Chinese guns, ammo and aircraft sustain the Sudanese army in Darfur, despite a UN arms embargo.

5. The South Africa red herring is telling. US policy, tied as it is to popular participation (consent of the governed, democracy, etc), evolves and shifts from administration to administration. ``Constructive engagement'' with apartheid South Africa was repudiated by the US Congress and the American people. Such developments are as inconceivable in China today as they are in Bashir's Sudan - and were in apartheid South Africa. The United States today is South Africa's biggest ally.

6. The authors comment, “China’s approach toward the Darfur crisis takes the long view.” If this is the case then the strategy is exactly what the government in Khartoum are looking for. By the time China’s approach has any impact the government will have effectively restructured the socio-economic reality in Darfur; if they haven’t already succeeded at this by forcing so many into exile or IDP camps surrounding urban centers.

7. Apparently, according to the authors, ‘the root causes of the turmoil’ in Darfur are ‘poverty and a lack of resources, which has lead to decades of fighting between local tribes and ethnic groups over basic necessities, such as water resources, land and infrastructure.’ While there is an element of truth here there is a major problem. And it is this element of truth that is the problems. This analysis allows many to ignore the bigger issues at hand. Sure there has always been conflict between tribal groups over land use and so on. However, they rarely escalated beyond what the traditional authorities could quell. In Sudan, since independence, the real issue is the central authority’s abuse and oppression of all marginal communities, including those in the West, South and East.

7. The authors in typical apologist form move on to produce some very well orchestrated side stepping and blaming the West for a failure to do anything in Darfur; they even cite a World Bank economist to try and bring some air of credibility to their commentary.

8. China and her defenders will have to get used to the term ``Genocide Olympics.'' It is a perfect, if inaccurate, catchphrase and will resonate long after the games are complete. For the next such phrase, why not one that deftly nails America's relationship with Saudi Arabia? We could call SUV's ``Burqa-Mobiles.''

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the article in question from the Boston Globe

JASON QIAN AND ANNE WU

China's delicate role on Darfur

By Jason Qian and Anne Wu | July 23, 2007

SOME IN the West have recently begun referring to the 2008 Beijing Olympics as the "Genocide Olympics" because of China's continued business ties with Sudan and its reluctance to intervene decisively in the Darfur conflict. Is China really turning a cold shoulder to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, or has the explosive charge of complicity in genocide blinded observers to China's aid and quiet diplomacy in Sudan?

Global outrage is growing over the massacre in Darfur; Beijing is not exempt from this feeling. But there is a significant difference between China and the West in approaching the issue.

China's strategy is one of humanitarian and development aid plus influence without interference, in contrast to the West's coercive approach of sanctions plus military intervention. Through high-level diplomacy -- such as Chinese President Hu Jintao's visit to Sudan in February and the dispatch of special envoys -- and multilateral platforms such as the United Nations and the China-Africa summit, China has been making tactical moves to press the Sudanese government to comply with the international community's requests. China deserves credit for securing Khartoum's agreement on allowing UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur.

China's approach toward the Darfur crisis takes the long view. It perceives the root causes of the turmoil as poverty and a lack of resources, which have led to decades of fighting between local tribes and ethnic groups over basic necessities, such as water resources, land, and infrastructure. Therefore, China's approach to solve the long-lasting conflict in the Darfur region has been to provide comprehensive development assistance in addition to humanitarian aid.

Beijing has agreed to offer $10.4 million of humanitarian aid to Darfur and delivered half of the aid during its special envoy's trip to Sudan in May. Beijing also has invested $30 million in a dam project in the northern part of Darfur, as well as provided goods and materials for building more than 120 schools, facilities for transportation and electric generation, and other necessities for economic development. China also plans to send 275 military engineers to a UN force this month to implement initial stages of the Kofi Annan peace plan, which bolsters African Union peacekeeping forces in Darfur.

