Generose

I was sitting in the auditorium at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum where a woman named Lisa Shannon stood before me. She had just returned from a trip to Congo, delivering money and supplies to the women that lived there. Her next slide came up. From this point on, I felt like I was alone. Just me and the picture.

This picture was not happy, not sad, but telling. It was of a woman that was not showing any emotion on her face. Instead, her face, her eyes-O those eyes-showed that she had had a life. Generose was a nurse, her husband a schoolmaster, and they had five children. One day, the whole family was at home, and a neighbor child was over playing with the kids. The interahmwe, a rebel group in Congo, approached the house, demanding from Generose all of her money. She quickly rounded up the $120 that was their life savings. The interahmwe took it, stating that they also wanted a contribution from the schoolmaster. She explained that they had no more, and they began to harass her. Her husband tried to stop them, and was immediately slaughtered. Generose, though distraught, asked what they wanted her to do-she had nothing left to give. They asked her to place her leg on a nearby chair. In front of the children, they chopped that leg off and divided it into six pieces. After searing this leg in the fire, they required that the children eat it. When Generose's 8-year-old daughter refused, she was also murdered. The rest of the children then ate Generose's leg. Generose awoke in a hospital.

Her eyes were just like anyone's eyes-full of love, full of pain, full of a life.

CHALLENGE: do not forget the people of Congo.

New York Out of Darfur!

Do you live in New York?

Do you know that New York State's money is tangled up in oil companies that are pouring money into Omar Al-Bashir's pockets, funding a genocide?

TODAY, New York is considering legislation to participate in targeted divestment, which will remove our public funds from indirectly supporting genocide.

Senator Joe Robach and Assemblyman Darryl Towns have written targeted divestment legislation that will take back New York State's dollars from companies that fund the genocide in Darfur.

However, this bill has not been introduced because the New York State Comptroller has not released a "Fiscal Note" which is needed to allow the legislation to go to a vote.

You can help today by calling New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli:

1. Dial (518) 474-4044
2. Say: I care about the genocide in Darfur, and I urge you to release the "Fiscal Note" and allow the legislation to be introduced by Senator Robach and Assemblyman Towns. This action will be vital in helping us stop the genocide

Like Elizabeth said, its time for advocacy beyond activism!
Don't just feel good, DO good!

Activism is out. Advocacy is in.

The message has been received enthusiastically: your voice can and will make a difference. The movement has grown loud and large in an effort to end the genocide in Darfur. Meanwhile, as we develop a culture of activism, the genocide continues, arguably worse than it was a few years ago.

Darfur experts circulate conferences, giving their 1-2-3 point speech about what needs to be done in Darfur, and taking questions from the audience about UN reform and the vagueness of the term "genocide." The debate about terminology and philosophy, while relevant, is useless in terms of action. Instead, ask:

What is our end goal?
By what means do we plan to get there?
How will our activism help us to achieve our end goal?

Overwhelming the American public with repetitive, depressing information is not effective. Four years later, arm bracelets aren’t enough. Activists will only achieve their end goal through scrupulous research and focused, coordinated efforts. A large movement is exciting; a refined, powerful movement can bring results.

Is it Genocide or Isn't it? Let's Just Call the Whole Thing Off

First off, I apologize for not having blogged last week. Things were rather busy for me, especially once Thursday came around. This past weekend the Board participated in the Genocide Prevention Advanced Leadership Summit at the USHMM and I can tell you that after getting to know those on the Board and working with them I count myself extremely fortunate to be amongst their ranks. The work we are all a part of (not just the Board) is so important and spending time with the Summit participants I think reminded us all of that.

While at the conference one subject that kept resurfacing was what counts as genocide and whether or not the current crisis in Darfur should be considered a genocide. For my part I'm convinced on the issue per my interpretation of the Convention. In fact, I could care less what you call the current crisis in Darfur, so long as you agree that the situation is dire and something should be done about it. If the stories of women being gang raped daily do not strike a chord with you; if this picture of a little girl hit by a bullet does not make your stomach twinge in anger; if you are not swayed by hearing about those who barely escape their villages as government Antonov aircraft attack; if it does not bother you that some 2.5 million are internally displaced in Darfur; if after all this you are not moved to tears, or better yet, to action, then I don't know what to say. After all, what use is there in crying over spilt blood (or milk for that matter) if you don't do anything about it. The people of Darfur have no need of your sympathy lest it compel you to action on their behalf.

