NewTactics.org

Check this out! It's from New Tactics, an online human rights community that I absolutely love! I really recommend it as a forum for learning new ways to fight for human rights.

New Tactics, an online human rights community and project of the Center for Victims of Torture, will be launching an online tactical discussion on the topic of "The Power of Place: How Sites of Conscience Inspire Civic Engagement" on October 24th. We would welcome your personal or organizational participation and perspective in this discussion with people from all over the globe.

The New Tactics in Human Rights project is excited to announce our new
community-based website.

Join New Tactics, a community committed to Human Rights.
At www.newtactics.org you will be able to:

* Connect with human rights advocates from around the world
* Meet and interact with activists, educators, students, and
other practitioners
* Share ideas and seek feedback
* Join on-going discussions or start new ones
* Collaborate with colleagues
* Find new resources and all your favorite New Tactics materials
and tools

Join today and participate in: The Power of Place: How Sites of Conscience
Inspire Civic Engagement featuring practitioners from the International
Coalition of Historical Sites of Conscience including Sarwar Ali, Trustee
from Liberation War Museum in Bangladesh; and Ereshnee Naidu, Director of
Programs for Africa and Asia at the International Coalition office in New
York and former Project Manager for Memorialization at the Centre for the
Study of Violence and Reconciliation in South Africa. Save the dates,
October 24 to 30.

Join Now! Visit http://www.newtactics.org/user/register

New Tactics website is a project of the Center for Victims of Torture (Headquartered in Minneapolis, MN).

The Devil Came on Horseback

Last night I saw the new film The Devil Came on Horseback, a documentary chronicling Brian Steidle's work as a photographer in Darfur in 2004-2005. This was the best documentary about Darfur that I have seen; it was the most cohesive, probably because it had a central focus, but through his photography it brought together testimonies of refugees, the work of other Darfur activists, and emphasized the inhumanity and impunity of the Janjaweed. The Devil Came on Horseback is the most difficult film I've seen in a long time; it was not just the grusome, gut-wrenching photos of violence, rape, and destruction that made the film difficult. There was something so raw and so human in Brian Steidle's story that it made it impossible to turn away even from the most horrifying pictures of children who had been burned alive. I plan on recommending The Devil Came on Horseback to everyone I know because once you see it, you'll take action.

Here are some links about the film:
-Interview with Annie Sundberg, one of the directors
-Movie Review (New York Times)
-"The Reluctant Hero of Darfur, the Movie" (New York Times)
-Official website

I'd love to know what others think of the film, so if you've seen it, post a comment on this blog.

Barack: NYC hears about Darfur

So, I just went to the Barack Obama rally in New York City. A huge mass of people of all shapes and sizes gathered in Washington Square park, and while Obama talked about changing America's education system and providing health care for every American, he also talked about our serious need to reform foreign policy. In particular, he mentioned focusing our energy on areas of need around the world in which the United States could have a hopeful impact. He said, "we need to end the genocide in Darfur."

He might have been surprised by the huge roar of support that rang out from the crowd, but he shouldn't be too shocked: students at NYU have been putting Darfur on the top of their activism agendas, and Washington Square park was represented with student activists from around the city tonight.

It's encouraging to see that presidential hopefuls are discussing this issue on the campaign trail: a sign that it is a widening concern that has gained enough momentum to affect presidential campaigns.

Mali's Magic Weed

Normally we think of weeds as those pesky, unwanted plants stealing the nutrients from our carefully tended vegetables or roses. But what if a weed could help stop global warming and alleviate poverty?

This magic weed is called jatropha. It grows around the world, in Latin America, Asia, Africa. Farmers in Mali, West Africa have discovered that cultivating this weed may prove profitable. Why? It is used as biofuel. Already, jatropha is used in Mali to power generators for electricity. Oil companies like BP have begun investing millions into growing it.

Jatropha grows in a variety of climates, and does well in Mali's dry, Saharan farmland. It can grow beside food crops and its yield is much higher than that of other biofuel crops, like corn. Additionally, it helps prevent erosion and does not endanger other habitats the way a crop like palm oil, which takes land away from the rainforest, does.

But, will jatropha prove to be such a lucrative crop that farmers sacrifice land on which they currently grow food crops in its favor, thus leading to food shortages in Mali? And will it actually increase poverty by concentrating power in the hands of a few growers?


Read the New York Times article, "Mali's Farmers Discover a Weed's Potential Power."

Arab to Arab Violence Increases Sharply

Today's New York Times took note of a sharp increase in violence in Darfur, saying "Darfur’s violence has often been characterized as government-backed Arab tribes slaughtering non-Arab tribes, but there is a new Arab-versus-Arab dimension that seems to be a sign of the evolving complexity of the crisis. What started out four years ago in western Sudan as a rebellion and brutal counterinsurgency has cracked wide open into a fluid, chaotic, confusing free-for-all with dozens of armed groups."

Above are maps indicating the areas most affected by the spreading violence.

It's Great In Theory

The rebel troops in Darfur have finally agreed to meet with Sudanese government officials. This is mostly probably due to the actual threat of UN and AU troops being allowed into the area. But will this end the problem? It's not like militias are known to keep their word. While I believe that it is about time troops were allowed in, it might only rectify the problem for a short time. We should not lose our focus on this issue because it is far from over. We need to keep an eye on Darfur for years to come. It is a very real possibility that the killing could start again once the UN and AU troops have pulled out. This is not the time to lose momentum. So, let's not.

Getting Comfy With Genocide

Read this immediately.

Ron Rosenbaum writes that we should be asking substantive questions of our presidential candidates:

"What would you do if you saw another Rwanda developing? In other words, a genocide that has little to do with previous U.S. intervention and is not our fault in any direct way, but one we could prevent - at a cost: U.S. troops, U.S. lives. President Clinton has apologized for his failure to intervene in Rwanda. Do you agree that the United States should commit itself to preventing genocide anywhere it threatens to occur?"

My follow-up question: when asking questions like the one above, are we simplifying genocide prevention by only investigating military options? What about long term policy? Or despite the post-genocide blame and restrospective declarations, are we ignoring the fact that U.S. military action is necessary to stop genocide?

House vote a victory for Liberian refugees

Last night House members in Washington passed bill H.R. 3123, allowing Liberian refugees to stay in the US until September 30, 2008. They would have lost their refugee status on October 1 of this year without this legislation. One of the bill's supporters was my own representative Keith Ellison (D-MN). Other supporters include Jim Ramstad (R-MN) and its sponsor Patrick Kennedy (D-RI). The Senate will vote on similar legislation this week and we can expect Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman to vote in favor of it.

According to Minnesota Public Radio, about 3,600 Liberian refugees live in the US, mostly in the Twin Cities in Minnesota, Providence, Rhode Island, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Liberia was created in the 19th century by freed slaves from the US. Liberians have been living in the US for the past two decades because of a civil war. In 2005, democratic elections were held but the Liberian economy, Keith Ellison points out, is not yet ready for an influx of refugees and the country is not yet entirely stable.

Liberian activist Charles Dennis says that while the Liberian refugees ultimately want permanent residency in the US, the one-year extension is a victory. "The way things are going with immigration and post-9/11, you have to take what you can get. If it comes in chunks, that's wonderful. Just to buy some time to show that we are not illegal immigrants but part and parcel of the US historically. We do not deserve better treatment than someone who just came across the border."

*I am trying to return to blogging about West Africa, my chosen region for this blog. This seemed like a good place to start since I live in the Twin Cities and have worked with Liberian activists before.