The lack of progress in stopping the massacre and the slow effect of the development aid has left China in an awkward position. On the one hand, due to its foreign policy principle of non interference, as well as its investment in Sudan, Beijing traditionally has been reluctant to put strong pressure on Khartoum, believing that wielding sticks would only prove counterproductive. On the other hand, outsiders assume that China's substantial interest in Sudanese oil gives it persuasive power over Khartoum.

However, China's political influence in Darfur should not be overvalued. At the same time that Beijing's investment in Sudan provides economic leverage, it also makes Beijing a hostage. Consistent with its non interference foreign policy, China does not attach political conditions to its economic relationship with Khartoum, thus making it a more credible partner to Sudan.

When Western leaders press Beijing to flex its economic muscles in the Darfur crisis, they often underestimate the tendency of African countries -- including Sudan -- to resist influence from external forces. Beijing will lose its credibility and de facto influence if it overreaches its will politically. The effective influence that Beijing can exert over the Darfur crisis lies in its delicate balance between practicing an influence-without-interference strategy and maintaining the hard-won trust of the Sudanese government.

Frankly, it seems more convenient for Western leaders to blame China than to face their own responsibilities for a humanitarian crisis that they could do far more to stop. Given Washington's oil-centered foreign policy throughout the past whole century and its previous record of violating the UN-sponsored sanctions against South Africa's apartheid government under the "Constructive Engagement" argument, it seems the current outcry against China is at least partially a tactic to divert public attention.

When judging China's Sudan policy, one must also bear in mind that this is an integral part of China's overall policy toward Africa. China no doubt has its own interests in Africa, but its engagement there equally and sincerely takes into account the interests of African countries -- and their desire to, foremost, promote economic development. China's investments in Africa have extended beyond just oil and other natural resources to other areas where infrastructure development is needed.

As Harry Broadman, an economic adviser to the World Bank's Africa Department, mentioned in an interview, "The Chinese are making investments in light manufacturing, water services, food processing, textiles, telecommunications and tourism, and in other kinds of noncommercial infrastructure . . . Regardless of whether it is equity or debt, they are filling gaps in investment in Africa which are needed."

In response to the "new imperialism" charges against China's engagement with African countries, President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa of Zambia has said that China provides aid, offers loan deductions or exemptions, jointly develops resources, and invests in basic infrastructure, leaving the added value in Africa. It is hard for him to see these as "imperial" actions, since they contrast sharply with the actions of European imperialists in past centuries, who exploited Africa's rich natural resources and ran away, profiting at the expense of the poor local people. Beyond development cooperation, China's principle of exerting influence but not interfering and imposing is consistent with African practice, and the final political decision will have to be made by Africans.

In the face of increasing pressure from the international community, China may consider bolder options. However, the rest of the world should not simply play the blame China game. If there is a linkage between the Darfur crisis and Beijing Olympics, it should lie in the West and China together using the spirit of the Olympics -- mutual understanding, friendship, solidarity, and fair competition -- with their sympathetic hearts to collectively create a better future for Darfur.

Jason Qian is a fellow at the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School. Anne Wu is a research fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Lepers and Lions

2007-04-05T13:38:00.000-07:00

PHOTOS BY Alexandre Godard

Lepers and Lions

While visiting a leper colony in South Sudan, St. John’s native Matthew LeRiche is asked to ‘raise alarm’ to the outside world

By Matthew LeRiche

For The Independent (St. Johns Newfoundland, Canada, Vol. 5 Issue 13, March 30-April 4, 2007)

As you might expect, traveling around South Sudan confronts the visitor with constant challenges. With the exception of being caught in the occasional crossfire, my visit to the leper colony on the banks of the White Nile probably ranks with the most astonishing of my experiences over the past three years drifting around Sudan and other parts of Africa.

The barge we traveled on pulled up to the bank of the river by Bor town in mid-afternoon. Bor is surrounded by cattle camps, populated by hordes of zebu cows, bred for their huge horns and white color. As a result, the approach to the town is impressive.

