More Darfur Daily “News”

Well, the crack communications experts at the Save Darfur Coalition are at it yet again. For Darfur Salvationistas, anti-genocidaires, activists and advocates, last week’s Darfur-related news was dominated by two basic storylines.

First, there was the outgoing UNAMID commander Gen. Agwai declaring that the Darfur region currently suffers more from low-level conflict and banditry than full-scale war.

Additionally, Humanity United, with the help of some “friends” in the save Darfur community, rolled out the SUDAN (ACTION) NOW advertising campaign.

Let’s take a quick peek at what the Save Darfur Coalition highlighted regarding these two stories:

Darfur Daily News – 8/27/09

AFP: Darfur peacekeepers have ended massacres: chief. The outgoing head of the UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur defended his soldiers against persistent criticism of their effectiveness, insisting they have ended the massacres that long plagued the Sudanese region. “I have achieved results,” Rodolphe Adada told AFP in an interview, hitting back at the criticism. “The main result is the end of massacres in Darfur,” he said, as he prepared to step down as head of the world’s biggest peacekeeping operation.

The Atlantic: Obama’s Envoy Agrees: Sudan Is Urgent. Though he doesn’t agree with the calling out of his bosses, President Obama’s special envoy to Sudan does share the sentiment of a coalition of U.S.-based Darfur peace groups that Sudan demands immediate action–action that, from his point of view, is already being taken–a State Department spokesman for Maj. Gen. Scott Gration says.

August 27th, 2009 by Allen Combs

Darfur Daily News – 8/28/09

August 28th, 2009 by Allen Combs

Voice of America: Activists Say General Agwai’s Comments on Darfur Miss the Bigger Picture. A coalition of anti-genocide advocacy organizations has called on the Obama administration to team up with concerned nations and draft a proposal that would bring lasting peace to Sudan. The position came as the commander of the UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur says the region was no longer in a state of war. “The fact that open hostilities between rebel groups and the government militias have dwindled is certainly a good sign that we are one step closer to what would hopefully be an eventual peace. But unfortunately it does not mean the situation is getting that much better for the millions of affected civilians who remain in Darfur,” said Alex Meixner, director of policy and government relations for Save Darfur Coalition.

MinnPost.com: War in Darfur over? Not quite. The war in Darfur is over? That’s what the outgoing general of the United Nations forces in that troubled African region says. “The political and humanitarian crisis in Darfur is not over. Nor is the threat of full-scale fighting over, said Sean Brooks, policy associate of Save Darfur Coalition. “We find Gen. Agwai’s statement surprising, considering that just a few weeks ago he said that the U.N. forces are only at 70 percent deployment and need to be fully deployed to protect the people of Darfur.

The New York Times: As Darfur Fighting Diminishes, U.N. Officials Focus on the South of Sudan. As the fighting in Darfur diminishes after years of conflict, senior United Nations officials say they are focused increasingly on the deteriorating situation in another part of Sudan: the south. The shift in alarm has been building for months, but was reinforced late Wednesday when Gen. Martin Luther Agwai, the departing commander of the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur, told reporters that the war in Darfur was essentially over. Senior United Nations officials said that while General Agwai was basically correct, they did not want to play down the dire consequences some three million displaced people face in Darfur. Still, they noted, the escalating skirmishes in the south could reignite the civil war there, which in years past proved far more deadly than the conflict in Darfur.

Interesting, if somewhat predictable choices. Why not Agence France-Presse’s “Darfur war over at least for now says departing UN chief” instead of the chosen “Darfur peacekeepers have ended massacres: chief” (or BBC’s “War in Sudan’s Darfur ‘is over'”)? I guess article titles that reinforce concepts like massacres/violence, crisis/urgency, and call into question a General’s field assessment based on firsthand experience are far better for business than more direct AFP/BBC reporting. I mean, we all know of the journalistic powerhouse that is MinnPost.com, but what the hell is an “AFP” or a “BBC?” Am I right?! In other words, SDC is marketing fear and violence in lieu of aggregating and disseminating on-the-ground reporting, commentary, and analysis of the ongoing crisis in Darfur/Sudan.

As for the coverage of the SUDAN NOW campaign, in addition to the inclusion of The Atlantic blog post noted above, SDC’s Jerry Fowler posted the following over at SDC’s Blog for Darfur:

Partners for Peace

Our friends at Humanity United and several other groups have launched a new initiative called Sudan Now. We joined with them in a series of print and online ads this week as the Administration’s long-running Sudan policy review appears to be entering its final stages. It’s vital that the Administration get the policy right. Key elements in a strong policy will be that it is:

1. comprehensive (addressing Sudan’s interlocking crises, including Darfur, implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the war in southern Sudan and the proxy war with Chad);
2. multilateral (the U.S. must work with other countries that have leverage on the various actors to address these crises);and
3. based on a balance of incentives and pressures.

Above all, effective implementation of the policy will require the personal and direct engagement of President Obama. More details on what we’re looking for can be found in the letter to President Obama signed by more than 113,000 citizens that I delivered to Special Envoy Scott Gration on August 5.

Meanwhile, we also have partnered with the Sudan Inter-Faith Working Group, a broad array of faith-based organizations, in the Moved by Faith initiative. Together, we are seeking clergy of all faiths to sign on to a letter that tells President Obama that his “strong leadership is critical in realizing peace and justice in Sudan.” The complementary efforts of Sudan Now, Moved by Faith and the citizen sign-on letter show the breadth and passion of the movement calling for President Obama to lead for peace in Darfur and all of Sudan.

August 25th, 2009 by Jerry Fowler

“Friends” at Humanity United?! Don’t you mean “major funder,” Mr. Fowler? A little bit of transparency will not kill you, I promise. Give it a try, you might like it. If not, you can go back to dissembling and misleading.

And if you thought so highly of Humanity United’s current initiative, why didn’t you sign on to the entire campaign (like the Enough Project at the Center for American Progress, Stop Genocide Now and Investors Against Genocide) rather than just “a series of print and online ads?”  Could it be that you don’t totally agree with your largest funder on policy or politics, but you don’t have the intestinal fortitude to not participate in some less meaningful way? Or are you just keen on some free publicity for your declining organization?

And why didn’t Save Darfur mention the blog post (below) from POLITICO’s uber-blogger Ben Smith, one of the most widely-read and important inside-the-Beltway political voices in the blogoshpere? Jeez. A big-time political voice highlights a friend’s campaign with a LARGE post that sits at the top of his blog for a blogosphere eternity and it gets nary a mention from Save Darfur? Hmm…

Pressing Obama on Sudan

One segment of Obama’s base that remains largely dissatisfied with the administration is human rights advocates, and in particular the movement formed to stop the genocide in Sudan, which took out ads this week in national and Martha’s Vineyard papers using Obama’s own words on the crisis there to press for action.

The ads are the product of a new group, Humanity United. One consultant to Sudan advocacy groups, Chuck Thies, emails that the move is the product of restlessness among advocates at the administration’s “seeming inaction” and concern at Sepcial Envoy Scott Gration’s statement that genocide in Sudan had stopped.

Writes Thies:

The organizations that lead the advocacy movement are divided on whether or not to hammer the Obama administration (despite having pounded away at Bush). There are those who want to allow the administartion more time to develop a detailed policy and plan of action, and there are others who recall Obama’s words as a Senator and on the campaign trail about the need to take strong, immediate action to protect civillians from the genocide.