As for "Never Again," it's catchy, I suppose, but therein lies its problem. Whenever we've uttered those words the implication is that it has already happened again. "Never again" is rendered useless by those who say it and invest no energy into it. Those on whose behalf it is said depend on those of us who have the power to stop genocide when we see threats of it today to breathe life into these too often used words. Sure, it's nice to have it on a t-shirt or on your laptop or clipped to your bag. However, it must not remain simply a slogan but MUST become a credo. Perhaps there's a curse on "never again." All I know is that ever since we've uttered it after the Holocaust, after Bosnia, and after Rwanda it's been too late. There is some value in the phrase, however; the power lies in the charge the phrase entrusts to humanity and is a hope for the future.

Glimpses of Genocide

An article ran in the New York Times on Thursday, March 22. It was called "Ann Curry's Ambition: To Witness the Suffering." While the article focused on Ann Curry herself and her motivation for reporting from Darfur and various other conflict-torn places, it also highlighted the importance of the media and its role in increasing advocacy.

[Jim] Bell [the "Today" show's executive producer] said he was encouraged that the networks research showed viewers did not appear to be changing the channel during Ms. Curry's Darfur reports, some of them graphic interviews with people who had been badly scarred or lost whole families.

"I would be hard-pressed to say, let's do that again," he said, if viewers were tuning out.

On a more personal note: In January there was a reading of the play In Darfur by Winter Miller at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, where I attend school. The Minneapolis newspaper, the Star Tribune, ran an editorial about the play and ticket sales zoomed from about 200 to 600.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find a clip of Ann Curry's reporting to embed into the blog but they are available at her website.

What I’m Reading

So Martha had the idea a few weeks ago that we should start posting on “what the Student Board is reading.” I thought it was a great idea and so I’d like to say a few words and recommend a book that I picked up recently. It’s called “Will Genocide Ever End?” (Rittner et al, editors) and is a compilation of short essays by a lot of people in the field of genocide studies and prevention. People such as Helen Fein, Richard L. Rubenstein, Ervin Staub, and John Heidenrich write on a variety of topics addressing what genocide is, why it happens, and how it can be stopped.

This book might be a little advanced for someone new to the world of genocide studies, in which case I would recommend reading Samantha Powers’ great book “A Problem From Hell,” which is a great intro. After Powers’ book, though, “Will Genocide Ever End?” should be the next step, particularly for people interested in stopping, and not just studying, genocide.

Slavery Continues Still Today

Francis Bok was captured at the age of seven from his village in Southern Sudan. He worked as a slave for ten years, attempting to escape two times before finally succeeding on the third time. At the age of nineteen he came to America and sat in a classroom for his first time. He now works for the American Anti-Slavery Group,and he has testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, met with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and wrote an autobiography Escape From Slavery. He dedicates his life to help those who have been unable to escape, as over 8000 people are still living as slaves in Sudan. Following the peace agreement between the North and the South, there was hope that the abductions and enslavement of children would cease, yet the practice continues unabated. Most abductions take place in southern Sudan and they are brought to the North as documented in an article in the BBC. While the genocide rages on in Darfur, the western part of Sudan, the Southern half still struggles with the enslavement of thousands of their children. Although 200 years have passed since Britain banned the Atlantic slave trade, slavery is still a reality. Yet, so few people are aware that these practices continue today. Awareness must be raised about this issue and change must be implemented. Slavery and genocide are two of the most horrific and evil crimes that can possibly be committed and they should be responded to with international indignation and more importantly, with action.

90 years later

There are new bills before the US House and Senate calling for the United States to officially recognize the Armenian massacres of 1915-1917 years ago as "genocide". These bills seem to have a number of reprocussions, both positive and negative.

The US administration wants to block the bills, because of Turkey's role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is an incredibly disturbing undercurrent.
From the Turkish Daily News: Although President George W. Bush's administration, which has strongly condemned Dink's assassination, would like to see Turkey repeal the Turkish Penal Code's (TCK) controversial Article 301 and set up good relations with Armenia, it also shares Ankara's worries over the resolution's reference to the Armenian genocide. Therefore, the administration is seeking to persuade the panel's senators to drop that reference, diplomats said. As a result, Sen Lugar...raised an objection to the resolution's language when the measure came to the Tuesday vote...The measure, if passed by the panel, will move to the Senate floor.

This administration’s reluctance to condemn or work to stop genocide is incredibly upsetting. Their moves on this matter only serve to underscore their lack of action on Darfur, and call into question whether they really want to do anything to stop genocide at all.

Of course, it all seems so very simple: there was a genocide against the Armenians, so the world should say that there was. But, if by passing a resolution on something that happened 90 years ago - no matter how horrendous - the US inadvertently worsens the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, then principles mean nothing and Congress should do whatever will save the most lives now. I’m not convinced, however, that simply abandoning this resolution will save the most lives. There’s a genocide happening in Darfur, and the government is getting away with it because it has convinced most of the international community that by calling it genocide and responding to it as genocide they would make the situation worse. That’s patently untrue, and one of the ways to show them that is by taking time now to right 90 year old wrongs.