My friends Alex and Dan and I— along with as many southern Sudanese as could fit on the Norwegian People’s Aid barge — poured onto the bank of the river. The captain informed us we would have to stay in Bor for a day or two so he and the crew could visit their families and offload the supplies they had brought from up river for the community. We pitched our tents, expecting a short stay.

We ended up waiting in Bor many more days than planned. In hindsight, it’s funny we had forgotten an essential maxim of travel in Africa, and Sudan in particular: everything takes far longer than expected. Strange I had forgotten this so quickly after having waited in Juba (the capital of South Sudan) for over a month for the barge to get under way in the first place.

When Lola, one of the people we met in Bor, mentioned she and her group of Episcopal church representatives were going to visit and deliver cloths to the lepers, I was struck with biblical images of throngs of needy lepers wrapped in cloth, so as not to lose limbs — or, more likely, to avoid offending the sensibilities of the non-infected.

Alex (a French photographer) suggested we go along to get the story of these people. After a short time, my curiosity got the better of me so we agreed to leave with Lola and her group early the next morning.

I knew leprosy is easily cured and that it is in fact very difficult to spread. Knowing this, I wondered why the local response was to isolate and ostracize people in the way they have. In fact, the only way leprosy can spread to any significant degree is if people are cramped together in unhygienic circumstances for prolonged periods of time.

Walking through the swampy path leading to the riverside village, an ominous feeling came over me. The combination of the remnants of the war and the swamp made for a setting straight out of the movies. I could not decide if it was eerie or beautiful.

The leper colony is at the end of the path, on a small hill overlooking the river. We were greeted by the songs and cheering of the local women. The welcome was just as friendly as any I’ve encountered in my travels. The difference, in this case, was the reservation I could not help but feel when offered an outstretched hand in greeting mangled by leprosy.

Although I knew I did not need to worry about catching leprosy, I had to force myself to overcome the underlying fear of touching the people who all of a sudden became “the lepers.”

That moment allowed me a degree of understanding about why lepers have been ostracized — but any reasonable person should be able to overcome the irrational fear that is at the root of the callous treatment of the people suffering from leprosy.

The chief of the colony, Gabriel Madhoor, met us almost immediately and showed us a log, which had the names and households of all in the community. I counted 95 households.

Lola began to distribute the clothes and other items she had brought from the United States. The flip-flops that the church group had brought seemed a little useless considering a good number of the lepers had lost many, if not all, their toes. And the Frisbees also seemed laughable, considering many had lost or were loosing most of their fingers.

My skepticism was ill placed. Some of the young children were relatively healthy and enjoyed throwing the toys around and receiving a new pair of flip-flops.

The chief was well presented in a shirt and heavily worn trousers, which were, considering the setting, impeccably clean and pressed.

On my travels in Sudan, I’ve observed the pride with which people maintain their appearances. It’s amazing the pressed jackets and pants people wear are their only set of clothing — not to mention the fact few have the domestic amenities for washing and pressing.

Gabriel had lived in the leper colony for 60 years. Since he was born in the village, he had seen many people die. He said it was difficult to tell whether the war or the disease had caused more suffering.

Gabriel explained they had received help from missionaries. At first the Catholics and then the Protestants were in Bor, but they all left in 1983 when the war in the south exploded into its second and most destructive phase.

While I sat talking with Gabriel about the hardship suffered by the villagers during the war, two younger men came over and joined us. Zacharia and Jacob spoke of their hope that with the war over they would receive some help.

When I asked about the new government, Gabriel said, “the only thing (they) can bring is peace, and to bring people like you here so we can get help.” He said they understood the immense tasks facing the new administration. “We know the government has no resources to help us right now they have to build the country first.”

Jacob and Zacharia did not share the chief’s view. Jacob said “the government come to see us but do nothing, they should help …” I couldn’t help but agree, particularly considering the governor of the state maintains his own little menagerie, with a pet lion in the garden of his compound.