Holding our breath, yet again

A unanimous vote today in the United Nations Security Council authorized Resolution 1769, calling for 26,000 troops and police to be sent to Darfur in a joint UN-AU mission. The resolution calls for finalized state force contributions in the next 30 days, asserts that the Mission headquarters are to be set up by October of this year, and claims that the Mission will take over command from AU peacekeeping forces in Darfur on December 31, 2007.

While the resolution invokes chapter 7 of the UN charter on the use of force (meaning peacekeepers can use force to protect themselves from harm and civilians who are under attack), it does not allow force to be used for "seizing and destroying" weapons.

Three years after Congress declared genocide and almost one year since the passage of Resolution 1706, a resolution calling for UN forces that the international community allowed the Sudanese government to repeatedly reject, some activists welcome the renewed rhetoric coming from the UN. The rest of us are having a difficult time overcoming events (or lack thereof) in the last year which lead us to invest little faith that these 30 day/October/December deadlines will be implemented. So, for those who were ready to kick back and praise the efforts of those who got Resolution 1769 passed, I hope we can all realize that this is just the beginning.

This time, we're going to have to be loud enough for world leaders to implement the resolution. This is no time to rest, trust, and talk. This is a time to demand proof. Hold leaders accountable for actions, not resolutions. Measure results on the ground, rather than just on paper.

It's go-time. If we don't get something done now, we run the risk of teaching future generations that big rhetoric followed by empty promises is acceptable.

Lately I've begun to notice a lot of articles coming out of the communist, anarchist and otherwise radical communities attacking the Save Darfur Movement.

An admission before I go on: as an activist who has worked to end the all-too-real Darfur Genocide for about 4 years, it is both painful and shocking to suddenly see my peers and fellow activists claiming that I have, unbeknownst to me, been part of a government conspiracy to commit corrupt and unjust acts. I have great respect for the radical community; I have worked alongside them on issues of global justice, and I hope to continue to do so.

So I must disclose, for the sake of full journalistic disclosure, that this feels like a betrayal--not by any individual, but by radical ideals that I had a lot of hope and faith invested in.

Yet the more I've seen this conspiracy theory in zines, newsletters and blogs, the more I've realized that I need to write my thoughts--and, most importantly, the facts-- in plain English, and in the public (blogo)sphere, as an act of faith that my peers have the ability to discern propaganda from principle on both sides of this new, emerging debate, and determine the truth on Darfur for themselves.

So here it goes.

To paraphrase, the articles I've read claim that the crisis in Darfur is a lot more complex and a lot less black-and-white than the Western media portrays, in its typically anti-Arab propaganda. The radical media says the Darfur Conflict is not necessarily a genocide; it is a complex clash between diverse groups who do not need to be "saved" at all.


Furthermore,radicals point out (correctly) that the largest Darfur advocacy group, the Save Darfur Coalition, is not donating directly to Darfur, and that it has on its board of directors former diplomats, who have worked for the US government--which has proven many times that their interest in gaining control of an oil-rich Arab state comes before their respect for human rights. Radicals believe the Save Darfur Coalition is advocating military intervention for the corrupt purpose of gaining Arab oil and overthrowing another Islamic regime. Most notably, they believe the movement to "save" Darfur is actually a government conspiracy to justify another act of US military intervention in an Arab-Islamic state. They use the fact that President Bush has even shown unprecedented support for the Darfur movement to drive the point home: If Bush supports the Save Darfur Movement, how could it possibly be anything more than a scheme to steal oil, money, and power from the Arab world?

That’s basically the argument I’ve read a lot these past few weeks.
Here is my response, as one Darfur activist, who can’t claim to speak for the entire movement, but has a lot to say.

(After clicking the link, scroll a bit.)

"Jihad on Horseback"

I stumbled across a documentary about Darfur called Jihad on Horseback. It is by a filmmaker named Nabil Kassem, who works for Al Arabiya, and was meant to be released on Arab television but never made it that far. It is only about 40 minutes long but captures the suffering of civilians, mostly women, whose lives have been devastated by the conflict. The film also contains interviews with Janjaweed leaders, including Mousa Hilal, and African leaders from Darfur, which I think is valuable for understanding the conflict. The film is from 2004 so some of the information may have changed but I thought it was useful and shocking regardless. Below is the description of the film.

"Two years ago, Al Arabiya producer Nabil Kassem was asked to put together a documentary film on Darfur. What he witnessed there, and recorded in this film, were scenes of unspeakable brutality and untold suffering, scenes he thought would surely wake up an Arab public all too willing to let Darfur pass by. But 'Jihad n Horseback' never made it across the airwaves."

Click here to watch the documentary.

Click here to go to the blog Mideast Youth--Thinking Ahead, where I found the film.

Water- a new wellspring of hope for Darfur

Many analysts have long said that resource competition helps to fuel the violence in Darfur. Competition for scarce resources, especially water, is held by many to be responsible for much of the animosity between Arab nomads and black African farmers in the region. The recent announcement that a huge underground lake, as large as America's Lake Erie, has been discovered is therefore cause for rejoicing. Although claims that the discovery will end the violence are almost certainly exaggerated, it is a huge source of hope. Driving wells to tap this new water resource is certain to improve the region's development prospects, and hence provide a stable basis for peace. Nonetheless, it's clear that international efforts will be crucial to achieving any kind of lasting security.

One other notable aspect of this story is the role of science in resolving complex global issues- the underground lake was discovered by a team at Boston University using remote sensing (satellite) technology. This brings to mind the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's partnership with Google to use GoogleEarth to highlight attacks against villages in Darfur. The applications of science and technology to help solve problems like Darfur are barely exploited, and we should all keep our minds open to new roles for them to play.

Stop Genocide Now, a grassroots organization focusing on awareness and education, has been sending citizen-reporters to Darfur for some time now to document the effects of the violence there. Check out their daily videos from refugee camps in the region around Darfur. Links provided to advoacy websites.

Flight Revisited

On July 9, I blogged about an editorial by Julie Flint that was published last week in the New
York Times. The editorial said that enforcing a no-fly zone over Darfur would endanger humanitarian operations in Darfur. Flint also wrote that the Sudanese government was not bombing the region often, although they had in the past. Since I posted that article, however, I have done some more research and found that yes, Khartoum is still bombing civilians, according to an article from Reuters. The article, published July 13, says that while bombing did cease from February to April this year, it has resumed, especially in West and North Darfur.

Three's a Crowd?

Dr. Gerard Prunier tells Jerry Fowler that, while conflict rages in Darfur, an ineffective North-South peace agreeement looms. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between Sudan's North and Sudan in 2005 calls for an election in 2011, at which time Southerners made vote whether or not to secede from the country. Meanwhile, a provisional Southern government is working to create an effective structure for its government and army, but suffers from a lack of resources.

Prunier, who has just returned from a recent trip to South Sudan, believes that an overwhelming majority of Southerners plan to vote for secession in 2011.

Meanwhile, international attention is focused on Darfur as its own entity rather than in the context of its country. While we push to protect the people of Darfur, Southern Sudan is operating under what many deem an ineffective peace agreement, with insufficient resources, in preparation for war.

Diplomats and government officials should be prepared for the anticipated messiness of 2011. Should activists make room in the equation for Darfur and Southern Sudan in the coming years?

