Conversations: "The Devil Came on Horseback"

With a complex conflict like Darfur, do you think that the lack of straightforward narrative keeps people from engaging with the situation?

Sundberg: I think that people do shy away from the complexity of this. People get confused when we say, "Oh, it's Muslim on Muslim," or, "What does it mean to be a black African versus an Arab in Sudan?" It's almost like it's too complicated: "I don't want to get involved when I have to do too much work to figure out how to address this situation." Our goal with the film is to convey that this is a government that is neither protecting nor benefiting its citizens and the civilians are the collateral damage in the crisis. Our hope was to keep things understandable on a human level, so that people could really empathize with the Darfurians.

How do you negotiate that ethical dilemma of speaking to people, as you did in Chad, when you're potentially putting them at risk of reprisal?

Steidle: We felt that showing their stories without mentioning their names minimizes their risk. They're willing to take the risk. They want the story told and they really believe that America can help them.

Was there ever a moment where you backed away from somebody because of the risk to them?

Steidle: No, there wasn't.

In the end, it was the Rwandan Patriotic Front that ended the Rwandan genocide. How likely is it that the Sudanese people will end this crisis themselves?

Steidle: The only way I think that the Sudanese people can end the crisis is to become a stronger military presence than the Sudanese government. At the moment they can't do that because they don't have the equipment, the training, the ammunition. If there was interest from the international community to assist the rebel groups within Sudan, you'd also see the south rise up again and destroy the government. I think the Sudanese people see themselves as Sudanese. They don't want to be separate. They don't want to see families get killed, or friends. I think it's more likely that we'll see a peaceful solution than a wartime solution.

If there were a military intervention in Sudan, do you think it should be a neutral peacekeeping force, or should troops be allowed to take sides in the conflict?

Steidle: There should be no taking sides. That's why the United States was overwhelmed in Somalia and pulled out. You cannot take sides in internal conflicts because sides flip, people flip. You have to go in there with the intention of protecting the civilian population from the rebels, from the Arabs, from the government, from anybody who threatens their existence. You cannot afford to take sides; if you take sides in the military conflict you will be overwhelmed.

You advocate divestment. Why?

Steidle: I think that one of the simplest and easiest things we can ask people to do is divestment. The whole divestment issue is to try to get people to pull their money out of the two dozen companies that are complicit in this genocide -- companies like Petrochina, which is owned by the Chinese state, and funds this war [by buying Sudanese oil]. Without them there would be no war. There would be no money to buy equipment and ammunition for the Sudanese government. By putting pressure on those companies, I think we can make a concrete difference on the ground.

How would you respond to people who say that that approach is too slow moving?

Steidle: I would say that we're already slow moving, and so any step forward would be a good step. Divestment is something you can do tomorrow.

Sundberg: When you look at the overall share of international trade that countries in Africa have, Sudan's a big player, with oil revenue in particular. I think if you really put pressure on Sudanese oil exports, it's the biggest thing that's brought them to the table. There are also possible U.S.-led sanctions. One is a sanction that would have any tanker that has ever carried Sudanese oil be prohibited from entering U.S. ports.

Steidle: This would put the pressure not only on the Sudanese government, or these oil companies, but on these ship captains and shipowners. They would have to make a decision: "Is it more important for me to trade with the U.S. or with the Sudan?" Who are they going to choose? They're going to choose us.

Because so many people have died in Darfur, it seems hard to imagine them as people, instead of anonymous victims. Did you try to individualize them in the film?

Stern: We have thousands of Brian's photographs showing the dead bodies, showing images of dead person after dead person. You can divorce yourself from it, but if you spend enough time and slowly look at these photographs and at their details, it becomes personal. But it's important also to show the living -- to show what we're missing.

Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)

Search terms:

Salon the Web

Salon Directory (browse by topic)