The young men gave me lists of items they needed, focusing primarily on fishing equipment and building materials. I was surprised they did not ask for medicine, but I soon found out they didn’t know how easy it is to treat leprosy.

They thought the disease was inherited, a genetic problem they passed to all their descendents. I was amazed to find out most of the people were in the leper colony voluntarily, though there is social pressure that forces those with leprosy and their families to live at the remote colony.

It was getting late in the day, and the reverend we had traveled to the leper colony with informed us we had to leave. I realized I had not spoken at length to any of the young women who were trying to raise children in this difficult setting.

I went over to speak with one of the women. The young lady, whose adorable little girl was in her arms, told me simply: “Please, it would be good if you can echo our problem to the outside world — raise alarm.”

2007-04-05T13:30:00.000-07:00

A new tack needed in fight with Ottawa

The current budget issues are but symptoms of bigger problems in the nature of Federal Provincial relations, and for Newfoundland and Labrador a part of grievances that cut much deeper than the current dollars and cents of the Federal budget. The problem is not who gets what from the Federal Government but how the whole system works. The dysfunction is an arrogant and patronizing central authority that acts without humility.

Rather than continuing to play typical politics and bicker over each others arithmetic, Newfoundland and Labrador (as well as other Provinces) should change tack and shift the battlefield on Ottawa. Here is an idea of a potential change of course.

Over the past hundred years Canada has drifted away from the original spirit of a federated state as devised by the fathers of Confederation, to one where the balance of control in this country rests firmly with the Federal Government; it should not. The real problem is that Provincial Governments have to go begging to the Federal government for money just that should be under their control to begin with. It is as if Ottawa were some benevolent charity and the Province a needy ‘beneficiary’. The issue at debate right now should be who gets the tax points and how our democracy is structured, not how much and for what programs dollars are benevolently bestowed to the Provinces.

In a true federation the central authority should only exists to service the constituent state entities, in this case the Provinces. As such, I believe the Federal Government should have to go to the Provinces for its budgetary needs each year. An inversion of power with respect to control of the tax system would set straight many of the grievances the Provinces have toward Ottawa. The only Province who benefits from the current structure is Ontario (Southern Ontario to be precise), which has made it a primary goal to turn Canada into a larger version of Southern Ontario; in the process discarding all the wonderful variations in culture of the regions; as a consequence treating the people of places like Newfoundland and Labrador as some sort of waste in the name of ‘progress.’

I propose that every year the federal government should have to go to the Provinces for funding its activities and only in the areas we need a central authority, such as the military, foreign affairs and the monitoring of certain key socio/economic standards. The division of powers does not go far enough.

Someday this structure could even be extended further to the grassroots by moving more authority toward municipalities. Of course the main criticism of this idea is probably that it would make it impossible to govern. Such a proposal would not be impossible; rather it would simply make it more difficult to govern. Moving toward a system that is more democratic demands broader consensus. Such consensus is difficult to attain and requires ingenuity and creativity and most of all a greater level of civility than our current political cast tend to exhibit. The benefit of this more complex democracy would be a greater diversity of ideas and solutions to problems. This would enable a government to satisfy more effectively higher order needs of citizens. Certainly this demands a more sophisticated public who operate in a devolved political space with ease. We have many of the technological tools needed to do this and Canada is well positioned to try new approaches to governance and take some chances. Basically, the criticism that such a system would preclude government from being able to operate is false, it would just make it harder; dare I mention the old saying, ‘nothing good comes without hard work.’

Canada was never meant to be a unitary state, by allowing it to be turned into one we have killed off many amazing places that once made up a wonderfully eclectic country. There was nothing predetermined about the exploitation and demise of the fishery and the death of major communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Nor was the slow death that has befallen much of the rest of rural Canada. The ways of living associated with these places made us who we are and without them we risk becoming all the same.