Further thoughts on flying

Until recently I have generally thought that establishing a no-fly zone over Darfur would help stop the violence. I was still under the impression that the government of Sudan was supporting the Janjaweed from the air. The New York Times published an op-ed by Julie Flint on July 6, a Darfur expert, entitled "In Sudan, Help Comes From Above." In the article she argues that enforcing a no-fly zone over Darfur is illogical and even inhumane considering that humanitarian aid is delivered to Darfur via airplane. She writes:

A no-fly zone would do little or nothing to address the reality that the greatest threat to civilians in Darfur today comes on the ground--not the air.

The article also serves to remind us that we must pay attention to presidential candidates' Darfur policies. Specifically, Flint cites Senator Clinton as an advocate for a no-fly zone over Darfur but I know I will be researching all candidates' Darfur policies before the coming election.

$50 to Move Back Enough?

Burundi refugees living in Tanzania who wish to move back to the country will be compensated with 50K Burundi francs to do so, so says the UN Commission for Refugees, effective July 10, according to an article published yesterday on Relief Web.


Having not read the article carefully the first time through I was rather skeptical: how bad must situations be for the UN to offer such a large sum (though only worth 50 USD) to get people to return to a country which they fled. On second reading I was relieved to see the stipulation that the money was for those who choose to return voluntarily (as opposed to a measure that might persuade them to return against their better judgment) and to aid them in getting back on their feet.


Not knowing how much 50K Burundi francs would buy I can only hope that it is a substantial amount and not a (nearly) empty gesture. A new life back in their former home is bound to be complicated by "difficult social and economic conditions" and while any sum would certainly be a help I think it only fair to say that they deserve more than just pocket change.

America, Land of the...Genocidaires?

STAND, the student anti-genocide coalition, recently sent an email about the pending Genocide Accountability Act, which you can read about here. In partership with organizations like the Wiesenthal Center, the Department of Justice has zealously hunted down and expelled persons resident in the United States who were known to have been perpetrators of the Holocaust. The same has not been true for Rwanda and Bosnia. This Act aims to erase this discrepency.

I think it's an interesting issue, and I encourage you to check out the bill's proposed content and reflect on what stance the United State should take on this issue.

The Six Elements of Effective Peacekeeping

ENOUGH's policy team recently came out with six prerequisites of an effective peacekeeping force for Darfur.

1. A strong mandate to protect civilians.
2. Management of the mission by the United Nations.
3. A sufficient level of troops and police drawn from around the world.
4. Mobile resources and equipment needed for quick response across Darfur's challenging terrain.
5. A strong emphasis on civilian and humanitarian needs.
6. Sufficient funding from the international community.

Perhaps the most important thing here is that there is nothing particularly innovative or suprising here- and yet proposals for peackeeping forces in Darfur and elsewhere lack many or most of these elements. Peacekeeping forces are one of the most important- and under-resourced- instruments of the international community. If given the troops, capacity, and funds to be effective, these forces can play a big role in establishing basic security and assisting in humanitarian and capacity-building efforts.

So: read ENOUGH's full report here and sign a petition here

Making friend with officials from Sudan....

Today I sat in a slightly warm conference room at the United Nations to hear a seminar on desertification and the threats it presents. Now, normally I am not one to seek out confrontation...but as I'm thinking about making a comment to the panel, I see a man enter the room, in a rather nice suit, and looking around he quickly sat down at the seat for the representative from Sudan. Well, I couldn't help it. I asked a question about the topic at hand, but made sure to mention "the ongoing government sponsored genocide in Darfur."

As the panel went to address my question and the others that had been asked...this man I had seen walk in quickly raised his hand and interrupted the panel, and made a brief statement saying that "the conflict in Darfur has not been called a genocide by this [the United Nations] body, so any such language should not be used."

Aside from pure outrage at this comment, I felt a sense of accomplishment. Not only did I get to call Darfur a genocide within the sacred walls of the United Nations, but I also make this guy from the mission of the Sudan angry enough to reply to my humble little comment. It is often frustrating being a witness to the action, or rather lack of action at the UN, but it is quite fun to make friends with new people.

Words of Wisdom

In the preface to Darfur Diaries: Stories of Survival, Paul Rusesabagina writes:

"'Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.' Yes, the refugees of Darfur need food and shelter, but more than that they need schools to teach their children; they need the means to rebuild their lives and their homes.


"To the international community, I offer this message: It is the duty and obligation of adults to teach the children to heal. The international community would be wise to help provide jobs and education for the adults and children of Darfur. It must assist in enabling the refugees of Darfur to return home and rebuild their lives, their communities, their society. Children of genocide, left to be orphans, uneducated, and jobless, will grow to be adults who will repeat the atrocities they have witnessed."

It's a simple message, and yet it forces us to consider the complexities and long-term effects of genocide. Education. Empowering youth to overcome trauma, heal communities, and build a better world.

Easier said than done. Thoughts?

NOT a boycott

As Jill Savitt and her team work to bring the Olympic dream to Darfur, they must also combat the assumption that their campaign calls for a boycott of the Olympics. It does not.

The press has latched onto the catchy idea of "Genocide Olympics" - but the challenge is that accusing China of hosting Genocide Olympics gives the country no way out. Savitt wants to set China up for success, appeal in a positive light for China to do its part to host peaceful Games. This means extending its leverage until positive results are seen on the ground in Darfur.

Jerry Fowler speaks with Jill here.

Darfour à Paris: "La communauté internationale ne peut pas continuer à rester sans rien faire"

Hey everyone, I know I've been WAY behind on blogging for quite some time now. My studies here in Paris have been rather demanding, both in and out of the classroom, absorbing what I can of the culture in such a big city. However, it's refreshing (though of course at the same time disheartening that the situation still merits worldwide attention) to hear of news about Darfur even here, where I had no idea what kind of attention the crisis was getting.

Yesterday, in Paris, a conference was held on the subject of Darfur and France's role in bringing the conflict to an end. In attendance, of course, was the new French president, M. Sarkozy, and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice as well. An article (in French for those able to read it) is posted on the website of Le Monde; of course, a translation can be found (though in garbled English, at best) of the article using online translation machines such as BabelFish.

Hope all's well!

Time to Press for Tougher Sanctions

As Elizabeth noted in her post below, Sudan has once again backtracked on its pledge to permit a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur. For the full story, see the article "Meeting on Darfur Ends with Little Visible Progress" in Monday's New York Times.

This intransigence, by now all too familiar, indicates it's time to press for full global sanctions against the energy corporations and oil infrastructure that finances the Sudanese regime's brutality. Click here to sign a petition and join SaveDarfur's campaign to encourage Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to press for tough sanctions at Monday's strategy meeting with China and France.

Be Responsible for History

Anyone who has read my post of a few weeks ago on my visit to Auschwitz knows that I came away less than pleased with how the place has been preserved and is treated today. Well, there’s another aspect of it that bothers me, too.

Historians and the people who design and maintain museums have a sacred responsibility to convey the past in the objective light of truth. Unfortunately, as we all know, history is as malleable and as valuable as gold to those who would abuse it. Auschwitz is a prime example.

Throughout the communist period, authourities all over Eastern Europe misrepresented the Holocaust by playing down its Jewish aspect, as much as that was possible. It would be nice to think that perhaps they did this out of a misguided attempt to equally include the non-Jewish victims of Nazi oppression, but we know it was really the result of anti-Semitism.

Today, Auschwitz looks more like a shrine to Polish nationalism and martyrdom than a monument to Jewish suffering. Several buildings are devoted to exhibits of Polish suffering and heroism. The other displays devoted to Jews identify them by their nationalities first and foremost. A single building tells of the overall Jewish experience.