For more of my analysis and other news reports on this issue, check out my blog at www.livesinthebalance.com.

Leaving (on a jet plane)

That's what the initial wave of survivors of the Gatumba massacre did when they boarded planes bound for the United States today , as news24.com reports. All of this is due to the work of the UNHCR (the UN's High Commission for Refugees) and the US government. This first group includes some 35 refugees but, in total, 500 could benefit from claiming refugee status in the United States. The UNHCR wants to make sure that once these refugees make it to the States they all have a chance for a productive life. This is why, pre-departure, all took part in "basic Enlgish training." Further, efforts have been coordinated in cities where refugees are headed in terms of acclamation to daily life. Over the course of the next few weeks, until April's end, up to 100 will fly to the US each week until all are safely on US soil.

I find this news incredibly exciting and a very definite step in the right direction. Having been subject to a horrible tragedy in which upwards of 150 died the least that can be done for those who survived is to help make a better life possible. In the United States I hope that the refugees will be able to have more than just their basic needs met. I hope that they will be able to benefit from an environment in which their safety is assured and not under constant doubt. I hope, too, that they will become inspired by living in a democracy and one day be able to return to their homes. You see, this will not be the first move for these people, as those in Gatumba were already refugees from DRC at the time of the massacre. DRC is certainly not without its problems; nor is Burundi, for that matter. However, where deep damage and hurt have been done there is also room for immense healing and rebuilding. For those refugees making their way to the United States as spring approaches and the earth is renewed I hope that their faith will be renewed and that they will one day be able to return home, if they so choose, to bring that same hope back to their fellow citizens.

Empty Benchmarks

As the call for the US government to proceed to Plan B increases, critics are asking why, more than two months past the deadline, the Bush Administration is so reluctant.

In November 2006, the Sudanese signed an agreement in Addis Ababa. Despite months of rejecting UN troops, President Bashir accepted a UN-AU hybrid force under joint UN-AU command and UN financial/logistical support. The US government stated that failure to implement the Addis Ababa agreement by January 1 would call for a "Plan B," of which details were not disclosed.

So why, mid-March, has Special Envoy Andrew Natsios only begun to speculate that President Bush may make a decision to move ahead with stronger sanctions? Natsios, who met with President Bashir in December, requested a moratorium on visas as well as the facilitation of a UN-AU force. Bashir gave a two year extension on visas and indicated that he would, in fact, allow for Phase I of the peacekeeping forces. Therefore, Natsios suggests, President Bashir met his obligations. Until last week, when Bashir signed a letter condemning Phase I, the US had no justification for moving to Plan B.

It seems to me, then, that the US is setting its standards too low. Are we really going to allow a genocide to continue because President Bashir technically met our requests? Unless the people are protected and a political process is implemented, our actions haven't done much good. It's time for the US to set meaningful requirements with the end goal of stopping the genocide rather than just appearing to take action.

Environmental Genocide

People like to know how they can personally help end the Darfur Genocide. Usually I tell them write to their representatives, sign some petition, watch this film or attend that lecture. Sometimes people ask how they, personally, could possibly be responsible for the atrocities happening in Darfur and why should they care. I tell them that we cannot sit silently by and allow violence to continue against innocent people. After reading an article called "The Real Roots of Darfur" in the April issue of The Atlantic*, I have something different to tell them.

Darfur began not so much an ethnic conflict as a conflict over land rights. In the 1980s, drought dried up the small amount of fertile land in the region. Prior to this environmental degradation, the Arabs (who were semi-nomadic herders) and the Africans (who were sedentary farmers) lived together peacefully. As the farmers began cutting off the herders' access to land, in efforts to protect their own land, tension grew between the two groups. As tension intensified between herders and farmers, it led to racial conflict. During the 1990s, the Africans in Darfur became more and more marginalized because the government in Khartoum supported the Arabs in fighting in the region. Now, I will tell people to not only write to their representatives and sign my petition, but also to cut down on carbon emissions wherever possible by walking or taking the bus, buying locally grown food that does not have to be transported long distances, and using florescent light bulbs. On second thought, I'll tell them to e-mail their representatives, save the paper.

The article in The Atlantic ends with a chilling quote from Michael Byers, a political scientist:
This changes us from the position of Good Samaritans--disinterested,
uninvolved people who may feel a moral obligation--to a position where
we, unconsciously and without malice, created the conditions that led to
this crisis. We cannot stand by and look at it as a situation of discretionary
involvement. We are already involved.
Darfur will serve as a warning of the devastation that global warming can lead to. In order to prevent the next genocide and to successfully rebuild Darfur, we need to reduce the amount of waste and pollution we produce. Every individual can be a part of that.