I remember as a child believing my accent reflected ignorance or stupidity. The pressure I felt to change was enough to bring me to consciously emulate what I heard coming from the US and central Canada. The result is now I sound very much the same as many Canadians. I then lived for sometime in the UK, where believe it or not, the variations in accent are alive and well and celebrated. I discovered how much I missed my Newfoundland eccentricity. In a globalized world we need these nuances of character and culture. The point of this story is that the system that this budget represents is what is killing the character of Canada. We have an opportunity to proceed differently.

So, to all those arguing about how much should go to who, I propose you begin considering that the debate should be the direction of tax money, in a truly pluralistic democratic federation, it should move from local political units to regional and onward to national. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Federal government had to act with some humility.

The cool allure of charity and why we need to question it

2007-03-31T19:35:00.000-07:00

It seems that over the past couple of years ‘charity’ and ‘humanitarianism’ have become cool. From the linking of almost any sporting event with a ‘cause’, to the actions of famous Hollywood stars such as Angelina Jolie or George Clooney, humanitarian relief and other charitable agencies have received an influx of financial support unparalleled in their history. This cool translates in more and more people volunteering or going to work with projects in Africa and other developing countries. This cool however adds to the veil of altruism that hides the questionable aspects of charity and humanitarianism.

The often spurious and controversial nature of charity, particularly international charity in conflict situations, was becoming well known during the late 1990s. Academics and aid workers began questioning the role of humanitarian and charitable activity in all its guises from feeding centers to medical help. Especially after the realization that relief aid to refugee camps inside the Democratic Republic of Congo was sustaining those who had perpetrated the horrific genocide only months before in Rwanda, many began to seriously scrutinize the activity of charity. Unfortunately, such scrutiny seems not to have made it to the general public and the recent activity of celebrities making charity cool has obscured such questions from the public even more.

Now with the help of the star power and guarded by a vanguard of ardent altruists and PR campaigners working for the major charities, potentially constructive criticism seems to be falling on deaf ears. In Darfur the humanitarian international has been played like a fiddle by the cunning government in Khartoum. The machinations of Khartoum and the gullibility of the international community are to such an extent that the UN and other relief activities have, in actuality, helped achieve the goals of Beshir’s war in Darfur.

Charity in all forms can be destructive. So when engaging in charitable activities, particularly those we undertake in the developing world, it is incumbent on us to scrutinize the potential consequence of the charitable act. This includes everything from a small donation to a relief agency or a few weeks volunteering at a feeding centre in Africa.

Charity, in its typical construction, is patronizing and demoralizing to the population of people who are on its receiving end. Despite what many claim, charity is an intensely political act that shapes everything from local power in villages, to the nature and outcomes of wars. In a recent article in Insight Sudan Magazine, a friend and long time charity worker in Africa, John Ashworth described this well in a discussion about international aid in Sudan. He wrote:

“ While they have obviously saved a lot of lives and provided a lot of assistance, they have nevertheless been characterized by waste, inefficiency, lack of political and contextual awareness, lack of cultural sensitivity, arrogance and, despite mission statements espousing the necessity of partnership, a tendency to follow their own (or their supporting donors’) agendas rather than those of the Sudanese.”

This could be repeated with respect to most charitable operations that I have observed in Africa. My time studying charity amidst war in Africa confirms Mr. Ashworth’s comments. In this regard I would like to further discuss the arrogance and lack of contextual awareness that plagues many charitable activities.

It is best to use a story to describe the mistrustful relation between Western aid workers and local ‘beneficiaries’ (as the professional jargon refers to them). I was in a small village in South Sudan. The World Food Program, UNICEF and a collection of staff from charitable organizations had converged to do an assessment in advance of a relief distribution. They were discussing food diversions and looking for assurances that the people they wanted the food to go to would be the only ones to receive it. Near the end of their visit an old lady walked up to one of the monitors (it is important to have an image of the monitor in mind: she is empowered to make decisions regarding millions of dollars of food, fresh out of school with her MBA or some other degree, flying in and out on a chartered aircraft, and dressed in what I can only call adventure gear) and asked in her local language, ‘would you like to come watch me and my children defecate’. It was only after the young lady got in her plane and flew off that someone probably told her what the old woman had said, if at all. I walked to the old woman and asked why she said what she said. The woman replied (of course this is a translation from the local language), “these people come and tell us who eats and who dies”, she continued “why can I not feed a meal to my son who fights to defend us…the first we meet they look at me with suspicion like I will steal the food for the army.” The old lady, the sister of the recently passed village Chief, was tired of a mistrust that is the basic situation in most charitable projects I have witnessed in Africa. In such a case, by trying to be neutral and ignoring politics, empathy and understanding of the situation is sacrificed. For the sake of principles of accountability designed to protect neutrality and impartiality, which I believe are absurd in the midst of a war monitors such as the young lady described above become a problem.

