Why No “Not on Our Watch” Redux?
There was a time in the mid-2000s when it seemed everyone, ostensibly, was paying attention to the atrocities of the world.
Specifically, I remember seeing interviews with celebrities like Don Cheadle and George Clooney speaking out against the genocide happening in Darfur. At that time, the phrase “Not on our Watch” seemed ubiquitous when discussing Sudan and Darfur.
This catchphrase culminated with the release of Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, a book co-authored by Don Cheadle and human rights activist John Pendergast. A slew of documentaries and articles followed, and it seemed, for a moment, that the world was paying attention.
In 2007, The Guardian ran a piece which touted the celebrity attention around Darfur had “mobilized activists and generated support like no other conflict or humanitarian crisis, particularly in the U.S.” Angelina and Brad Pitt donated millions to charities working in Sudan,
Steven Spielberg is even reported to have helped urge the Chinese government to support the peacekeeping mission in the region. The U.S. government and international community poured hundreds of millions of dollars into aid in the area, and it appeared that people cared about the people of Sudan and Darfur for a while.
Now, Darfur is again facing another crisis since Sudan devolved into an all-out civil war in April. There have been recent reports of ethnic cleansing and genocidal behavior in Darfur. Thousands are dead, millions displaced, but where is the world this time? Where are the celebrities calling on governments to do more, increase aid, and bring awareness to calamity? Why has there been no “Not on Our Watch” redux?
The Origin Story
For brevity’s sake, the main crux of the 2000s genocide in Darfur started when a civil war erupted in 2003 between the Khartoum government and an uprising of rebel groups in Darfur — the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).
In response, the Sudanese government armed and rained local Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, were told to target African ethnic groups like the Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit who lived in villages in the Darfur region. What followed was the systematic rape, torture, and murder of the people of Darfur by the Sudanese government and its Janjaweed militia. Estimates put the death toll between 100,000–400,000, with millions more displaced.
In 2004, the United States government made the bold and correct move, calling what was happening in Darfur a genocide and putting pressure on Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to cease the support of the Janjaweed militias. Then, in May of 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush gave a speech on Darfur, announcing sanctions on Sudanese individuals linked to the violence happening in Darfur and condemning the systematic destruction and killing:
“For too long, the people of Darfur have suffered at the hands of a government that is complicit in the bombing, murder, and rape of innocent civilians. My Administration has called these actions by their rightful name: genocide. The world has a responsibility to help put an end to it. … I promise this to the people of Darfur: the United States will not avert our eyes from a crisis that challenges the conscience of the world.”
In 2007, the United Nations sent an international peacekeeping force to the region (the UN-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID)). Money and aid poured into Darfur, and in 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced charges against Sudan’s President, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity (Omar al-Bashir currently sits in prison in Khartoum, where Sudanese officials have refused to hand him over to the ICC). By 2009, the U.S. had provided more than 4 billion in humanitarian assistance.
Al-Bashir booted aid organizations from the country in response to the ICC sanctions. Slowly, the world started to forget about the killings in Darfur, which continued despite the presence of peacekeepers (The United Nations peacekeeping force concluded in 2020/2021, despite protests from people in Darfur, and the conflict was deemed “resolved”).
Al-Bashir was finally ousted by one of his generals in 2019. Since then, the country has slowly slipped back into its perpetual cycle of violence and onslaught — most recently with the outbreak of a new civil strife.
Why No Redux?
Now, the people of Sudan and Darfur face a similar fate as they did in the mid-2000s: Since the outbreak of civil war between the RSF militia and central Khartoum government in April, more than 9,000 Sudanese have been killed, with more than 4.5 million displaced.
Neighboring Chad has seen an influx of 400,000 people due to the conflict alone. Furthermore, groups like Human Rights Watch claim that atrocities have resumed in Darfur, with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and Arab militias again targeting ethnic groups in the region, including raping women and burning their villages to the ground. In short, Darfur has returned to the state it was in the mid-2000s, and yet, you’d be hard-pressed to find any unifying voice of condemnation.
There have been ripples of denouncement of the happenings in Darfur: the Kenyan President has called for a new peacekeeping mission. The United States has sanctioned some of the RSF. However, no government has yet to cite what’s happening in Darfur as genocide publicly.
In October, a U.N. human rights body established a “fact-finding” mission, proposed initially by the U.K., U.S., and Norway, to probe abuses in the Sudanese conflict. However, there appears to be little appetite for the international community or celebrities to engage this time.
In a great piece from the Christian Science Monitor, Avril Benoît, executive director of Doctors Without Borders USA, said that the world is overwhelmed due to the plethora of global disasters and conflicts, which has everyone overwhelmed and aid workers overworked and overstretched. Echoing this sentiment, Foreign Affairs published a piece in September which further hit home this point:
Far greater resources and political will — albeit much of it misdirected — did not solve the previous war. This time, it is going to be tougher. But there is one promising factor: there are no geostrategic stakes in Darfur. All sides should have an interest in stopping the bloodshed. Countries that are at odds over other global issues should be able to set aside their differences and agree on actions to protect civilians, provide essential aid, and stop an unfolding calamity that will likely surpass what Darfur suffered two decades ago.
When one looks at the international landscape, there is a lot to survey: the war between Ukraine and Russia, a plethora of natural disasters across the Middle East and Asia, the quagmire of Afghanistan, and most recently, the escalation of the Israeli-Hamas conflict — to name a few. In short, the Joe Biden (D-Delaware) administration has much on its plate, with Israel and Ukraine devouring most of the U.S.’s foreign policy interests and support. But if a humanitarian crisis is not enough of a strategic reason for the U.S. to pay attention to what’s happening in Darfur, then perhaps a geostrategic one could provide a reason to support Sudan.
Both Russia and China, U.S. rivals, have vested hegemonic interests in the region. Russia uses Sudan for its gold to help fund its war against Ukraine. On a broader scale, the Russian government has recently expanded its influence and presence throughout Africa through its mercenary force, The Wagner Group.
And while the Chinese government has not been as obvious or as military-driven in its meddling in African affairs, it has massive foreign investments and business interests throughout the continent, including Sudan. But one would hope or think that thousands of innocent civilian deaths and the systematic targeting of ethnic groups residing in the Darfur region would be enough for anyone to remind us of what the world was capable of in the mid-2000s, a time when a simply innocuous and altruistic phrase helped bring attention to one of the worst human rights atrocities in the 21st century with a promise not to repeat it.
