One of the main justifications for the media and advocacy attention to Darfur is that the situation there has been labelled “genocide.” But we should not overlook the fact that one of the reasons why activists called it genocide in the first place was to generate media attention, and the resulting policy attention in the form of pressure for military intervention and funds for humanitarian relief. The argument can quite easily become circular.

In this regard, read the remarks by John Prendergast of ENOUGH quoted by Ed Sanders of the Los Angeles Times a few days ago. Prendergast said, “invocation of that word saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Absent that, it would have been harder to get this on the radar screen.” Then, according to Sanders, “he dismissed the is-it-or-isn’t-it controversy as legal semantics. ‘Well-meaning scholars can disagree, but the debate is a crushing diversion from what we need to do to find a solution,’ he said.”

I agree with Alex that labeling Darfur conflict “as genocide” is mostly the main reason of all this media coverage compare to Congo. However, the question is still valid why Darfur? There are many explanations could be mentioned to the motives. Nonetheless, it seems the political interests of the US is still the main driving force behind this media and advocacy attention to Darfur. As Julie Hollar rightly has said “China’s increasing business ties to the country also threaten U.S. interests in a region with substantial oil reserves”. Apparently, the role of China in Africa generally and in Sudan particularly is the main factor. We should not forget, though, Chinese successful business in Sudan especially in oil sector has raised their appetite to enter in economic ties with many countries in sub-Saharan region.

In Congo case, the plunder of the country’s resources, which primarily benefits multinational corporations, in my view is the main reason behind this neglect. Congo is also rich with coltan, a mineral used for cell phones and other common electronic devices. Africa is not yet well aware with this technology so the economic interests of big giant companies could affect the media coverage for their own benefits. If the media shed light on the situation there then people will try to find out who funds these rebel groups. For sure rebel groups who hold these areas sell off the minerals at cut-rate prices, using the profits to maintain power and the major beneficiary is the big companies.

Also:

I disagree with the assessment that the US had political ambitions related to oil and therefore internationalized/sensationalized the Darfur conflict. There is little evidence to support this claim. First, the conflict in Darfur, and America’s reaction to it, has made it impossible for US oil companies to even think about getting involved in Sudan. A history of Sudan’s oil exploration activities will show you that both Chevron and Talisman Energy (Canadian Company) left Sudan over a decade ago and lost a lot of money because of pressure from activist groups and the political instability and civil conflict around the oil fields in southern Sudan. So why, with the political and activist environment being what it is, would any oil company want to get involved in Sudan? If the US (via corporate channels) had ambitions to tap into Sudan’s oil resources, they would do it as quietly as possible. And, if the US was trying to shame China internationally to get ahead in some kind of overall game/competition for resources in Africa, then they could have also picked a variety of other countries, including Congo, to expose China’s indifference over human rights, war crimes, etc.

The simple answer is that the Congo doesnt have a government deemed hostile by washington and its allies, therefore an intensive media campaighn would serve no purpose. The demonisation of sudan over Darfur serves the purpose of punishing a hostile government as well as beeing a warning to other regional governments thinking of stepping out of line, such as those of the congo, ethiopia,chad and uganda who also have internal conflicts that can be easily manipulated.

On what advocacy can achieve, there is a brilliant book by Stacy Sullivan titled: Be Not Afraid, for You Have Sons in America: How a Brooklyn Roofer Helped Lure the US into the Kosovo War

Having seen it in action first hand, I stand behind every word.

Advocacy (or rather “advertisement”) on any conflict, rich with daily press releases, updates, “stories” feed the reporters who inturn feed their editors, who finally feed the populace. If you keep them coming, with a few buzzwords such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes (anything holocaustic enough) thrown in here and there, you do not even need solid country interests to pump up the coverage, and initiate intervention.