November 8, 2007 | Read Time: 2 minutes
Efforts by organizations such as Save Darfur and by celebrities such as George Clooney that call for an end to the killings in the
Darfur-region of Sudan may be hurting the work of relief and refugee groups, writes Ruth Gidley on her blog
on AlertNet, a Web site that discusses humanitarian causes.
The advocacy work has certainly raised the public’s understanding of the problems in the African country. “But despite the global attention now devoted to the plight of Darfur, aid agencies in the field say the actions of the advocacy groups have triggered internal policy rifts and external resentments that have created significant operational complications,” she writes.
For example, aid groups have been asked to sign public statements with human-rights groups and others condemning the Sudanese government or requesting the intervention of United Nations peacekeepers. Fund raisers within the relief charities often want to sign on as way to spur donations, but such statements would violate aid groups’ neutrality, risking their access to refugees and other war-weary civilians, Ms. Gidley writes.
Moreover, David Rieff, author of A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis, argues that activists have simplified the conflict in Darfur to attract supporters.
In a Los Angeles Times opinion article last month, Mr. Rieff writes, “Simplicity sells, complexity languishes. And yet no political crisis, or humanitarian calamity, is likely to remain a simple contest between good and evil — at least not if it goes on long enough. And what may seem like a way of mobilizing people in a good cause may end up sowing more confusion than commitment.”
Read The Chronicle of Philanthropy‘s article
on relief and advocacy groups’ efforts related to Darfur.
What do you think? Is there a way advocacy groups can raise awareness about Darfur without hindering relief charities? In humanitarian catastrophes, does only simplicity sell? Click on the comments link below this post to share your thoughts.