I’d like to think that this is because of a desire to portray the martyred Jews as members of a larger Polish (and European) community rather than the worthless and persecuted minority that the Nazis defined them as. I know differently, however. This is a prime example of what happens when national governments have control over how history is passed on to future generations in state museums.

There was so much more to the Holocaust than the terrible sufferings of Polish political prisoners at Auschwitz. It could be argued that the torture and killing of such prisoners was the original purpose of Auschwitz, but when so few people go down the road and see the cemetery of nearly a million Jews at Birkenau and little mention is made of them, history is misrepresented.

Post a comment on how you think we can remedy problems like this.

"Watershed moment for human rights"

For the first time, an international criminal court convicted war criminals for the conscription of child soldiers. The ruling took place in Sierra Leone, where former military leaders were charged for 11 war crimes. The AP quotes David Crane, who is the founding prosecutor of the Sierra Leone Special Court:

He called the ruling a watershed moment for human rights. "This particular judgment sets the cornerstone forever -- those who recruit children into an armed force are criminally liable," Crane said.

During 10 years of war, high numbers of child soldiers were recruited in Sierra Leone and neighboring Liberia. According to the AP:

In Liberia, Taylor's men are accused of organizing the so-called Small Boys Unit, which conscripted youngsters, armed them with machine guns and baptized them with names like Babykiller.

While the Court's conviction marks a bright spot for human rights advocates, child soldiers continue to suffer in places like Northern Uganda. Setting precedents through punishment is essential, but it is now the international community's responsibility to build a future for these child soldiers and prevent future atrocities such as the crimes in Sierra Leone from happening again.

Games of diplomacy

Much to the chagrin of activists....the Sudanese government has yet again denied the alleged acceptance of UN command over a hybrid peacekeeping force in Darfur.

For more analysis, see this entry.

An Axis of Peace for Darfur

The ENOUGH project, founded by some distinguished veterans of the Darfur advoacy community, has come out with a new report entitled An Axis of Peace for Darfur. This thoughtful policy document outlines the different reasons that China, France, and the United States- the countries with the most leverage in Darfur- have an interest in ending the violence there. Check it out for a fresh perspective on the diplomatic campaign for Darfur, as well as some action items.

Sacrificing Darfur to fight terror?

The Jordan Times published an article titled "As Darfur bleeds, Sudan helps US fight terror." Isn't it ironic that a country can "fight terror" yet perpetrate it at the same time? The basic premise of the article is that the United States needs Sudan to help track Al Qaeda in East Africa and that is why the Bush administration has been soft on Darfur. Colin Thomas-Jensen, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, says that the US is conflicted over reacting to Darfur and using intelligence from Sudan. "The overriding strategic objective of the US in the Horn of Africa is fighting terrorism and so these two issues are now clashing."

The article goes on to talk about Osama bin Laden's role in US policy toward Sudan. He lived in Sudan in the mid-1990s and Sudan divulges information on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to the US. "To placate its critics, Sudan has suggested that Darfur rebels are of the same ilk as Al Qaeda and is seeking to maximise the benefits from its decision to expel Ben Laden and align itself with Washington." The article ends with a quote from Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper in London:

If there's a foreign intervention and if there's a Sudanese party who doesn't like this foreign intervention, this will open a space for Al Qaeda to come and fill. So they are waiting for these forces to come, exactly the way they were waiting for the American forces to go to Iraq, to fight them.

With this possibility in mind, what do we do? Have we been mistaken about what is needed in Darfur or are we right on track? Is the possibility of terrorist activity in Darfur a real threat? And how valuable is Sudan's intelligence? And how can we justify allowing genocide to continue in order to fight terrorism?

What investments?

This past weekend, I had the priveledge of meeting and talking with the executive director of the genocide intervention network, Mark Hannis. His stories were inspiring and his ideas innovative.

One thing we discussed was how to make Darfur a campaign issue in 2008. Because I live in a swing state and famously contested county (Palm Beach County was the county of chads and butterfly ballots in 2000), candidates usually pop in pretty often during election season. So Mark reccommended local activists try to bring the issue up with candidates at public appearances as much as possible.


It just so happened I was meeting my favorite candidate, Dennis Kucinich on Saturday night at a political event. With Mark's advice on my mind, I boldly approached little Dennis during cocktail hour (blabbering out "I really, really love you" as my personal introduction) and then asked why he hadn't yet divested his personal investments from Sudan. (I know this from GINET's Darfur 2008 election project, askthecandidates.org)

He looked at me and blinked. "WHAT investments? I barely own my own home," he said, his elfin face obscured by righteousness. And suddenly it all came back to me; I saw, in memory, the websites that noted Kucinich was the poorest candidate, the son of factory workers, the one with only a few thousand dollars to his name.

So I laughed it off, and walked away, feeling sheepish.

One World, One Dream: Keeping China in the Spotlight

China's slogan for the 2008 Olympics sits awkwardly with its support of many brutal regimes, including that of Sudan. Mia Farrow and others have expolited this dark secret to enormous effect with the Olympic Dream for Darfur campaign, as referenced by Elizabeth Milligan in her entry below. China has responded with its toughest stance yet towards the Sudanese government's violence.

Their efforts prove that international public opinion- our opinion- matters to China. Now Congress has gotten into the act. Senate Resolution 203 was introducted on May 16, but has languished in committee for over a month. The resolution calls on China to "use its unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan." As a resolution, it does not have force of law, but would send a powerful public signal to the Chinese government that the American people care, and so does their government. It is not anti-China, but simply calls on Beijing to do the right thing. There is no reason not to pass this resolution.

Click here to learn about the bill, and then ask your representatives (especially if they're on the Foreign Relations Committee) to get S.Res. 203 out of committee and start doing good!

Also check out the House version, H.Res. 422

Navigating Nuances

Last week, Julie Flint wrote:

"The people who will "save" Darfur are the Darfurians. And they may do it under our noses -- slowly, painfully and without our assistance, whatever we eventually choose to do." Flint suggests that activists are ineffective with a shallow understanding of the contextual situation of Darfur, Sudan, and the region."

Does that absolve us from the responsibility to protect - or try to protect? Are the merits of academia lost by taking action? Or is action ineffective when it lacks the scholarly background of an expert?

STAND responds here.

Shaming China

This morning, actress/activist Mia Farrow, Sudan expert Professor Eric Reeves, and Director Jill Savitt officially launched the Olympic Dream for Darfur campaign, meant to garner international support for a movement to shame China into using its leverage to end the genocide in Darfur.

Check it out.

Sudan accepts peacekeepers

Yes! Sudan has finally accepted a hybrid African Union (AU)-United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force in Darfur. The BBC article said that the AU will manage everyday operations and the UN will provide between 17,000 and 19,000 soldiers, mostly from African and Asian countries. Unfortunately, the deployment will probably not be until next year. Nevertheless, I am thrilled to hear that Sudan is caving in to international pressure. I think we can look at this as a milestone but not a stopping point. We must still focus on humanitarian aid and continue with the divestment movement.

Check This Out

Elizabeth let me know that Peter Balakian did an interview with the Committee on Conscience's Jerry Fowler about "The Burning Tigris" (see my post below) for the podcast series Voices on Genocide Prevention.

Check the interview out here.

What I’m Reading VI

It’s remarkable to look back as reactions to past genocides and see how little has changed today. In his book “The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response,” Peter Balakian reveals one of the first international human rights movements that took place a century ago in response to the Armenian Genocide.