Enter Humanity United, the organization funded by Pam Omidyar. HU has heard the voices of those who wish to push Obama harder and thus is spearheading this campaign. It has brought many of the leading Darfur advocacy organziations onboard to varying degrees. The campaign should please most activists and not upset those wishing to give the Obama administration more time. One goal is to unite the activist community like to was in 2006/07 and to a degree 2008. Most activists leaders agree that without a united, vocal campaign there is little hope for more than caretaking in Darfur.

Soemthing to chew on that has not yet entered the public debate: Though the rate of death from violence in Darfur has been greatly reduced in the past year, millions of people still live in unsafe refugee and IDP camps, slowly starving to death. No one suggested the Holocaust genocide ended until the death camps were liberated; the same should be true for Darfur.

We have it from various sources that some of the fine folks at the Save Darfur Coalition thought quite highly of this post. And yet it didn’t make the final cut for the Blog for Darfur or Darfur Daily News. It makes one wonder if the mere presence of Chuck Thies,  a “consultant to Sudan advocacy groups” as well as a former Save Darfur employee (who was the driving force behind the now famous Save Darfur rallies in NYC and Washington, DC in 2006), played some role in the exclusion of the post at Blog for Darfur and/or Darfur Daily News. So here’s the question: Did Jerry Fowler’s jealousy of Mr. Thies or Mr. Thies’s proximity (real or perceived) to the Darfur advocacy community have an impact on the decision not to include this widely-read/circulated and very relevant piece on any SDC-related sites? For those familiar with the situation, it’s hard to believe that one or both of these didn’t play some role in the exclusion.

Regardless, Save Darfur continues to promote only the “news” that reinforces their outdated narrative of fear, crisis, and violence, promotes SDC as the undisputed leader of the Darfur advocacy “movement”, while also pandering to the few remaining Big Donors. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

SDC’s Amazing Shrinking Conflict of Interest Policy

Step right up ‘n behold the Mysterious Main Attraction at our Crazy Carnival of Conflict, folks!  This one’s a real doozy too.  You see, unbeknownst to most, the Save Darfur Coalition’s employee handbook has gone through all sorts of interesting little transformations since its creation, and I invite you to come explore them with me.  Together, we’re about to enter a mystical world full of merriment and wonder: the world of employment law!

Okay, okay. So as carnivals go, it's really not that merry or wonderful. But come on; why the long faces?

Here’s SDC’s Conflict of Interest and Outside Employment Statement from a SDC employee handbook that was last modified on August 3rd, 2007.  (If you don’t want to read the two handbook selections in their entirety, just skip to the bottom where I discuss the differences between the two documents.):

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT STATEMENT

In General

Save Darfur Coalition expects its employees to conduct work according to the highest ethical standards of conduct.  Employees are expected to devote their best efforts to the interests of the organization.  Work activities that appear to create a conflict between the interests of the organization and an employee are not acceptable.  Save Darfur Coalition recognizes the right of employees to engage in activities outside of their employment that is of a private nature and unrelated to Save Darfur Coalition’s work.  However, the employee must disclose any possible conflicts so that the organization may assess and prevent potential conflicts of interest from arising.  A potential or actual conflict of interest occurs whenever an employee is in a position to influence a decision that may result in personal gain for the employee or an immediate family member (i.e., spouse or significant other, children, parents, siblings) as a result of the organization’s work. Although it is not possible to specify every action that might create a conflict of interest, this policy sets forth the ones that most frequently present problems.  If an employee has any question whether an action or proposed course of conduct would create a conflict of interest, she or he should immediately contact the Deputy or Executive Director to obtain advice on the issue.  The purpose of this policy is to protect employees from any conflict of interest that might arise.

Violation of this policy may result in discipline, up to and including termination of employment.

Outside Employment

Employees are required to obtain written approval from their supervisor before participating in outside work activities.  Approval will be granted unless the activity conflicts with the organization’s interest.  In general, outside work activities are not allowed when they:

• prevent the employee from fully performing work for which she or he is employed at Save Darfur Coalition, including overtime assignments;

• involve organizations that are working with or seeking to work with Save Darfur Coalition, including actual or potential vendors; or

• violate provisions of law or Save Darfur Coalition’s policies or rules.

From time to time, Save Darfur Coalition employees may be required to work beyond their normally scheduled hours.  Employees are expected to perform this work when requested.  In cases of conflict with any outside activity, the employee’s obligations to the organization must be given priority. Employees are hired and continue in Save Darfur Coalition’s employ with the understanding that Save Darfur Coalition is their primary employer and that other employment or commercial involvement that is in conflict with the organizational interests of Save Darfur Coalition is strictly prohibited.

Political Activities

In order to retain its tax-exempt status, Save Darfur Coalition is prohibited from participation, intervention and/or involvement, either direct or indirect, in support of, or in opposition to any candidate for elective office.  Accordingly, all employees are expected to refrain from engaging in political activities on Save Darfur Coalition property in order to avoid allegations that the private actions of its employees are in reality the actions of Save Darfur Coalition.

Organizational Affiliation

Whenever a staff member chooses to hold a position in any outside organization based on her or his expertise and her or his affiliation with Save Darfur Coalition, such representation shall be approved by the Deputy or Executive Director.  Such representation shall cease upon her or his resignation or termination of employment from Save Darfur Coalition.

Financial Interest in Other Business

An employee and her or his immediate family may not own or hold any interest in a supplier or vendor of the organization, except where such ownership or interest consists of securities in a publicly owned company and that securities are regularly traded on the open market.

Acceptance of Gifts

No employee may solicit or accept gifts of significant value (i.e., in excess of $25.00), lavish entertainment or other benefits from potential and actual donors or suppliers.  Special care must be taken to avoid even the impression of a conflict of interest.

An employee may entertain potential or actual donors if such entertainment is consistent with accepted business practices, does not violate any law or generally accepted ethical standard, and the public disclosure of the facts of such entertainment will not embarrass the organization.  Any questions regarding this policy should be addressed to the Executive or Deputy Director.

Work Product Ownership

All Save Darfur Coalition employees must be aware that Save Darfur Coalition retains legal ownership of the product of their work.  No work product created while employed by Save Darfur Coalition can be claimed, construed or presented as property of the individual, even after employment by Save Darfur Coalition has ended or the relevant project completed.  This includes written and electronic documents, audio and video recordings, system code, and also any concepts, ideas, or other intellectual property developed for Save Darfur Coalition, regardless of whether the intellectual property is actually used by Save Darfur Coalition. Although it is acceptable for an employee to display and/or discuss a portion or the whole of certain work product as an example in certain situations (e.g., on a resume, in a freelancer’s meeting with a prospective client), one must bear in mind that information classified as confidential must remain so even after the end of employment, and that supplying certain other entities with certain types of information may constitute a conflict of interest, a violation of law and Save Darfur Coalition policy.  In any event, it must always be made clear that work product is the sole and exclusive property of Save Darfur Coalition.  Freelancers, Interns, Consultants and temporary employees must be particularly careful in the course of any work they discuss doing, or actually do, for a competitor of Save Darfur Coalition.

Reporting Potential Conflicts

An employee must promptly disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest, in writing, to his or her supervisor.  The supervisor will then bring to the attention the actual or potential conflict of interest to the Executive Director, or his or her designee.  The Executive Director will then determine whether approval is granted.

WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY

The purpose of this policy is to state clearly and unequivocally that Save Darfur Coalition   prohibits discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation against any employee who provides information or otherwise assists in an investigation or proceeding regarding any conduct which he or she reasonably believes to be a violation of any laws, rules, or regulations, and which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, or threatens to disclose such violation.  Everyone at Save Darfur Coalition is responsible for assuring that the workplace is free from all forms of discrimination, harassment and retaliation prohibited by this policy.  No manger, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor of Save Darfur Coalition has the authority to engage in any conduct prohibited by this policy.

This policy protects any employee who:

• Discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor an activity, policy or practice that is in violation of a law, rule or regulation, which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety;
• Provides information, testifies, participates in, or otherwise assists in a proceeding before any public body conducting a hearing or inquiry into any violation of a law, rule, regulation, policy, practice or activity by Save Darfur Coalition, which violation creates or presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety;
• Discloses or threatens to disclose to a public body an activity, policy or practice that is in violation of a law, rule or regulation, which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety, provided the employee had previously brought such activity, policy or practice to the attention of a supervisor and afforded Save Darfur Coalition a reasonable time to correct such activity, practice or policy;
• Provides truthful information to a law enforcement officer relating to the commission or possible commission of a federal offense; or
• Discloses or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or public body, or refuses to participate in any activity that the employee, in good faith, reasonably believes violates any law, rule, regulation, or declaratory ruling which may present a significant threat to the health of a client or employee receiving health services from Save Darfur Coalition.

If an employee engages in any of the activities listed above, Save Darfur Coalition will not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against him or her in the terms or conditions of employment because of that activity.

Any employee who believes that he or she has been the subject of prohibited discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation or is aware of any conduct which may be prohibited by this policy is strongly encouraged to report immediately the facts forming the basis of that belief or knowledge to his or her supervisor, or the Executive or Deputy Director.  Any employee who witnesses any conduct which may be prohibited by this policy must immediately notify his or her supervisor.

Upon receiving a complaint, Save Darfur Coalition will promptly conduct a thorough investigation.  It is the obligation of all employees to cooperate in such an investigation.  Those responsible for the investigation will maintain the confidentiality of the allegations of the complaint and the identity of the person(s) involved, subject to the need to (a) conduct a full and impartial investigation, (b) remedy any violations of Save Darfur Coalition   policies, or (c) monitor compliance with Save Darfur Coalition policies.

The investigation generally will include, but may not be limited to, discussion with the complaining employee, the party against whom allegations have been made, and witnesses, if appropriate.  Save Darfur Coalition prohibits retaliation against any employee who makes a complaint under this policy or participates in Save Darfur Coalition’s investigation.

In the event that an investigation establishes that an employee has engaged in conduct or actions constituting discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation in violation of this policy, Save Darfur Coalition will take corrective action up to and including termination of employment.

Pretty standard, no?  But apparently that had too many pesky rules or was just too darn specific for SDC, because here’s that same section of a later version (now just called the Conflict of Interest Policy) of their handbook that was last modified on October 28th, 2008:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

In General

Save Darfur Coalition expects its employees to conduct work according to the highest ethical standards of conduct.  You have a responsibility to avoid conduct or actions that may create or appear to create a conflict of interest with Save Darfur Coalition.

A conflict of interest may arise if you take actions or have interests that are inconsistent with the interests of the organization or that interfere with your ability to perform your job effectively on behalf of the organization.  While it is not possible to list every type of conduct or action that creates or appears to create a conflict of interest, this policy outlines the most common ways in which a conflict of interest may arise.  All employees must avoid conduct or actions that create or appear to create a conflict of interest pursuant to this policy.  If an employee has any question whether any action or proposed course of conduct would create a conflict of interest, she or he should immediately contact the Chief Operating Officer or President to obtain advice on the issue.

Violation of this policy may result in discipline, up to and including termination of employment.

Outside Employment

Employment by employees outside of Save Darfur Coalition may create or appear to create a conflict of interest.  Generally, an apparent or actual conflict of interest will arise from any outside employment that:

• prevents the employee from fully performing work for which she or he is employed at Save Darfur Coalition, including overtime assignments;
• involves organizations that are working with or seeking to work with Save Darfur Coalition, including actual or potential vendors; or
• violates provisions of law or Save Darfur Coalition’s policies or rules.

Any employee who is employed outside of Save Darfur Coalition must advise their supervisor of such employment.  Save Darfur Coalition reserves the right to prohibit any outside employment that creates or appears to create a conflict of interest.

Political Activities

In order to retain its tax-exempt status, Save Darfur Coalition is prohibited from participation, intervention and/or involvement, either direct or indirect, in support of, or in opposition to any candidate for elective office.  Accordingly, all employees are expected to refrain from engaging in political activities on Save Darfur Coalition property, including through the use of any Save Darfur computers, or on Save Darfur Coalition business in order to avoid allegations that the private actions of its employees are in reality the actions of Save Darfur Coalition.

Organizational Affiliation

Whenever a staff member chooses to hold a position in any outside organization based on her or his expertise and her or his affiliation with Save Darfur Coalition, such representation must be previously approved by the Chief of Staff or President.  Such representation shall cease upon her or his resignation or termination of employment from Save Darfur Coalition.

Acceptance of Gifts

No employee may solicit or accept gifts of significant value (i.e., in excess of $50.00), lavish entertainment or other benefits from potential and actual donors or suppliers.  Special care must be taken to avoid even the impression of a conflict of interest.

An employee may entertain potential or actual donors if such entertainment is consistent with accepted business practices, does not violate any law or generally accepted ethical standard, and the public disclosure of the facts of such entertainment will not embarrass the organization.  Any questions regarding this policy should be addressed to the President or Chief Operating Officer.

Reporting Potential Violations of Conflicts of Interest Policy

If you become aware of any conduct that violates this policy, you should immediately report the violation to your supervisor, unless you are reporting a violation by your supervisor.  If you believe your supervisor may be violating this policy, you should immediately report the violation to the Chief Operating Officer.

Upon receiving a complaint, Save Darfur Coalition may promptly conduct a thorough investigation.  Any resulting investigation will be kept confidential to the extent possible and information relating to the investigation will be disclosed only to those with a need to know.  It is the obligation of all employees to cooperate in such an investigation.

In the event that an investigation establishes that an employee has engaged in conduct in violation of this policy, Save Darfur Coalition will take corrective action up to and including termination of employment.

WHISTLEBLOWER POLICY

Save Darfur Coalition   prohibits retaliation against any employee as a result of their reporting, or threatening to report, unlawful activity by Save Darfur Coalition, or any of its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors.  No manager, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor of Save Darfur Coalition has the authority to engage in any conduct prohibited by this policy.

Any employee, who believes they have been retaliated against in violation of this policy, must immediately notify the President or Chief Operating Officer.

Important:  If you have a complaint regarding a potential violation of the Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy, you must follow the reporting procedure set forth in that Policy.

Upon receiving a complaint, Save Darfur Coalition may promptly conduct a thorough investigation.  Any resulting investigation will be kept confidential to the extent possible and information relating to the investigation will be disclosed only to those with a need to know.  It is the obligation of all employees to cooperate in such an investigation.

