Mamdani is persuasive in Darfur debate, Prendergast waffles

by on April 15, 2009 18

By James North
Several hundred people packed into the Cowin Auditorium at Columbia’s Teachers College last night, and nearly all of them stayed more than 2 hours for an intriguing debate about what is actually happening in Darfur and what should be done about it.
Mahmood Mamdani, a professor at Columbia, calmly presented some of the arguments in his just-published Saviors and Survivors; the Darfur conflict started as a civil war; the Sudan’s government most ferocious repression was in 2003-04; the conflict is now a simmering, complicated stalemate. But, he said, the Save Darfur movement continues to misuse the word "genocide," exaggerates the death toll, implies that the situation is worsening, and calls for Western military intervention.
Mamdani continued that Save Darfur’s misleading view of the reality today in Darfur is part of what is blocking a negotiated political solution. By pursuing Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for war crimes, the International Criminal Court is making a settlement less likely, because al-Bashir is an indispensable part of the peace process.
John Prendergast, Mamdani’s opponent, is a former Clinton administration official who is highly visible in the Darfur solidarity world. He is more a publicity-hungry showman than a genuine scholar, an Alan Dershowitz with shoulder-length hair and a laid-back Indiana Jones manner. What was fascinating was how much he backed off from Save Darfur’s extreme claims, possibly in part because he was confronted with Mamdani’s unassailable evidence.
Prendergast spent a healthy part of his presentation name-dropping, mentioning several times that he recently met President Obama, and boasting about the number of trips he has made to Darfur and Sudan. He was also manipulative, dwelling emotionally on the ongoing suffering in Darfur’s refugee camps without recognizing the complexity that Mamdani had described. (For instance, Prendergast spoke repeatedly about Darfur’s "rebels," without noting that an insurgency that started as two groups has now splintered into more than 20, at least one of which has gone over to the government side.)
But on several major points of dispute, Prendergast weaseled. Early on, he stepped back from the word "genocide,"admitting that "I wouldn’t fall on my sword for it." (The web site for his own group, the Enough Project, says straightforwardly that Sudan’s government is committing "genocide" in Darfur.) He said the Save Darfur movement only advocates outside force as a last resort, which will come as a surprise to anyone who has over the years followed their strident calls for a no-fly zone and other Western military intervention. And he even recognized that the indictment of al-Bashir might only be useful as a stick to force the Sudanese president to negotiate; Save Darfur has pushed for war crimes trials whatever the political cost.
In the spirited question period, Prendergast backpedaled even further, denying he has a connection with Save Darfur. So it was a little surprising to see this morning that the Enough Project is still listed on the Save Darfur web site as one of its supporters.
Back to Mahmood Mamdani. Toward the end of the evening, he did recognize that "Save Darfur did have a salutary effect at the beginning," back in 2003-04, during the worst violence; this acknowledgment would have been useful earlier, as most of the foot soldiers in the movement are genuine, and would probably be more open to his views if they did not think all their efforts had been counterproductive.
But possibly his most profound insight was into the difference between "victors’ justice" and "survivors’ justice." The model for victors’ justice is the Nuremberg trials; the Allies had won, and Germans and the remaining Jews were not going to be living in the same state. So prosecutors could hold the Nazi criminals accountable.
The model for survivors’ justice is the South African settlement in the early 1990s. The African National Congress did not win a clearcut victory, and the apartheid officials, from generals on down to police constables, were going to remain in the same country. If Nelson Mandela and the ANC had followed the Save Darfur logic, fighting would be continuing to this day.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Middle East, US Policy in the Middle East

{ 18 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. maxa says:
    April 15, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    I think this last point is crucial. The push for war crimes trials in Darfur is purely political–there's been on discussion of what would be good for the Darfurians. It's a way to morally situate American foreign policy. After all, could we be the guilty ones when we're putting them on trial for war crimes??
    Jewbonics

  2. Chris Berel says:
    April 15, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    Amazing. It would seem that Mamdani just proved the palestinian claims to be the same bullshit.

  3. syvanen says:
    April 15, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    Phil you are doing service putting Mamdani's work out there. His is one of the only fully informed voices out there on Darfur. If it had not been for our failure in Iraq, it is quite likely that the Save Darfur movement would have been successful in getting us involved in that unfortunate war.

  4. Margaret says:
    April 16, 2009 at 1:11 am

    Reading about Afghnistan, one finds that there is tremendous support for US intervention from people identifying themselves as from the Central Asia area that includes Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. Pakistan and India in particular seem to include contentious parties who feel that US military power should be engaged to close down their ethnic enemies.

    I love the Internet! Thanks for bringing attention to Mahood Mamdani's work.

  5. Margaret says:
    April 16, 2009 at 1:13 am

    Thanks for bringing attention to Mahmood Mamdani's work.