The “Save Armenia” movement of a century ago looks a lot like the “Save Darfur” movement of today. Back then, letter writing campaigns targeted politicians. Many people called for military intervention. Brave journalists went on the ground to show the world the face of genocide. Massive fundraising and humanitarian aid programs were launched to feed and clothe the survivors of genocide. And also like today, political squabbling and “national interests” kept the powerful nations of the world from helping the victims.

If you have any interest in either the Armenian Genocide (for which this book is a good introductory history) or the history of human rights activism in the United States, then I urge you to read “The Burning Tigris.”

The Amusement Park of Evil

A couple of weeks ago I was in Poland touring different Holocaust sites. The trip took me to the death camps Treblinka, Auschwitz I, and Birkenau. At two of these places, I was greeted by the quiet solemnity that I expected but at Auschwitz I was a bit disturbed by what I saw.

Auschwitz is the archetypal image that most people have of the Holocaust and so is the most visited of all the camps. To most people, Auschwitz is the Holocaust. That’s why I was disappointed to see the “amusement park of evil” atmosphere that it has. Groups of very young schoolchildren run all over the place and clamber over the displays. Groups on bus tours of Poland stop briefly to have a look at a gas chamber and then head off to their next stop (perhaps a vodka tasting?). The death camp is just another point on an itinerary. Tourists (adults!) stroll around and casually pose for smiling pictures as though they were in a park.

I realize that these are people who might otherwise not learn about the Holocaust or genocide, and so any exposure is good. On the other hand, the place they were so casually and disinterestedly taking in is one of the largest cemeteries and sites of mass murder in the world. It should be treated as such, but is not. Clearly, a balance has to be found between mass education and respectful memorialization.

The question is, where is that balance? Is any measure justified in the name of educating the otherwise ignorant masses? Or, should more measures be taken to guard the dignity of places like Auschwitz, even at the expense of education?

Please comment and post your thoughts.

Policy experts can help students finish their homework

Student activists are busy. Student activists who want to be effective don't have time to do their homework or pass classes. Just ask our parents, the friends we never see, or look for the computer attached to our hips.

The student movement, however, is finding an increasing amount of support from policy experts. In spring 2006, STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition merged with the Genocide Intervention Network, and now students, with the guidance of policy experts and resources in Washington, D.C., can focus on implementation, bringing a more unified policy ask to the grassroots student contituency.

Today, ENOUGH: the project to abolish genocide + mass atrocities, with GI-NET and STAND, hosted its first activist conference call featuring ENOUGH Policy Advisor Colin Thomas-Jensen, Advocacy Director Cory Smith, and GI-NET Membership Associate Colin Christensen. Moderated by Lisa Rogoff, the call provided information for student activists about the current situation on the ground in Darfur, an advocacy update, and guidance for activist campaigning.

These calls can support students, who must balance school with Darfur activism and policy research.

The ENOUGH website will soon post a summary and record of the call. Why are these calls such an important tool? This is information we, the public, are deprived of, with the exception of the occasional blurb from the press. It's the information students and activists are seeking in their quest to decide how best to turn action into effective, educated action.

Can/should streamlined information help to focus and unify the Darfur movement?

Divided movement or the ingredients of a peace deal?

On Wednesday, May 30, activist John Prendergast and academic Alex de Waal came together at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum to debate the question of: What To Do About Darfur?

While many expected sparks to fly between two differing viewpoints, only one question seemed to remain unanswered: to what extent must we use military action to impose cost on the Sudanese government and thus end the genocide in Darfur?

For Martha's evaluation and notes, see Lives in the Balance. The transcript of the debate will soon be posted on the Committee on Conscience analysis page.

Real action from President Bush

Yesterday, President Bush announced that he is taking action to stop the genocide in Darfur. He announced three steps the US will take to curb the violence.

1.) The Department of Treasury will tighten and enforce all existing economic sanctions against Sudan.
2.) The US will place sanctions on individuals playing key roles in the genocide. The sanctions will restrict their ability to do business with US citizens or companies.
3.) Secretary of State Rice will meet with the leaders of the United Kingdom and other US allies to discuss a new UN Security Council Resolution featuring sanctions on the Sudanese government and individuals perpetrating the genocide or obstructing the peace process.

Previously, Bush has condemned the atrocities in Darfur and spoken of America's responsibility to protect but has not yet taken tangible action to end the genocide. I think we have to give this a try and, in the meantime, keep divesting.

Finally Fidelity...Now Who?

Well, Fidelity finally decided to divest out of dealings with Sudan. I must extend to them my applause as it is a great first step for the major investment company. Hopefully, other major companies will take a page out of Fidelity's book and divest more from companies who have their hands in Darfur. Now that we have gotten Fidelity to divest, who should we focus our attention on now? It has recently come to my attention that the University of Chicago is refusing to divest out of PetroChina, citing "the protection of academic freedom". Aside from pressuring the US government itself, perhaps we should focus on universities. The University of Chicago is an elite university, and what sort of example does that set for the rest of the academic world if they don't divest? Universities hold just as many dealings as big companies do, so let's raise our voices to them. Many students are involved in the Darfur issue and urging their university to take their dealings out of any company that funds the genocidal government of Sudan is certainly something many students would rally behind. So, in conclusion, be a conscience citizen or student and urge your local university to divest.

Potential Progress

Word on the street is that President Bush may be taking solid action to impose new sanctions against Sudan in the next few days and that he is directing Condoleezza Rice to draft a resolution asking the UN to adopt the same actions.

According to Bloomberg,

"Bush also will identify three individuals targeted for sanctions, the first time the U.S. has done so unilaterally, according to a senior administration official who briefed reporters last night. He said two of three are senior Sudanese government officials linked to the area's militia forces, known as the Janjaweed, and the third is a top rebel leader.

The announcement of the penalties is a follow up to a warning Bush gave last month in a speech at the United State Holocaust Museum in Washington. He said at the time that the world has a ``moral obligation'' to halt the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of western Sudan."

Read more...

Minesota divested. Have you?

On May 23, Minnesota, where I go to school, became the thirteenth state to divest, or "un-invest," from Sudan so I think it is time for an update on the targeted divestment movement. Recently, Fidelity Investments cut some, though not all, of its ties to PetroChina, due to advocacy from Fidelity Out of Sudan! activists. PetroChina is one of the Chinese oil companies targeted for divestment from the Sudan Divestment Task Force. Some of the 2008 presidential candidates--Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Sam Brownback, specifically--have also taken steps to divest their personal investments from Sudan.

Divestment can be a daunting subject at first, so I want to clarify something important. The question I hear most often is, "Won't divestment hurt the Sudanese?" The answer is no. People think of South Africa when they think of divestment. Blanket divestment was used to fight apartheid, and ultimately ended it, but did impoverish ordinary South Africans. Targeted divestment only removes money from companies that are directly funding the genocide without having a corporate governance policy against it and that do not help Sudanese civilians. It will not hurt the states or other institutions that divest and it will not hurt the Sudanese civilians. Furthermore, the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act (S. 831), a bill in the Senate, will protect states and institutions that divest from Sudan once it passes.

As Sandy Pappas, a Minnesota state senator, said, "This is not just a symbolic gesture. Targeted divestment from Sudan is the most effective tool we have to stop the first genocide of the 21st Century."

To find out if your state has divested or has divestment legislation pending, click here.
To find out how you can become involved, click here.
Visit DarfurScores to find out if your Senators support S. 831. If they do not, write them a letter explaining that you think they should vote for/co-sponsor the legislation.