These principles are a part of the international community’s concerted desire to ignore the difficult questions of who to support in complicated political situations. This is an essential part of the perpetuation of suffering. It allows governments such as that of Omar el-Beshir in Khartoum to continue abusing its own citizens.

The arrogance of internationals working in Africa is astounding. They fly around in their 4-wheel drives, speeding from compound to compound. The privileged life of most of the international charity workers in settings such as Sudan is tantamount to a foreign aristocracy. Enjoying their time off with other expatriates and talking of the poor governance of the local elite they are, by many of their actions, arrogant. The resort like setting at the UN compound in Nairobi speks volumes (see photo of UN pool in Nairobi to left).

Most I have met who have spent any time in this business have grown angry with the whole affair, either leaving, growing callous or deciding to ignore the reality (what many call purposeful naiveté). This said, I must recognize those who are struggling against all the odds to get the UN and other aid agencies to work more along the lines they believe they should. They are truly ambitious and deserve the deepest respect for taking on such an monstrous challenge.

While locals tell donors and volunteers exactly what the ‘visitors’ (and that is what most people are, just visitors) want to hear, the ‘truth’ is almost always different. The good souls having done their bit and having satisfied their altruistic sentiments, not to mention getting the street credit of the cool associated with doing charity, return home and talk of the plight of ‘those poor people’ to friends at the café or bar. Some begin to question what they saw and did, others simply go about their business believing all they witnessed was good work for the betterment of ‘the poor people over there’. This humanitarianism is no more than a contemporary version of the ‘white man’s burden’ of the colonial day.

Charity and its effects are a part of a system of control and manipulation that keeps the West wealthy and hinders people from controlling their own destiny. It does this by keeping people dependent and works to hide real problems. These problems are political and cannot be solved by charity. Not only this, but very often charity conspires, whether willingly or not, with the political forces that perpetuate the disempowerment of so many people. The veil of our relief to Sudan, for example, hides the lack of any real commitment of governments to respond. The supply of food aid bolsters Western farmers by providing a means to dump unwanted produce. It is also a cover for our protectionist policies that preclude peasant farmers from competing in the supposedly free markets.

This is not to say that all programs are dysfunctional and no one cares. The Catholic Church in Sudan has run wonderfully effective and compassionate programs, continuing during the harshest of fighting. Other groups such as the Norwegian People’s Aid have engaged in similarly humble and effective programs. The big difference between these two examples and the UN and many NGOs is they are in solidarity with local people. They do not approach working with people as helping ‘the needy’. As a Norwegian People’s Aid publication explains, “solidarity is the opposite of charity. Whilst charity implies that the giver has control over the recipient, solidarity means showing respect for the partners’ integrity and their right to set their own conditions.” This said, such sentiment must be sincere, not just a piece of rhetoric as is typically the case with most ‘participatory’ programs.

This is but a brief presentation on the reality of charity and humanitarianism. I hope it compels people to question what they intuitively believe to be good and begin to scrutinize. A start is asking questions like, is it really needed that someone be flown all the way from Canada to a camp in Africa to hand out food or watch orphaned children, do they really need more physicians, where is my money going, how will that impact the local politics, what is the local politics and history…etc…etc. There is a dark side to charity and to pretend otherwise helps no one.