In the event that an investigation establishes that an employee has engaged in conduct in violation of this policy, Save Darfur Coalition will take corrective action up to and including termination of employment.

As you can see, lots of changes have been made from top to bottom.  The sentence “A potential or actual conflict of interest occurs whenever an employee is in a position to influence a decision that may result in personal gain for the employee or an immediate family member (i.e., spouse or significant other, children, parents, siblings) as a result of the organization’s work” has been removed from the In General section.  The Whistleblower Policy has been drastically gutted and what remains of it has been tweaked.  Specifically, note that the earlier version says “Upon receiving a complaint, Save Darfur Coalition will promptly conduct a thorough investigation,” while “will” is replaced with “may” in the later version.  That’s my favorite.  Essentially, they changed it to say that even their willingness to investigate something as serious as a potential conflict is selective.  That takes balls, gentle reader.  Additionally, while the Work Product Ownership section has simply been moved to a different part of the handbook, the Financial Interest in Other Businesses section has been removed entirely.  This standard part of most handbooks, sometimes known as a “kickback clause,” refers specifically to conflicts that arise from personal or family interests.

Now, lots of organizations change their employee handbooks over time, often to provide further clarification of some policy.  Perhaps their lawyers alert them to a new law or some specific occurrence merits a deeper explanation of a particular rule.  For example, if some employees have a habit of dressing inappropriately, an employer may go into further detail in the Dress Code section.  But the trend is generally toward providing more, not less, clarification of a policy.  If anything, employers typically over-explain the rules in an effort to protect both themselves and their employees.  So what would prompt SDC to remove information instead?  Why on earth would any employer want the rules to be more vague?  What would make SDC shrink, rather than expand, their conflict of interest policy?

FUN WITH NUMBERS: How Developmental Aid Flows Around the Globe

Welcome, accountabilibuddies, to the first of our new series of posts that we’re ingeniously calling FUN WITH NUMBERS. Our inaugural post features numbers brought to us by the fine folks at visualeconomics.com.

With Save Darfur’s incessant Rain Man-esque yammering for national and world leaders to “prioritize” Darfur/Sudan — whatever the hell that means — we thought we’d take a closer look at just how much developmental aid flows into Sudan and where that figure falls in relation to other aid-receiving nations. According to a recent post over at visualeconomics.com…

So what we see here is that, according to the most recent data from the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, Sudan receives $2,104,000,000, which places it in the 7th position around the globe just behind #6, Pakistan and ahead of #8, Nigeria.

Now, in terms of U.S. developmental aid flowing to Sudan, the country receives $725 million, which falls behind only Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of U.S. development aid flows. If that’s not “priority” status, I don’t know what is. Top 5? Top 3?

And, yes, we at SDAP know very well that developmental aid is not the only or even lead indicator of ill-defined “prioritization”, but it’s one good, quantifiable way to gauge commitment from the United States and the international community to development in Sudan.

Tip o’ the teeny, tiny hat to teeny, tiny Squirrely McNutt II!

Is the war in Darfur over? (Maybe…for now.)

Today the BBC is reporting that the outgoing head of the joint U.N.-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Gen. Agwai, believes “the vicious fighting of earlier years had subsided as rebel groups split into factions.” General Agwai said, “Banditry, localised issues, people trying to resolve issues over water and land at a local level. But real war as such, I think we are over that.”

Money quotes:

Sudan analyst Gill Lusk said his comments were “unhelpful” because they could lead people to believe that Darfur’s problems had been solved.

“There has been a large decline in fighting in Darfur, and that is undoubtedly a good thing for the people,” she told the BBC.

“But it is the government that turns the tap on and off – they can restart the violence whenever they want.”

Gen Agwai insists the real problem now is political.

BBC Sudan correspondent James Copnall says that view is shared by many within Sudan.

The real problem is, was, and will be political. Obviously, what we need now is a 50-foot-high atrocity slide show on the side of a building in NYC to bring about a political solution in Sudan. (Flyers…er…fliers wouldn’t hurt either.) Thank Jeebus for the Save Darfur Coalition!

Save Darfur’s ’08 990: A Top 10 List

Below are the Top 10 things that the Save Darfur Coalition spent more on than direct aid to Darfuris in 2008, according to their most recent 990.

10. GetActive Software, Inc. – $118,537.  This software service allows SDC to send millions of emails, most of which are never opened.

This is actually how SDC pays GetActive. Technology has come such a long way.

9.  Professional fundraising fees – $258,931.  These are the people they pay to raise them money.  I wonder what the return on investment was?

We're thinking that SDC's fundraising strategy looks something like this.

8.  Accounting fees – $101,311. Remember, pissing away tens of millions of dollars requires some minimal accounting.

Only 100K to get someone else to deal with your IRS audit and woefully sloppy bookkeeping? Sounds like a bargain!

7. Telephone – $76,580.  Wanna guess who they bought their phone service from?  M&R Strategic Services, one of their biggest and most influential consultants.  Anyone wanna take bets on what portion of this is M&R’s “service fee” and which part is for actual service from Verizon?

"We could've saved how much by just buying directly from Verizon?!"

6. Postage and shipping – $162,296.  And they sure ain’t sending supplies to Darfur!

"Are all these packages from SDC?" "Yep." "How many are going to Darfur?" "Hahaha! That question gets funnier every time you ask it!"

5. Occupancy – $187,754.  And guess who they rented their office space from!  Did you say M&R? Exactement! C’est vrai, mon ami! (That’s French for “Darn tootin’, y’all!”) See, you’re getting the hang of it…

Yeah, it's like this but, thankfully, SDC staffers don't spontaneously break into song all the time.

4. Travel – $1,025,438.  One MILLION dollars?! Sweet sassy molassy! Probably for all their international work.  Too bad they have almost no influence internationally. (Damn, Johnnie Walker Blue must be getting more expensive in airport lounges the world over. DAMN YOU, GLOBAL RECESSION!)

"So why did we have to wait to buy one-way tickets the day of the flight for this overseas trip that we've been planning for months?" "Shut your ugly face. That's why."

3. Temporary help – $77,033.  They could have hired a mid-level staffer for that!  Or two low-level staffers!

"I make $20 an hour sharpening pencils and blogging...but my opinions don't necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition."

2. Advertising – $896,088.  Did you see any SDC ads in 2008?  Neither did I.

After you find Waldo, try finding a SDC ad. You know, just for giggles.

1. Their Top 5 Highest Paid Consultants – $1,972,817. Ah yes.  The people who really make all the money.

No, Darfuris! You can not haz!

MUST READ: The ‘genocide’ in Darfur isn’t what it seems

In today’s Christian Science Monitor, Marc Gustafson, a Marshall Scholar and doctoral candidate at Oxford University, argues that “Activist hype, though well-intentioned may have misdirected funds that could have saved lives.” It’s a smart piece that is sure to send Save Darfur into a well-earned PR frenzy.

And the winner of the Save Darfur Not-Really-A-Campaign-Naming-Contest is…

…DON’T FORGET DARFUR!

As they often say on ESPN’s SpotsCenter following a game-winning homerun, jump shot, or touchdown pass, “Winner, winner, CHICKEN DINNER!”

I hate to say, “I told you so”…but…I told you so! However, I’m not only here to gloat, I’m also here to promote the Save Darfur Coalition’s latest greatest opportunity for committed activists to meaningfully participate in SDC advocacy efforts.

