Arabs and Darfur, again

Lounsbury reminds me of something I started to notice, and then forgot about: Joseph Britt, guesting at Dan Drezner's place  bases what could be a useful point on something which is simply wrong:

Reeves fails to note what to the casual observer appears fairly central to this grim story -- namely, that the protracted war against a civilian population of Darfur is considered an outrage, a horror, and an affront to humanity by the United States, by European peoples and governments, and by several African states, but by no Arab government and hardly any Arab media. Arabs are not represented among relief workers or peacekeepers in Darfur, all of whom come from countries much farther away than Egypt or Saudi Arabia; Arab contributions to humanitarian relief funds, according to a UN report, have been negligible. Terrorism has, rather late in the day, become a major issue of Arab Muslim theologians and intellectuals; not so genocide carried out by Arab Muslims against a mostly Muslim population over more than two years.

He goes on to blame the Arab media, in particular, for not beating the drums to get governments to take Darfur seriously.  Lounsbury, both in comments there and over at Aqoul, makes the same point that I would have:  Britt doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. 

Al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya have both covered Darfur pretty heavily, with frequent news stories and talk shows - indeed, they've covered it rather more heavily than has the American media. I've actually written about this before, back when the argument first made its appearance.  In the original post, I mentioned a June 21, 2004 Minbar al Jazeera episode hosted by Jumana al-Nimour called "Massive Suffering in Darfour", and two other talk shows broadcast around that time.  There have been more since.  I also mentioned a declaration by 34 Arab NGOs blasting the inactivity of Arab governments towards Darfur during the Tunis summit.

And let's not forget... according to last week's Economist, "last year, NBC's evening news show devoted just five minutes to the genocide in Darfur, CBS a mere three and ABC, thanks in part to Mr Jennings, 18. By contrast, they together devoted 130 minutes to the plight of Martha Stewart."  Exactly what are we comparing here?

The Arab world has not responded brilliantly to Darfur (neither has the United States, the West, or anyone else).  But the fault does not lie with the Arab media or with Arab NGOs.  The real problem lies with the disconnect between the media and political society, on the one hand, and the Arab regimes on the other hand.    It's a problem I've written about frequently:  the new Arab public can talk, but with no real democracy and no organized political movement it has no way to get governments to act.   As if to make my point for me, just last week (August 13), Jumana al-Nimour hosted an episode of Behind the News complaining yet again about the Arab absence from relief efforts in Africa.

This is exactly the point I made back during the South Asian tsunami.  At that time, there was a tremendous amount of criticism in the media of the weak official Arab response - led by the satellite television stations, but extending to a wide range of public intellectuals (even al-Quds al-Arabi editor Abd al-Bari Atwan, who rarely misses a chance to criticize the US, focused his anger on the Arab regimes).  It had some effect on the regimes, who ponied up a bit more relief money than they had originally offered.  But the bigger story there was that key parts of the Arab public used the official Arab response to the tsunami as a vehicle for blasting the regimes.

I'd say that Darfur falls into the same category as the tsunami: the official Arab response has been pathetic, in spite of - not because of - the coverage in the Arab media.

Comments

[Abu Sinan]

Good post. There is A LOT of disinformation out there in the Western media abotu Darfour, its origins, and what people are or arent doing about it.

[The Lounsbury]

Well, a nod to you mate, didn't know you had covered this, before I discoverd Father of Aardvarks.

That aside, I don't know if I would call reporting on Dar Fur disinformation as just plain ignorance and lack of understanding. It's easy to get fooled by the labels - Arab, Black African, etc. And of course some types pimp real disinformation.

Well, at least I had the occasion to have been accused of gone native. One day I'll figure out what the bloody hell that really means...

[praktike]

I tried to explain this to Britt earlier, but he didn't listen. Also worth noting is that the Egyptian government's primary concern is to retain one negotiating partner in Sudan where Nile water rights are concerned.