Sunday, August 26, 2007

Counting the Bodies

Bidish Sarma

Just how many have died in Darfur as a result of the Sudanese government’s violent actions in the region? The answer to that question is extraordinarily difficult to determine. And the estimates provided by different scholars and institutions have proven extremely contentious.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom’s advertising watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), decided that the Save Darfur Coalition and Aegis Trust misrepresented the death toll of 400,000 in Darfur as a fact rather than as an opinion. It turns out that estimating the number of people who have died – as a direct result of violence and as a result of the government’s intentional abandonment of Darfuris suffering from disease and malnutrition – is very complicated business. Predictably, nobody can look to Khartoum for any help in making a reliable estimate. After all, the government maintains the absurd claim that only 9,000 people have died due to state and rebel combat.

Studies have claimed a range of deaths anywhere from tens of thousands to 450,000. The wide discrepancies between competing figures are explained by assumptions and methodological decisions made by scholars. For example, Professor Eric Reeves has argued that data compiled in a study by the Coalition for International Justice (CIJ) in August 2004, though controversial, must be utilized in making an accurate estimation because it is the most comprehensive available to that point in time. To ignore the findings of the CIJ, Reeves, says, “may result in greater methodological hygiene,” but “also ensures that violent mortality will be very dramatically understated.” Reeves concludes “upwards of 450,000 people have died.”

Alex de Waal, on the other hand, argues, “experience counsels caution.” He makes the case for a more moderate estimation: approximately 200,000 deaths. This estimation of mortality relies upon a study conducted by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). De Waal supports the CRED finding as a reasonable middle-ground and articulates the concern that “the press and the humanitarian advocates will seize on the high end figure.”

For individuals concerned about the atrocities occurring in Darfur, the disparate mortality numbers pose two dilemmas: (1) Why do the numbers matter? (2) Which figure should advocates rely upon?

The numbers matter for several reasons. The historical record will be built largely upon post-crisis studies, but popular estimates espoused and embraced while the atrocities were occurring will have an indelible impact on the record. Additionally, an accurate grasp of the scale of the atrocities is necessary to mobilize resources and provide humanitarian relief organizations with the support that they need to succeed. Wildly inaccurate or inflated mortality estimations also provoke controversy, shifting the focus from solving problems on the ground to uncovering the roots of authorship bias. One must wonder, however, if the debate occurring on the numbers in Darfur is unique, or if opinions will always collide in the midst of large-scale humanitarian crises. If the problem is not unique, the numbers matter a little less, especially insofar as there is agreement that something serious is happening that demands the attention of the international community.

As for the numbers that advocates should rely upon, it is safe to say that almost all experts believe at least around 200,000 people have died in Darfur. Although Professor Reeves believes the figure is much higher, he accepts the number 200,000 as an authoritative lower limit. Whether the actual number has crawled above 300,000 or 400,000 remains unclear. The lesson is, although we are unsure of what the reality is, it is critical for us to engage in an honest conversation about the numbers. Advocates should familiarize themselves with the different dimensions of the debate and look into the studies underlying the estimates. So long as advocates possess a coherent rationale for utilizing the figure that they do and so long as they frame the numbers in an honest light, we can all unite on the most important goal of all: stopping the violence and establishing a long-term peace.