Apart from being allowed to vote for the name of the not-really-a-campaign, as an extra, added bonus, YOU now have an opportunity to fund YOUR now named not-really-a-campaign. YOU can help fund YOUR over-sized slide show of humanitarian porn, posters, fliers (I prefer the correct spelling), street teams and press conferences. All it takes is $42,000. By donating now, YOU get to act at a crucial moment to avert a disaster and “make it impossible for world leaders to ignore Darfur and Sudan a moment longer.” Don’t believe me? Take a look for yourself…

Dear ________,

Your words. Their images. One unforgettable message to the U.N. The Darfur/Darfur exhibit in Paris If we can raise $42,000 by August 21, we can project the powerful images of the Darfur/Darfur exhibit and mobilize activists on the streets around the U.N. You can make it happen!

“Don’t Forget Darfur”

Imagine projecting this powerful message—along with the unforgettable images of the Darfur/Darfur photo exhibit—onto a building near the U.N. where world leaders will be sure to see it.

Well, you and I can make it happen, but only if we can raise $42,000 by August 21. Will you help?

Our window of opportunity is short.

We need to secure these funds before the U.N. General Assembly this September, as this could be our best chance to focus the world’s leaders on the millions of people still teetering on the edge of survival in Sudan.

________, your commitment to this campaign is what’s already driving our success. Thanks to the votes of thousands of activists like you, this week we chose “Don’t Forget Darfur” as the name for our all-out campaign this September.

Will you go one step further and help us take your message to the U.N.?

Your resolve and support couldn’t come at a more crucial moment for Sudan.

While millions of Darfuris continue to live in uncertainty and fear in Darfur, violence in South Sudan has sky-rocketed in recent months. If world leaders don’t act now, some experts believe the rise in insecurity in South Sudan could reignite the brutal war that killed over 2 million.

Your donation will support our Darfur/Darfur exhibit—as well as posters, flyers, street teams and press conferences—and could help us avert disaster by bringing the world’s attention back to the fight for peace in Sudan.

Through our massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition to President Obama, our “Don’t Forget Darfur” campaign will make it impossible for world leaders to ignore Darfur and Sudan a moment longer.

I want to thank you in advance for helping us seize this opportunity. I’ll be in touch soon to let you know whether we’ll be able to launch our projection this September!

—Mark

Mark Lotwis
Save Darfur Coalition

Photo credit: Darfur/Darfur

I don’t have the time or energy to critique this criminally stupid email line-by-line.  Suffice it to say, it’s bad on nearly every level imaginable. A few questions immediately spring to mind though:

1. What does it say when a multimillion dollar organization is begging for pennies?
2. Are long-time staff members embarrassed when they read that this is what now passes for an “all-out” campaign?
3. Wouldn’t it be more honest to say that this campaign is moving forward regardless of this fundraising ruse? Planning and preparation are currently moving forward and won’t be halted midstream if Save Darfur comes up short of its fundraising goal. Remember, “your commitment to this campaign is what’s already driving our success.”
4. Finally, can a glorified slide show, etc. truly “make it impossible for world leaders to ignore Darfur and Sudan a moment longer?” How can anyone take these people seriously when they make such embarrassingly ignorant/misleading assertions? Public awareness and political willingness are not the same thing, Mr. Lotwis.

This email, campaign and organization are absolutely pathetic. If you can’t see that fact now, you should get back to licking toads, eating paste or blowing up small animals with firecrackers. (Note: SDAP does not, in any way, condone cruelty to animals.)

Unfortunately, Sudan, it looks like you’re next in line to be “saved.” For that, I’m very sorry.

Save Darfur Hits Bottom and Keeps Digging

It’s official! The Save Darfur Coalition has reached a new low in what they seem to think is advocacy. To be clear, what they actually do cannot reasonably be considered the work of competent advocates or even sentient beings. It’s plain ol’ stoooopid. (And the worst part?  Some of the staff know it but continue to participate anyway.  BUT DON’T JUDGE THEM!  They’re collecting big paychecks in exchange for little work. Nice work if you can get it.)  Here’s the email SDC activists received last week entitled “Vote on our next major move for Sudan”:

Dear _______,

Vote now to name our new campaign: 1. Speak up for Sudan 2. Standing for Sudan 3. Don’t forget Darfur 4. Darfur: now more than ever 5. IDP—I Demand Peace By voting your name will be added to our new petition.

Do world leaders think Darfur is saved?

President Obama still hasn’t released his peace plan. The U.N. Security Council, European Union, Arab League and African Union all keep dragging their feet on getting tough with Bashir.

And yet as violence in Darfur has dropped, violence in South Sudan has sky-rocketed. Just last week, new brutal ethnic violence killed at least 185 in the southern Jonglei State.

In one month, world leaders will come together in New York City to discuss humanity’s most pressing issues: but will they make peace in Sudan a priority?

Your vote now will decide the name of our September campaign to make sure they do just that and remember those forgotten in Sudan.

Through a massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition, we will make it impossible for world leaders to ignore those still teetering on the edge in Sudan.

We’re kicking the campaign off with a new petition to President Obama, but our success depends on your taking direct ownership of this campaign.

That’s why we’re asking you to vote now and decide the name of our September campaign.

This is a crucial moment in our struggle to bring peace to Sudan. Some experts believe the rise in insecurity in South Sudan could reignite the brutal war that killed over 2 million.

September will be our best chance this year to impact so many key world leaders. Our ability to leverage this critical opportunity depends on what you do today.

Please vote by Monday August 17th and add your name to our new petition to President Obama.

I look forward to finding out how you vote and will report back results early next week.

—Mark

Mark Lotwis
Save Darfur Coalition

P.S. If you know someone who cares about the people of Darfur, ask them to join us from the start by signing the petition and voting on the name of the campaign.

Donate to Help Save Darfur
Help build the political pressure needed to end the crisis in Darfur by supporting the Save Darfur Coalition’s crucial awareness and advocacy programs. Click here now to make a secure, tax-deductible online donation.

There’s no need to say it, I know what you’re thinking, accountabilibuddies — “HUH?!?! That email makes no goddamn sense. You either need to be a fool (highly likely) or genius (highly unlikely) to understand such seeming nonsense. I need help!”  It’s okay, I’m scared too.  So let’s try and sift through the email together.  Give me your hand and let’s begin with the subject line…

“Vote on our next major move for Sudan”

YAY! We get to play a meaningful role in deciding the way the Save Darfur Coalition will move forward. Sweet. Now for the email itself…hold on tight, we’re in for a wild ride…

Dear _______,

Hey, that’s me (or you as the case may be)! At least these knuckleheads got our names right.

Do world leaders think Darfur is saved?

How do I know what the hell “world leaders” think? I’m not even sure who the “world leaders” in question are.  As for “saved”…that seems a bit “simple”…if you get my drift. All of us know that Sudan will only be saved by the Sudanese. More appropriately, they will reach a political compromise that stabilizes the country. Do you think the Sudanese, upon hearing a political agreement has been reached, will celebrate “saving” themselves? Doubtful.

President Obama still hasn’t released his peace plan. The U.N. Security Council, European Union, Arab League and African Union all keep dragging their feet on getting tough with Bashir.

