ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the claim that an overly simplistic advocacy narrative of events and prescriptions for international action in Darfur, Sudan, pointed the United Nations (UN) and African Union (AU) leadership down a path early in the conflict there, resulting in a heavy emphasis on peacekeeping rather than peacemaking as the tool of choice. In 2003, northern and southern Sudan looked to be on the cusp of signing a peace agreement after 20 years of conflict. The government, caught off guard, responded slowly, as the majority of its forces remained engaged against the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) in southern Sudan. Political scientist Maarten Hajer refers to narratives used in this way as argumentative storylines – the purposeful “mobilization of bias” through use of “catchy one-liners” or “symbolic references” that “sound right” within a certain social or institutional context and justify particular courses of action.