Big News From Burundi - "To Set Up War Crimes Court"

The article is so short that it pretty much speaks for itself. Sorry I've been rather lax with my blogging but the end of the year was crazy with exams and being Assistant Stage Manager of a show, plus I'm getting ready to go to France for a month of study in less than a week.

Self-Defense in the Ghettos of Today?

Two days ago was the sixty-fourth anniversary of the end of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Led by Mordechai Anielewicz, a small group of Jews armed themselves and resisted the deportation to Treblinka of the ghetto’s remaining Jews. They were surprisingly successful against overwhelming odds and held out for almost a full month of fighting before their inevitable defeat.

In just a few days, I will walk the streets of Warsaw and visit what is left of the ghetto. I will pay my respects to Anielewicz’s memorial and the Ghetto Heroes Memorial. Anielewicz’s last letter before his death ended thus:

The dream of my life has risen to become fact. Self-defense in the ghetto will have been a reality. Jewish armed resistance and revenge are facts. I have been a witness to the magnificent, heroic fighting of Jewish men in battle.

This is one of the most inspiring incidents of the Holocaust, when a few Jews learned of their fate and decided to die with honour by striking back at their exterminators when nobody else in the world would save them. They died as fighters rather than victims.

It makes me wonder if self-defense could be a reality for today’s victims in Darfur. World governments and the UN constantly call for peace between the rebels in Darfur and their Janjaweed and Government enemies. The rebels must not be asked to lay down their arms until others come to defend their people in the IDP camps that have become today’s ghettos. The world should end its moral ambiguity, take sides and aid the rebels if they aren’t willing to fight for them.

If we could go back in time and help the Jews of Warsaw in their fight against Nazi Germany, wouldn’t we? Is today really any different?

Please post your comments and thoughts on the possibility of enabling self-defense for the victims of genocide.

is protest dead?

a few weeks ago some friends and i quickly organized a protest and boycott-- not in response to the ocean-qway human rights violations we're usually protesting-- but because of a bread-and-butter scandal affecting our university that's gotten lots of coverage in our local press.

the day before, most of the people we handed fliers to in the breezeway were familiar with the issue.

this was a welcome change from darfur activism. it felt empowering to be part of a movement that had palpable potential to cause change. and this change could, for once, be immediate. no UN resolutions necessary.

but then...no one came to the protest, aside from the core organizers and our friends. There were more press than people, their cameras' clicks sometimes louder than our improvised chants. In stead of participating, my fellow students at my commuter school gawked at us in the hallway, framing cell phone photos, and edging by us to slip coins into the vending machines we told them them to boycott.

needless to say, this poorly attended press-spectacle was a bit of an embarassment fo me, one of its organizers. i replayed the past few days in my head looking for mistakes, but could find none: we had publicized efficiently and thoroughly; we had sent mass e-mails and made masses of photocopies; we had garnered the attention of every press outlet in the area.

and yet somehow our protest had alienated the people we had hoped most to inspire: the students of our school.

this led me to question the very nature of protests in general. Do they alienate people who aren't activists, people not used to yelling at causes?



the rebellious romantic in me mourns this. sure phonecalls can be effective but they aren't as adrenaline-rush-inspiring as picketing and marching and sitting-in. In my mind, if activism were a big university, protesting would be its football-- the thing everyone celebrates and cheers at and contests.

(no offense to any sports fans here,) but, like football, is protesting just a big fun spectacle or does it actually get stuff done? And the even more unnerving question i keep asking myself is if we are just alienating potential activists by being so..."in your face" about causes? or would we be defiling the nature and legacy of activism if we got out of everyone's face?

in short, is protest dead?

Encouraging the media to face up to genocide

We learn from Jerry Fowler's November 2006 interview with Ann Curry:

"Ann also highlights the importance of public response, noting that the more emails and feedback a story receives and the more the public cares about a story such as Darfur, the more likely the outlet is to continue covering the region."

Tonight, ABC News released two Darfur news stories: "Darfur: Trying to Save the Capital" and "How You Can Help Save Darfur."

So, click on the Comments and Suggestions page at ABCnews.com and let ABC news know you appreciate Darfur coverage. The human rights community must not let genocide go unnoticed, and our ability to spread the word rests largely on the media.

The failures of international organizations: the case of Zimbabwe

This week Zimbabwe, the country with the world's largest inflation rate, was elected to lead the Commission on Sustainable Economic Development (CSD) at the United Nations. This represents the failure of the international community on a number of levels.

First, giving a leadership position at the United Nations to a dictatorial, repressive, floundering government only gives international legitimacy to that government, and says the world doesn't care if governments harm their own people - they're still fit to help lead the rest of the world on an incredibly important issue.

Second, the CSD is the body charged with ensuring global "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs," according to its own mission statement. When Zimbabwe currently "has the world's fastest shrinking economy outside a war zone... inflation is running at 2,200 percent...and the nation, once a regional breadbasket, faces acute shortages of food, hard currency, gasoline and most basic goods" (IHT) promoting Zimbabwe to head a sustainable development institution just makes no sense. It says that the international community doesn't really care about sustainable development, it just wants to pour a bunch of money into an office and some programs to pretend it does.

Why did this happen?
"It seems developing countries voted for Zimbabwe in a direct show of defiance against developed ones... Many observers believe the result was an overwhelming snub to the US and the EU by developing nations, especially those in South America, who respected both the African block's decision and their refusal to be pushed around by former colonial masters."

When countries like Zimbabwe are elected to chair the CSD, and Sudan sat on the old Human Rights Commission despite the North-South civil war and Darfur, how can we expect the UN to act effectively to protect people around the world?

Distorting Darfur

Here's an anonymous letter from the New York Times Magazine's column "The Ethicist":

My brother, an eighth grader in a school where I am a junior, gave a speech about the genocide in Darfur to his English class. His teacher and classmates chose him to present it to the entire grade. School administrators would not let him speak unless he removed a sentence containing the word "rape," finding it inappropriate for 13-year-olds. Is this censorship, or does the school have a valid point?

Randy Cohen, The Ethicist, responds that it is right for schools to think about what content is appropriate for students to hear but argues that "A discussion of the ghastly events in Darfur must mention rape, lest the audience be significantly misinformed." I agree. Kids younger than eighth grade are exposed to misogyny and violence on television.

As my father says, we cannot sanitize the human experience. The tragedy of Darfur is that thousands of women and girls, many even younger than eighth grade, have been raped. To eliminate the word "rape" from a speech about Darfur does not deny that rape has been and is occurring there, but is does distort the truth. To distort what is happening in Darfur insults the memory and dignity of the victims of Darfur. As activists, my fellow board member Elizabeth Milligan wrote in an earlier post, we have the responsibility to educate others about Darfur in order to combat misinformation. Telling the truth about Darfur is our moral obligation.

What I’m Reading V - Darfur Investigation

The genocide in Darfur is old enough that books are starting to be published about it. The best one that I’ve seen so far is “Genocide in Darfur: Investigating the Atrocities in the Sudan,” (2006) edited by Samuel Totten and Eric Markusen. By far the largest and most scholarly volume published on the subject to date, the contributors are a who’s who of big names in the genocide prevention community. Even the COC’s own Jerry Fowler lends a chapter.

Totten and Markusen include a bit of historical information on Sudan and the crisis in Darfur, but they committed most of the book to the history and process of the Darfur Atrocities Documentation Team that interviewed refugees in Chad and whose information gathered led Colin Powell to make the historic accusation of genocide against Sudan in September 2004.