Umm. Okay…I guess. The Obama administration hasn’t made a “peace plan” available to the general public (or more importantly to Jerry Fowler or John Prendergast), but the U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan does seem to be receiving sound reviews from many smart and committed advocates, from activists to academics to elected officials. I know, I know, the whacktivists are baying for Gration’s blood, but we know better than to let the lunatics run the asylum, don’t we? “Dragging their feet on getting tough with Bashir”? If you say so, but this seems more like overly propagandistic/militaristic rhetoric rather than thoughtful communication. Hyperbole is fun and easy!

And yet as violence in Darfur has dropped, violence in South Sudan has sky-rocketed. Just last week, new brutal ethnic violence killed at least 185 in the southern Jonglei State.

Violence in Darfur has dropped?! Then why does every other Save Darfur communication suggest otherwise? It’s hard to keep up with these schizophrenic paranoids…one day there’s a genocide…and the next it’s a semantic debate…one day there’s 400,000 dead…and now there’s…well…who knows what they’re saying this week. Anyone else get the sense Save Darfur will soon become Save Sudan?

In one month, world leaders will come together in New York City to discuss humanity’s most pressing issues: but will they make peace in Sudan a priority?

Again with the nameless “world leaders?”  “Humanity’s most pressing issues?”  Sounds important. So important, in fact, they didn’t even mention that what they’re referring to is the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting. Hey, if some SDC staff members don’t know where in the world the Hague is (yep, really), why would we expect them to actually know what “UNGA” (when pronounced by professional advocates it rhymes with “bunga”) is? As an American advocate for peace in Sudan, I certainly hope that U.S. representatives lead international attempts to support efforts for peace in Darfur/Sudan.  However, I know this is ultimately a Sudanese problem and only a Sudanese political solution can bring lasting peace to the people of that country. America cannot impose peace. (For examples, see Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Your vote now will decide the name of our September campaign to make sure they do just that and remember those forgotten in Sudan.

DO I LOOK STUPID TO YOU, MARK LOTWIS?! Your subject line was “Vote on our next major move for Sudan” and now I find out you just want me to vote on a campaign name?! Used car salesmen have got nuthin’ on you. Seriously. How in the name of all that is good and holy will my choosing one of five pre-determined names for a still yet-to-be-defined campaign “make sure” that “world leaders” will “make sure Sudan is a priority” and “remember those forgotten in Sudan”? Do you have chimps bangin’ on keyboards over there? I hope this isn’t the work of a human being, but I fear the worst.

Through a massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition, we will make it impossible for world leaders to ignore those still teetering on the edge in Sudan.

A HA! The goal of the “campaign” is to “make it impossible for world leaders to ignore those still teetering on the edge in Sudan,” and this will be accomplished through a “massive display of images from Darfur, signs placed in your windows, and a global photo petition.” Preposterous. Utter nonsense. It’s not a campaign. It’s a collection of useless awareness-raising tactics without a specifically-defined goal.  (FYI: Activists do little or nothing during the month of August. Smart money is on less then 10 percent of recipients even opened this email.) Save Darfur just failed Advocacy 101.

We’re kicking the campaign off with a new petition to President Obama, but our success depends on your taking direct ownership of this campaign.

Great. Yet another petition. Direct ownership? You’ve gotta be kidding me! Picking a poorly conceived name for an even more poorly conceived “campaign” is not direct ownership.  This is especially insulting to advocates because it shows that SDC doesn’t really trust them with making meaningful campaign decisions at all.  Rather, it’s patronizing, kinda like when a family gets a new pet and the parents decide what type of pet it will be, what breed, etc. but let their kids pick the name.  “Sure, Emily.  Your totally original and not-at-all-trite decision to name our new dalmatian Pongo was a huge contribution to the decision-making process.  You know you’re the reason Daddy drinks, right?”  

That’s why we’re asking you to vote now and decide the name of our September campaign.

Again with the voting?

This is a crucial moment in our struggle to bring peace to Sudan. Some experts believe the rise in insecurity in South Sudan could reignite the brutal war that killed over 2 million.

When was the last time SDC sent you an email that didn’t reference a crucial/critical moment and impending doom? Answer: As often as you receive an SDC email that doesn’t ask for your money — VERY RARELY.  And when every moment is critical, none are.

September will be our best chance this year to impact so many key world leaders. Our ability to leverage this critical opportunity depends on what you do today.

And when was the last time Mark Lotwis sent you an email that didn’t reference a “best/last chance”?

Please vote by Monday August 17th and add your name to our new petition to President Obama.

Aaahhh. NOW I GET IT! Save Darfur doesn’t want my “direct ownership,” they want my signature on their 1, 203,454th petition. Interesting. SDC is now requiring that activists pay a poll tax in the form of a petition signature. Very democratic. Why not allow dedicated long-time activists an opportunity to vote for the campaign name, but not sign the petition?  Come to think of it…why aren’t voting results more transparent? (My money is on DON’T FORGET DARFUR being the final choice, even though the “campaign” is aimed at making Sudan a priority. It’s just too incongruous to pass up.) It seems that SDC is much better at demanding democratic processes in Sudan than actually employing such processes themselves.

I look forward to finding out how you vote and will report back results early next week.

We will be waiting with bated breath, Mr. Lotwis. Any chance you’ll tell us how many votes were tallied for each proposed campaign name? I won’t hold my breath.

More on the proposed campaign names later. IDP: I DEMAND PEACE?!  Wow.  That’s one part wit and 100 parts ridiculous.

MUST READ: The Save Darfur coalition’s vital statistics

First off, is no one gonna call me out for the obvious hypocrisy of my last post?  You disappoint me once again, blogosphere.  Oh well, moving right along…

Conor Foley critiques the Save Darfur Coalition in an excellent post over at Crooked Timbers.  Let’s see, “money quote” is my co-blogger’s line, so I’ll call this an “excerpt of interest:”

By massively inflating the real death toll and offering what seems to be the most ‘common sense’ solution – send in western troops – it has put all the other humanitarian agencies and human rights groups at a massive disadvantage when it came to fundraising and ensured that it is its own message that has dominated the debate.  It is accountable to no one, it helps no one and it has created a self-perpetuating circle, which in any other industry could get its organisers prosecuted for fraud.

It’s worth a read, and he’s a great example of someone who has clearly seen the tip of the iceberg of Save Darfur Coalition intrigue, but has no clue about the vast chunk of Titanic-sinkin’ ice that lies underwater.  I ain’t hatin’ though, we can’t all be obnoxious insiders.  Speaking of which, he’s written a great book called The Thin Blue Line that everyone in the anti-genocide movement should read post-haste.

MUST READ: “This I Believe”

On August 10, 2009, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration released the following statement:

“This I Believe”

Scott Gration
Special Envoy to Sudan
Washington, DC
August 10, 2009

In the 1950s, journalist Edward R. Murrow hosted a radio show titled “This I Believe” that invited Americans to record essays that shared their core beliefs with listeners across the country. The essayists, ranging from heads of state to cab drivers, used the opportunity to tackle difficult topics and to offer “the guiding principles by which they lived.”

As the President’s Special Envoy to Sudan, I have been charged with the awesome responsibility of working to improve the political, humanitarian, and economic challenges confronting the people of Sudan. For the past six months, I have been working incredibly hard and logging a lot of miles to understand this dire and desperate situation better and to chart a course for moving forward. I understand that for the community of people who care deeply about this issue time is of the essence and much is at stake. I want to give you the clearest sense of where I am coming from and what my core beliefs are on the best approach to untangle the complex, varied, and nuanced set of issues facing Sudan.