  6. Tom says:
    April 16, 2009 at 6:48 am

    Whose views did the crowd support at the end?

    I would suspect most people going to such a debate would have gone because they do feel a genocide is going on in western Sudan. Did anyone change their minds? Did most?

    If anyone reading this was at the debate, please let us know.

  7. Laurie says:
    April 16, 2009 at 7:58 am

    Darfur isn't about starving civilians in a civil war, it's about our bankers not getting their cut, which explains the use of the Jewish community to spear the Save Darfur drive.

    Today China draws an estimated 30% of its crude oil from Africa. That explains an extraordinary series of diplomatic initiatives which have left Washington furious. China is using no-strings-attached dollar credits to gain access to Africa’s vast raw material wealth, leaving Washington’s typical control game via the World Bank and IMF out in the cold. Who needs the painful medicine of the IMF when China gives easy terms and builds roads and schools to boot?….The genocide theme is being used, with full-scale Hollywood backing from the likes of pop stars like George Clooney, to orchestrate the case for a de facto NATO occupation of the region. So far the Sudan government has vehemently refused, not surprisingly.

    http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html

  8. Citizen says:
    April 16, 2009 at 8:31 am

    @ Chris Berel

    "Amazing. It would seem that Mamdani just proved the palestinian claims to be the same bullshit."

    A quick skimpy look reveals:

    Great atrocities have been perpetrated on both sides. This conflict does not basically involve foreign
    colonists, but rather the dispute between the North (more Muslim) and South (often Christian) under one state, which was
    recognized, e.g., by the US, which, as did the former colonial powers, assumed the created state
    Constituition would reflect a federal form of government–this did not happen. Compared to the I-P scenario, Darfur is a real civil war.

  9. Citizen says:
    April 16, 2009 at 8:46 am

    @ Laurie

    There's was a long history of competing arms suppliers during the Cold War Era, which is when and how the
    US and China got more involved. Obviously the North's propensities regarding Islam and Arabic
    speech have been conflicting all along with the South's propensities regarding Christianity and
    English speech. And yes, oil and other natural resources, uranium for one, if memory serves,
    are part of the picture–all reasons, additional to strategic geography, why Israel is also involved.

    I don't know many details, so readers here should jump in and put the Hollywood protest in
    context if they have more information.

  10. Laurie says:
    April 16, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Sectarian differences are always inflamed for the pretext to war. But as Major General Smedley Butler said, "War is a racket" and the only people who benefit are the money men.

    Smedley Butler: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."[32]

  11. James North says:
    April 16, 2009 at 10:22 am

    In response to Tom, above: my sense was that the audience was not partisan, but open-minded and eager to learn more. Many, probably the majority, are students at the various divisions of Columbia, where Mamdani teaches; they know his reputation and take him seriously. It was hard to gauge the final impact of the debate, although during the question period one woman did say she was active in the Darfur solidarity movement but that she found Mamdani's presentation very helpful.

  12. Anne Silver says:
    April 16, 2009 at 11:41 am

    I recall hearing a very interesting interview with Mamdani on Democracy Now some time ago. Among many other things, he talked about Palestine, speaking with insight about the frustrating reality that college campuses were organizing around Darfur but largely silent about Palestine. Here is a link to it in the DN archives.

  13. David Green says:
    April 16, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    Anne Silver,

    Those two things are clearly related, not coincidental. Darfur advocacy is a subsidiary of the Holocaust Industry. It creates a fake moral high ground with its own Hitler analogies and worthy victims. It's provided some Jewish students, at least at the start (I think they're bored now) with a moral status that obviously counters students who challenge Israeli apartheid.

    Save Darfur is an astroturf Zionist movement, just like Kosovo. But I'm not saying it's the Lobby made them do it. It's the Lobby serving American/Israeli interests. It's the ideological/moral role of the Lobby for American Empire.

  14. Chris Berel says:
    April 16, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    a pair of tag-team antisemites. Go figure

  15. Texas in Africa says:
    April 17, 2009 at 12:43 am

    Thanks for the excellent summary – and the priceless description of Prendergast!

  16. ansel says:
    May 7, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    Thanks for this post. Please tell me someone recorded this debate, at least with audio. Anywhere I can watch/listen?

  17. ansel says:
    May 7, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    Never mind, found it!

  18. Dade says:
    June 2, 2009 at 1:35 am

    I came across this post while looking for something else on Mahmood Mamdani, and I'm glad to have stumbled upon this. The concept of justice must not blind anyone to the consequences. If the Save Darfur celebrity lobby get what they want in the shape of No fly Zones and sending Bashir to ICC, it is safe to assume that the Sudan will continue to be unstable for a long time to come. And who benefits from this? Definitely not the Sudanese.

Leave a Reply