A lot of space is given to analyzing why the United Nations and other groups have not made similar findings, as well as what the significance of the US findings are. This book is absolutely required reading for anyone who wants to understand the genocide in Darfur, how it was discovered, the world’s reaction to it, and its implications for future genocides.

Transcending realism with hope

Holocaust expert speaks on relationship between politics and genocide - News

See the above article about Jerry Fowler in the Oregon Daily Emerald, or just contemplate his quote:

"We may never have a world without genocide, but that doesn't absolve us of the responsibility as witnesses to speak out and have the hope and the imagination that lives could be saved because of what we do."

STAND high school students have such a vision. They'll be taking part in a media advocacy event called "Picture a World Without Genocide." To learn more, click on www.standnow.org/picture_a_world.

Tanzania's Unannounced Expulsion of Refugees

Going on a year now the government of Tanzania has expelled persons of Rwandan and Burundian descent according to an article from Reuters news service. The article reports that in the process upwards of 15,000 people (a vast majority of whom are from Rwanda) have been forced to leave. What is most shocking about this is not that those being expelled are refugees (though that would certainly be shocking enough) but that even some who have lived in Tanzania all their lives, having been born to parents from Rwanda or Burundi, are also being targeted.



Thanks to Human Rights Watch the president of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete (pictured), has heard word that the world will not stand idly by and watch this flagrant abuse of the mandates governing the protection of refugees. Since it is not party to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees but since it is a member-state of the United Nations I am not sure what legal implications would apply here but what Tanzania is doing is certainly unsettling.



Article 1 (full-text of the Convention to be found here) requires that, "The Contracting States... apply the provisions of this Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin." That's strike one. As for subsequent strikes, look to Article 32, which states that refugees cannot be expelled unless it's for reasons of national security, one must have been given "due process" before being expelled, and that one must be given sufficient opportunity to seek refuge in another state.



As I said I don't know what the legal ramifications would be in this case since Tanzania is not party to the Convention. However, according to the article Allison des Forges of HRW seems to think that what Tanzania is doing is "in serious violation of international law." At the very least I think that what Tanzania is doing is morally reprehensible and it should be made to think twice about removing the welcome mat for these people who have gone through so much.

Keeping the Heat on this Summer

For most of us, the school year is winding down or already over and summer’s starting. For me, graduation time is here and I’m done with university. Just because summer vacation is here doesn’t mean that it’s time to take a break from advocacy. There are still a few people around campus and everyone counts, so make sure to get the message about Darfur to them.

Better yet, this is a great opportunity to make yourself a better advocate. Let your summer reading enrich your knowledge of Darfur and genocide in general. Learn new techniques for spreading the word and networking with other advocates.

Keep the pressure on Sudan, the companies that invest there, and your own government representatives.

Remember, genocidaires don’t take a break and mass atrocities aren’t seasonal. The people committing them shouldn’t get the summer off from opposition just because we do.

2 new books on Darfur

For academic reasons and personal interest I have recently finished reading two new books on Darfur. One focuses on what happened on the ground, the other on US citizen responses. They are both incredibly important additions to our understanding of the Darfur crisis.

The Devil Came on Horseback: Bearing Witness to the Genocide in Darfur by Brian Steidle and Gretchen Steidle Wallace is the story of Captain Steidle's year as an observer with the African Union Mission in Darfur. The book is an earnest account of attacks Steidle witnessed and investigated, and the photographs section is particularly powerful. It's a must-read to understand what life on the ground for Darfuri civilians was like during some of the worst of the genocide in 2004.

Sample quote:
"It is one thing to attack people in their village; it is another thing entirely to attack an IDP camp. THese people had already been driven out of their homes violently and had established a camp of last resort - and act of desperation as they sought to meet their basic needs and find safety. But even that was to be denied them by the GOS and the Janjaweed militias. I was convinced: This was systematic ethnic cleansing. This was genocide." (p. 79)

Not On Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast is a book that does two things - it chronicles the work of activists and advocates to start what is now a true citizens movement for Darfur, and it lays out ways that individuals can help end genocide. The book is also peppered with the thoughts and commentary of the authors, which provides an often amusing insight into what makes two of Darfur's greatest champions tick. (For more of my thoughts on the book see here). Also, portions of the proceeds go to the new camapaign ENOUGH).

Sample quote:
"We can use the Six Strategies for Effective Change: Raise Awareness, Raise Funds, Write a Letter, Call for Divestment Join an Organization, and Lobby the Government. With these tools, we can build the network, increase pressure on the United States and other governments to act quickly and appropriately, and ensure that the political costs for inaction will always be too great." (p. 223)

Photo: student board members Sara Weisman and Martha Heinemann Bixby with Not on Our Watch co-author Don Cheadle

Water water nowhere

This semester I took geology in order to get my physical science requirement out of the way. I'm not a fan of any science class, and looking at rocks is about as dull as it gets, but the class has made me look at the world in an entirely different way. I've always loved nature but I had never before realized how intertwined humans are with their environment. I know that you've heard before, in an earlier post by me and one by my fellow blogger Ana Halper, that the genocide in Darfur is rooted in a conflict over resources. One of the most important resources is water, for the simple reason that it keeps us alive. Water is hard to come by in Darfur. The Sahara desert is expanding, thanks to global warming, and causing prolonged droughts in Darfur, as well as in West Africa and the Horn of Africa. Water scarcity is also one of the many hardships facing the displaced people and refugees in Darfur and Chad. But we can help them. The American Refugees Committee (ARC), a humanitarian aid organization based in Minneapolis, has a program to build water pumps in Darfur. Next semester, when the University of Minnesota chapter of STAND begins to focus on fundraising, we'll send the money we raise to the ARC to help them build water pumps. By doing this we will help the people of Darfur, but this is an action that should be taken in other places as well. Providing easier access to water is one way we can alleviate conflict today and prevent it in the future.

On Our Toes

Sudan's green light for only part of the peacekeeping force is too little, too late, and is aimed only at defusing international pressure and heading off sanctions. Governments should keep the focus on the full international force, which could really help to protect civilians in Darfur.
--Peter Takirambudde, Africa director at Human Rights Watch

Just a few weeks ago we celebrated Sudan’s decision to allow part of the international peacekeeping force to operate within its borders. We also have heard that China has made diplomatic efforts to influence the Sudanese government on behalf of the people of Darfur.

However, our history with the Bashir government should keep us on our toes. The international community’s relationship with Sudan has followed a three steps back, one step forward model.

Bashir makes a lukewarm promise, then reneges on his promise, and we beg him to reconsider, and meanwhile people die.

We need to stay vigilant, and continue to advocate for a full international peacekeeping force. As the global days for Darfur continue, let’s keep our activist minds sharp on behalf of our Darfurian brothers and sisters!

Displace Me

Water and saltines will be collected upon entry and redistributed. Because you have to depend on foreign aid for food in displacement camp.

Tonight, in 14 cities throughout the US, more than 65,000 people will travel to displace themselves.

A few college guys traveled to Uganda in 2003, finding children in the midst of war who commute nightly for a safe night's sleep. They walk for hours and sleep in unimaginably horrible conditions. Child soldiers are recruited by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). In response, three men not much older than me started the Invisible Children campaign. Their goal? To help Ugandan children. More on this in a future blog - because the campaign is genius.

So Americans will displace themselves for a night, sending a message to the US and Ugandan governments that peace talks must be resumed, the war must end, and children and civilians must be protected.

