Why Are We Ignoring Darfur?

Throughout history, humans have inflicted harm on each other through massacre. Groups that have lived side by side for generations without extreme tension often end up becoming each other's worst enemy. This pattern will likely continue indefinitely, but with twentieth century inventions, massacres are now much harder to keep secret than in previous centuries. (Brunner and Mills, 19.) Through the mass media, we became instant spectators of Somalia, Rwanda, East Timor, Liberia and Sierra Leone. With the immediacy that we see these conflicts unfold, the nature of intervention has changed, and the question arises; why does the West intervene in some instances of massacre, and avoids others? NATO intervened to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo in 1999, yet a similar approach has not been attempted in the similar and current conflict in Darfur. The lack of a threat that Darfur poses to the international community, the issue of racism and the subsequent lack of media coverage, the fact that Darfur is being treated as a humanitarian crisis and the protestations of the African Union are all reasons why the military approach used by NATO in Kosovo is not being applied in Sudan.

A key difference in the Kosovar and Sudanese conflicts is in their location and the resulting interests the West holds in those different locations. Being in Eastern Europe, it was much more obvious to the West, particularly NATO, that the conflict in Kosovo needed to be addressed by the international community. Give that NATO is an organization who's focus is on Europe, it is reasonable to assume that a conflict threatening the stability of Europe would be dealt with through NATO intervention. Sudan, on the other hand is in Africa, and does not affect the stability of either Europe or North America, and therefore does not warrant a NATO intervention. This does not mean that NATO should not provide support; it simply means that a NATO mission in Sudan would be outside of its field of authority.

Similar to the idea of Western reaction based on interests and area, one of the main reasons the world reacted so quickly to ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars, yet is reacting rather slowly to the genocide in Sudan is a matter of race and location. As Gregory Danforth, President of Genocide Watch commented, "[Black] African lives still are not seen to equal the value of the lives of Kosovars and other white people, who are inside our circle of moral concern."(Stanton, A17.) From AIDS to Rwanda, the world seems to be worn out by crisis after crisis in Africa. Editors no longer perceive African humanitarian crises as newsworthy. (Hoyen and Cartensen.) When CNN broadcasted images of the Kosovar exodus, the Western world took notice, because the refugees were Caucasian. An African crisis is usually pushed to the side of other crises. (Hoyen and Cartensen.) In Sudan's case, the war in Iraq is taking up most of the world's attention. Similarly the Rwandan genocide was ignored as the world watched the conflict in Yugoslavia unfold.

This difference in media coverage is another determining factor in the West's decision to act militarily or not in Kosovo and Sudan. In the first three months of 1999, 5000 articles were written on Kosovo, while only 450 were written on the conflicts in Angola and Sudan combined. (Hoyen and Cartensen.) There was constant media coverage throughout the war in Kosovo, and much pressure was put on the international community to act. On the other hand, for the duration of 2003, until March 2004, the international media found it easy to ignore the growing conflict in Darfur. (Prunier, 125.) When foreign cameras did come to Sudan, it was to focus on the Naivasha peace process between Northern and Southern Sudan. Even the prominent NGO, Justice Africa, did not pick up on Darfur until Nov. 2004. (Prunier, 126.) When the first US article was finally written on Darfur it was incorrectly classified as an "Arab versus Christian" crisis rather than an "Arab versus Arab" crisis, obscuring rather than clarifying the problem. After an interview given by the UN Human Rights Coordinator for Sudan, the international interest in Darfur began to gather speed. (Prunier, 127.) The moral outrage, largely a result of Rwanda, overshadowed the political problems, and therefore demands for humanitarian action overshadowed the demands for a military intervention. After the Dec. 26, 2004 South Asian Tsunami hit, Darfur disappeared from the media and consequently, the international conscience.

Another major difference between Kosovo and Sudan is the clarity and direction of Western policies towards both conflicts. Ethnic cleansing in Kosovo came soon after almost identical conflicts in other former Yugoslavian states. At the time, it was easy for the Western powers to parallel the civil war between the Serbians and the Croats to the current conflict between the Serbians and the Albanians and therefore to take a similar stance against Belgrade and Milosevic. The world saw it as another case of Serbian persecution that could be crushed much as it had before. The Rwandan genocide should have been warning enough, that conflict left unsettled in Africa can lead to tantamount casualties; yet over a year after the Darfur crisis began the UN voted on Resolution 1564 which in part was to create a "Commission of Inquiry" to determine whether or not genocide was taking place. (Prunier, 120) In addition to this, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1556 on July 6, 2004, which gave the Khartoum government until