I learned to walk and talk in Africa; my first words were in Swahili not English. A passion for Africa and African people runs through my veins. I also know firsthand the personal toll of war and what it means to be displaced. Growing up, my family was evacuated three times from our home in the Congo, and we became refugees. I embrace those experiences and they inform my current efforts.

I believe that the road to peace in Sudan runs through Darfur. The atrocities that have taken place in Darfur are a crime against the world that must be resolved. We are working aggressively to reverse the ongoing consequences of genocide in Darfur. Though the incidence of violent deaths has improved dramatically since 2005, the situation remains dangerous and dire. Civilians remain vulnerable, living conditions are unacceptable, and the displaced remain unable to return home in security.

For those who are concerned that we are seeking the untimely return of IDPs, I assure you that that is not the case. I share the same concerns about the idea of having the more than 2.5 million people living in IDP camps attempt returns in an insecure and uncoordinated fashion. We will never abandon or seek to endanger IDPs. Our task for now is to begin the work to create conditions that are conducive for their eventual safe return, including access to food and safe water, addressing land rights, protection of human rights, and freedom from gender-based violence. We are working closely with the African Union/United Nations joint chief mediator, Djibril Bassolé to unify the disparate rebel groups in Darfur so that they can speak with one voice to participate in the peace process. I also believe that IDPs must have a clear voice as their perspectives and solutions become part of this process.

As important as it is to address the issue of Darfur, I believe that we equally dedicate all available resources to achieving full implementation of the CPA. In the next two years, Sudan will face both national elections and two referenda. An unsuccessful and marred election could contribute to significant unrest and instability in a state bordering nine other countries and even incite renewed conflict. In the last few months, we have initiated trilateral talks with the parties to the CPA and have developed an implementation strategy. These talks are ongoing and we are holding all parties accountable for their commitments. We are determined to create the conditions for a peaceful process and post-referendum period whether the result is a single, stable, and unified Sudan or a Sudan that divides into two separate states.

Our work on implementing the CPA is complemented by our efforts to address the pressing needs of Southern Sudan. The South needs urgent attention and assistance in building its infrastructure and promoting development before the referendum in 2011. While the current US sanctions against the government in Khartoum explicitly exclude Southern Sudan, in practical terms they do not.

Large equipment needed for infrastructure or economic development in the South must go through Port Sudan and/or Khartoum in the North, which makes these necessary investments for the South subject to our sanctions. “Smart,” targeted sanctions are absolutely necessary and desirable against key components of the government in Khartoum. I want to be clear. These sanctions should not be lifted.

However, I believe that we must consider specific exceptions or selective rollbacks to facilitate development in the South and fully implement the CPA. We need more flexibility to achieve our desired results, which are: pressuring the North, developing the South, and incentivizing good behavior on all sides.

I believe that we cannot hope to achieve these results and a lasting peace if we only engage with those we already agree with. We must work to mediate and work with all stakeholders—Khartoum, Juba, rebel groups, Chad, civil society, and the international community. It is important to recognize the stated position of the US government on President Al-Bashir. We hold him responsible for the actions of his government and recognize that the justice process is moving forward. I have not met and have no plans to meet with President Al-Bashir.

As we continue moving forward, I will need the support and engagement of the entire community that is dedicated to addressing the challenges facing Sudan. We all have to work together and to be on the same team. Let us continue to exchange our best ideas in support of our important mission.

Thank you for your continued interest and dedication, Scott.

Well played, General…well played. Now we’ll just have to wait and see if the pro-stick-anti-carrot-nattering-neocon-nabobs are willing “to work together” and be on the “same team” with Gen. Gration and the Obama administration to address the current challenges facing Darfur/Sudan. Doubtful, since there’s no S, D, or C in T-E-A-M…and no N, O, U, G, or H either.

What I Did on My Summer Vacation: A Love Story

So I’ve been back home for the past week visiting my parents (It was not a social visit, mind you.  See, a new family moved into my old neighborhood and, technically, I still have to introduce myself to them even though I no longer live in the area.  Damn Megan’s Law is a mutha, y’all!) and I’ve learned a few important things:

1.  My step-father’s insulin tastes nothing like Sprite (a friend owes me $50 for that one).

2.  Cats make horrible babysitters.

3.  When Mrs. Chote, my parents’ new neighbor, says that she can bedazzle anything, never ever ask her to prove it.

4.  Taxidermists have fantastically filthy senses of humor.

Ya see?!

5.  The DC non-profit community may be more incestuous than European royal families and West Virginia combined.  See, my vacation was interrupted when someone called to alert me to a recent post on Stop Genocide in which Michelle F. defends SDC.  A very small amount of sleuthing (i.e. sleuthing that did not require me to be sober or to move from the backyard hammock) led me to some interesting findings.  See below the email I sent to Change.org after sobering up:*

Dear Change.org (or Dr. Change.org Esq., whichever you prefer),

I’ve been very distressed by the content of Stop Genocide, one of the blogs on your site, as of late.  Cereally, I’ve been crying myself to sleep for the past week. Every night, I curl up in a fetal position, hug my Tenderheart Care Bear and scream “Why don’t they love me?!” to the heavens above. I once did this so loudly that the neighbors called the police (again).

My distress began after I favorably mentioned Change.org in a blog post of mine a while back – Indeed, “Thanks, Change.org” was the title of the post! – and thanked bloggers Michelle F. and Martha Heinemann Bixby of Stop Genocide for their excellent work. In return, I got no mention on their blog. Not even a Daily Darfur Quickie!  That really hurt, as I’m always up for a quickie.

I had such high hopes for how our relationship would unfold too. See, Michelle F. wrote a post about Al Wynn, a former congressman who intends to lobby for Wartsila, a company whose “business transactions…have helped the Sudanese government.” In her post, Michelle chastises Wynn, saying “I would say, ‘Shame on you, Mr. Wynn,’ but somehow I doubt he’s familiar with the concept.” Well, I found out that the lobbying firm Wynn works for is Dickstein Shapiro, which provides pro bono legal counsel for the Save Darfur Coalition, according to their website. I wrote about it, thanking Change.org for alerting me to this story. I thought that, since Michelle seems like a woman of such strong moral fiber, that she would flag my post and say something like “If this is true, then hopefully, if they aren’t already planning to do so, SDC will take steps to get new legal counsel. If not, perhaps they are the ones who are unfamiliar with the concept of shame.” See how that would have tied in with her previous post?  God, such a missed opportunity!

So they ignored me.  Fine.  I can handle that.  I’ll just do what I always do when my love goes unrequited: Cut myself and murder hookers.  Perfectly normal, perfectly healthy.  But then, presumably not having sufficiently ripped my heart out, Stop Genocide decided to take a more active approach.  In an August 3rd post titled Give Me A Break: The True Story of the Save Darfur Thong, Michelle calls out “irresponsible” bloggers who chastised SDC for accepting money from the sale of thongs with the words “Stop Genocide” on them (or “Thonggate” as it’s now known around these parts). She doesn’t mention SDAP, but we’re obviously included in the group she’s critiquing because we wrote about the thongs back in April, before they became a “sensation in the blogosphere.” She explains how her “moles within Save Darfur” – moles suggests subterfuge, so maybe “handlers” would be a more appropriate word choice, but more on that in a minute – informed her that SDC tried to get these people to stop by issuing a cease and desist order and “as far as SDC knows, they have not received funds from the sale of the thong” and ends with asking that bloggers – like me, I suppose – “take [their] potshots elsewhere.”  Why you gotta bust balls, babydoll?