Sign up for displacement camp at a city near you.

Rally for Darfur this Sunday!

If you're in the DC area (or a reasonable train/bus/driving distance) show up at Lafayette Park this Sunday to rally for Darfur!

Global Days for Darfur Rally at the White House
Sunday, April 29th 2:00-4:00pm
Lafayette Park
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, DC

There are also events going on across the country - and the world. Find an event near you!

It's time we show President Bush that if he wants a positive human rights legacy he must do more for Darfur - now! What should he do? Some thoughts are here and here.

(image from Hillel.org)

What I’m Reading IV

A single event can characterize an entire era: think of D-Day in the Second World War, or Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream…” speech during the American civil rights movement. The same goes for how a single massacre can represent a whole genocide.

Just as Auschwitz instantly leaps to mind for most people thinking of the Holocaust, the Srebrenica massacre was the culmination of the Bosnian War in many ways. One of the best books that I’ve run across about Europe’s largest post-WWII massacre is “Srebrenica: Record of a War Crime” by Jan Willem Honig and Norbert Both.

Honig and Both outline the events which resulted in the deaths of 7 000 unarmed Bosnian Muslim men in mid-July 1995 at the hand of Serb “soldiers.” Although it was written just a year after the massacre and so lacks much of the hindsight of more recent publications, “Srebrenica” is still an excellent resource that glaringly highlights both the ineptitude of the United Nations for providing global security and the weaknesses of the obsolete concept of peacekeeping that allow countless innocents to be butchered before the eyes of the world.

The Happy Faces of Genocide

Father David Bohnsack, a Comboni missionary who spent more than 10 years in Darfur, spoke about his experience in Sudan at Lake Forest College in Chicago. He shared photographs taken of smiling people, kids playing games and climbing trees, people dancing.
I can relate to these photos. I'm just like these kids.

Father David reminded us that, in spite of genocide, Darfuris are strong, and they still find ways to dance and smile.

Human nature leads us to look at the top photo of the dying girl and think "that child has been condemned to death. She has no chance. (and thank God MY child doesn't look like that)." But tell an American the smiling girl below might be raped and shot by the Janjaweed, and see how they react differently.

So how do we convey the urgency and ugliness of the conflict while still preserving the dignity of Darfuris?

(by the way: I don't have the answer. It's why I'm asking. So you should share your comments)

I just spent the two days at Campus Camp Wellstone, an awesome student activist training camp that teaches the grassroots organizing strategies of Paul Wellstone (the coolest senator ever) and I am pumped to start using what I learned! The camp is geared toward political activists tackling a range of issues from Electoral College reform to the Obama campaign to fair trade to Darfur and focuses on running an effective campaign and effective community organizing. We spent a lot of time talking about the message of a campaign. The message is essentially what we want our audience to know. How do we build an effective message? How do we convey it to our voters or audience? I told one of the trainers afterward that I had found what we had learned helpful, but I still wasn't sure how to apply it to my work with STAND. I said that I do not think that "End genocide" or "Save Darfur" are good messages--although they are useful slogans for conveying our larger, long-term goal--because they are too vague and, let's face it, ending genocide sounds pretty unattainable.
"Well, what is it that you want students to get out of your message?" he asked.
"I guess we want them to see that yes, this is a huge issue, and very complex, but they really can make a difference," I answered, thinking out loud.
"Exactly," he said. "Action is your message. Tell them that by writing this letter or signing this postcard, they can have a tangible impact on ending the genocide."
The message that students can have an impact on state government and foreign policy is central to increasing the level of student advocacy to save Darfur, which Elizabeth blogged about a few weeks ago.

So, how am I going to use this newly-created message? On Thursday, the University of Minnesota STAND will table, but we'll do it differently than we've ever done before. We'll stand in front of the table instead of just sitting behind it, so we better actively engage in our unsuspecting advocates, and tell them they can make a difference, they can end genocide, by writing to their representatives in the Minnesota legislature, who need a little encouragement before they vote to divest Sudan.

Imagine

Imagine this-violence happening in our own country. This violence is huge-it happened at a place of education, something our country stands for and provides for its citizens. What happened at Virginia Tech is outrageous, emotional, scary, unbelievable. What happens in Darfur, what happens in North Korea, what happens in Chechnya, what happens in Congo-it's all terrible. But what is more terrifying to me is the lack of faith in a peaceful world. I held a peace program at my school last semester, and not a lot of people came, which is usual but I heard from some people that they did not attend because they do not believe in peace. WELL of course, peace doesn't seem reasonable when it is viewed as idealistic. What we need, and take this as a personal challenge, is a little faith in a peaceful world. That faith will lead to advocacy, action, and hopefully and eventually, SUPPORT for the global society that we live in today.

Are you frustrated? Because I am!

Today I was reading an article in The New York Times about how the Sudenese government has been painting its own planes to look like UN and African Union planes, thus breaching U.N. Security Council resolutions. At last I thought someone will take action! How could the UN sit by and do nothing after this gross disregard for international law? Instead the UN is in essense saying "Silly Bashir, UN planes are for the UN. Next time use your own."

This evening I looked at the online New York Times and saw how President Bush had made a speech today at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum about the genocide in Darfur. Yes! He finally refered to Plan B. Yes! He threatened Sudan with real sanctions. BUT HE TOOK NO REAL ACTION!

President Bush bowed to pressure from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to give the UN more time for political discourse. This happened even after the facts revealed about the Sudanese use of "fake" UN planes. Thankfully, President Bush spoke strongly. But giving Bashir "a short while" has been said before. How many "short whiles" will it take for someone to stand firm and demand results?

The time for action is now. Within the next few weeks, we'll see how far Ki-moon's negotions will go. The United States needs to take action.

What I’m Reading III

It seems to be about all that I manage to write about lately, but here’s my latest book recommendation. Maybe I should spend a bit less time reading and more time blogging…

Genocide prevention types are always fascinated by survivor testimonies and without a doubt their stories are the most important resource for understanding the impact of genocide on its victims. Projects such as the film “Shoah” and the survivor testimony archive The Shoah Project are priceless sources for the stories of people who lived through hell.

The perspective of genocide perpetrators does not get nearly as much attention, though. Maybe people find it distasteful to give a voice to the criminals of all criminals, but they are actually priceless sources of information for understanding why and how people come to commit genocide. French authour Jean Hatzfeld gives us just such a resource in “Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak.” (A follow-up to his book “Into the Quick of Life: The Rwandan Genocide - The Survivors Speak”)

The most shocking thing about Hatzfeld’s book is the sympathy that one feels reading what the small group of interviewees (now prisoners in Rwanda’s Rilima penitentiary) has to say about how the genocide affected their lives, though the book by no means absolves them for what they did or casts them as victims. Be careful to keep their crimes in mind the whole time you read this book. Aside from that, the book gives a glimpse into the minds and blurred motivations of some otherwise ordinary men who became enthusiastic monsters for a time. Their lessons are not restricted to Rwanda, but are universal.

Breaking Good News

On an otherwise tragic day we have a small bright spot of good news from the BBC:

More than 3,000 United Nations troops will be allowed into Darfur, according to Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol. The apparent change of heart comes after months of international pressure, but there is no UN confirmation so far.

This is particularly important because the violence continues:

"This is the greatest concentration of human suffering in the world and an outrage that affronts the world's moral values," Penny Lawrence, Oxfam's international director said after a tour of Darfur...

For more info and analysis see Coalition for Darfur or my blog, Lives in the Balance.