Obviously, I was devastated. After wiping my tears though, I got to thinkin’ ‘bout this a little more. The obvious questions to me were “‘As far as they know?!’ Why would SDC have to guess that they didn’t receive money from these people unless their development recordkeeping is even more woeful than I previously imagined?” and “How could they have issued a cease and desist order ‘some years back’ when their logo just got copyrighted not long ago?  You can’t send a C&D for a logo you don’t own!”  It smacks of bad intelligence – or lack of intelligence – to me.  More importantly, why didn’t SDC defend themselves personally?  Why is Michelle doing it for them? Why would Stop Genocide gladly attack Wynn for the Wartsila thing, but give SDC a free pass? Why give SDC another pass by saying that the thongs are a “scam?” Why the selective reporting? Why does Stop Genocide consistently either defend SDC or at least under-report its crimes and misdemeanors?

And that’s where you come in, Change.org.  See, while trying to find answers to the questions above, I came across some information that I’d like you to confirm or deny.  It would give me closure and help the healing process begin, you see.  Specifically, according to our “moles” (we actually call them “sources” because we aren’t trying to pretend like we’re CIA agents, but whatever) within SDC, contributors to the Stop Genocide blog are actually very much connected to and invested in SDC.  Michelle, for example, apparently works at Wellspring Advisors, a major donor to SDC.  If this is true, I’m sure she has already told you in the interest of full disclosure (again, due to her strong moral fiber…that’s what the “F.” in Michelle F. stands for).  I’m sure she’s also told you that Mike Edington, a Senior Philanthropic Adviser at Wellspring, is the Treasurer of SDC’s board.  Likewise, Martha Heinemann Bixby, who blogs less frequently on Stop Genocide, is currently a full time staff member at SDC. Finally, Mohamed Suleiman, who just started writing for Stop Genocide, works closely with SDC and was even one of SDC’s Darfur Heroes last October.

Should all this be true, it raises all kinds of questions, of course.  Could these allegiances be the reason Michelle was unwilling to write something bad about SDC? Should Michelle’s posts that defend SDC be thought of as the voice of Michelle, Change.org or Wellspring Advisors? In that same vein, should Martha’s posts be viewed as those of an individual or simply an extension of SDC policy? There’s no way of knowing for certain, obviously, but I just want your help in shedding some light on the relationship between your bloggers and the organizations they write about. When I’m reading Stop Genocide, am I reading something that’s been authored by an impartial observer or do the authors of that blog have the same connections to the movement that the authors of SDAP do?  If the latter is true, I think you understand what kind of closure that would give me.  I would then understand perfectly well why Stop Genocide’s authors don’t love me and never will: If I funded, worked at or worked with SDC, I’d try to ignore my blog too.

The problem is that, on her Change.org profile, Michelle doesn’t list her current employer (even Martha’s profile lists SDC as a place she has worked, implying past tense).  So I’m asking – no, begging! – you to clarify Stop Genocide’s relationship (or lack thereof) with SDC for me.  Does Michelle really work for Wellspring?  Martha still works at SDC, right?  Note that, to keep others from suffering the same heartbreak I did, I’ll publish your response on my blog, the Save Darfur Accountability Project, upon receiving it.  Thank you for helping me get through this.  I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Deontologist

*Confession: I wasn’t really sober when I wrote that.  Not even close.

Droning On

Michelle F. (the “F.” is for faceless) over at STOP GENOCIDE touts the latest greatest Eric Reeves op-ed. The post isn’t worth reading in its entirety, but here’s the money quote:

Personally, I’m beginning to wonder if someone placed a chip in Gration’s head during his last trip to Khartoum, turning him into a drone for the government of Sudan.

You gotta admire the guts cajones of Save Darfur movement hacks (professional advocates and their major funders alike) that have failed miserably (REPEATEDLY over the past 5 years) at “saving Darfur” to take potshots at Gen. Gration.

Taking advice from Michelle. F, Jerry F., Sam B., and John P. on how to bring peace to Darfur is like taking advice from the German army on how to win a World War. (“Invade Russia in ze winter? Vy not? Let’s do it! I hear Stalingrad iz beautiful zis time of year.”) Bad, bad idea. Here’s some unsolicited advice to the nattering (neocon?) nabobs of negativity: Crawl into the backseat where you belong, lil’ children…the adults are back in the driver’s seat. Hey, if Gration lives up to your hopes expectations, you’ll have plenty of opportunities to say, “I told you so.” Then you can strut back to your over-paid, 9:30-to-5ish, holier-than-thou jobs…there will always be some people for you to “save”.

MUST READ: U.S. reshaping Darfur policy

Peter Wallsten and Edmund Sanders have a great piece in today’s Los Angeles Times on the Obama administration’s new approach to Darfur/Sudan. The article includes this very interesting tidbit:

Potential conciliation is particularly sensitive because of the war crime charges against Bashir. Some advocacy groups are planning for a marketing blitz designed to convince the White House to maintain pressure on Sudan in light of Gration’s push to engage Khartoum.

The media effort will include YouTube videos and viral ads highlighting campaign promises from Obama and his team pledging tough action to save Darfur.

“We fear [Gration is] being too concessionary,” said Randy Newcomb, president of Humanity United, a foundation that gets its money from the founders of EBay and is bankrolling the publicity campaign.

“These are people in the administration we’ve been friendly with, but we’ve got to keep the pressure on them to make sure they are very aggressive,” Newcomb said.

Now we have the funders out front leading the charge instead of the all-important advocacy orgs? Is Humanity United falling out of love with ENOUGH and the Save Darfur Coalition? And what the hell does “very aggressive” mean? We here at SDAP will be keeping a keen eye on the upcoming media campaign, so stay tuned.

MUST READ: The “Seven Deadly Sins” of a Peacemaker

Money Quote from Alex de Waal’s recent Making Sense of Darfur blog post:

Peacemaking is an art—but increasingly we can apply sound measurements to rate a mediator’s efforts. In the run-up to the long-awaited announcement of the U.S. policy on Sudan, I will use a paper by Lakhdar Brahimi and Salman Ahmed, “In Pursuit of Sustainable Peace: The Seven Deadly Sins of Mediation,” to outline some of the measurements we may use to assess the new U.S. policy. My premise is that the U.S. is interested in peace, and that the warring parties are Sudanese, so that the U.S. role is either as mediator or in support of mediation. If the U.S. intends imposing its own political framework on Sudan, then that would call for a different set of measurements.

Clinton plans to visit 7 nations in Africa NOT named “Sudan”

According to the AP, SecState Clinton “plans to travel to Africa next week on a seven-nation tour aimed at highlighting the Obama administration’s commitment to the continent.” She will visit Kenya, South Africa, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde.

Money quote:

“In each nation, she will emphasize Africa as a place of opportunity, built on an ethic of responsibility,” Kelly said. “She will underline America’s commitment to partner with governments, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and private citizens to build societies where each individual can realize their potential.”