*I was unable to link this blog to the article because the article is only available online to subscribers. The Atlantic, however, is available in bookstores and libraries.

Justice in Rwanda after Genocide

Check out this article, where the Rwandan government is pondering whether or not to take their troops they have supplied to the African Union for Darfur relief:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-14-voa50.cfm?rss=politics

When reading and afterwards, I challenge you to think about the repercussions and explore a little reader response-how do you feel about this notion? What if this had happened when Rwanda was facing genocide? Do troops in Darfur put Rwanda in danger and insecurity in their journey of rebuilding a country?

Another Call to Action

Today the United Nations issued another report on the genocide being committed in the Sudan. It also specifically called on the international community to take a more proactive role. The Sudanese government is responsible for many of the atrocities currently taking place, and their failure to act is just one of the many crimes of which they are guilty. CNN reported that "Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, last month linked Sudan's government to atrocities in Darfur, naming a junior minister as a war crimes suspect who helped recruit, arm and bankroll the janjaweed."
A call to action has been made by nearly every major international organization. How long will it be before these words become concrete actions that save lives? The Sudanese government must be held responsible for the genocide which it is guilty of. The United Nations was created as an international body of peace, cooperation, and protection. Dozens of states have recognized the authority of the UN and it is time that reports be turned into action.

International Law and Genocide

Writing on a very salient topic The International Herald Tribune reports on a very salient topic this week: the extent to which International Law has the power to prevent and punish genocide. Making reference to the original document on the issue, The Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, the article notes that it has been nearly 60 years since it was introduced and yet many genocides have happened since; why?


Essentially, the argument follows that with all of the rhetoric on how to prevent genocide since the enactment of the Convention and the establishment of the ICC that would follow, though much later in 2002, it is a wonder why genocide has been allowed to recur. Having read it my sense was that the author felt that the actions taken in the name of these institutions have not done enough either to punish or prevent genocide, calling them frustratingly inadequate.


I would have to say that I agree with the author. Until more weight is put behind decisions handed down by the court and until swift and appropriate measures can be taken when it becomes apparent that genocide is starting anew the criminals of the world who have the power to enact genocidal campaigns will not take seriously the threats of justice being done upon them issued by the Hague. A big sticking point, at least in my mind, is the fact that the United States is a signatory but has not ratified the Rome Statute (the document that established the Court). If the most powerful democracy does not accord that much respect to such an important institution when genocide prevention is concerned why should anyone else take it seriously?

More of the World's Worst

My first post on this blog was about Parade Magazine's list of the World's Worst Dictators. Although this report carries a bit more diplomatic weight, today I'm going to talk about what CNN calls the State Department's list of World's Worst Abuses. The report is formally called Country Reports on Human Rights Abuses, 2006 and the genocide in Darfur tops the list. For my analysis of Sudan and the report, check out my blog. Here I want to talk about the report's discussion of Chechnya.

Russia's abuses in Chechnya are highlighted in the report's introduction:
Russia experienced continuing centralization of power in the executive branch, including amendments to election laws and new legislation for political parties that grants the government broad powers to regulate, investigate, limit, and even close down parties...these trends resulted in the further erosion of government accountability. In Chechnya and other areas of the North Caucasus, serious human rights violations continued, including unlawful killings and abuses of civilians by both federal and Chechen Republic security forces. Rebel fighters committed terrorist bombings and politically motivated disappearances in the region. In a growing number of cases, the European Court of Human Rights held Russia responsible for these abuses.

That's not the only mention of Russia in the report. It comes up again in a discussion of governments that are resistant to political and social change:
...Freedom of expression and media independence declined due to government pressure and restrictions. In October unknown persons murdered human rights defender Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent journalist known for her critical writing on human rights abuses in Chechnya. The government used its controlling ownership of all national television and radio stations, as well as of the majority of influential regional ones, to restrict access to information deemed sensitive.

It's good that the State Department is giving attention to the human rights abuses in Chechnya - an area that has been neglected in the mainstream press. Hopefully the increased international scrutiny will help prevent the ethnic tensions there from boiling over into something even worse.

Of Justice and Intransigence

In my postings, I have often emphasized the role of the international community in halting genocide in Darfur, and in preventing its recurrence elsewhere. Recent events show both the promise and the continuing pitfalls of advocating this global responsibility.

In a landmark move, the International Criminal Court (ICC) last week announced the indictment of a former Sudanese interior minister and a Janjaweed militia leader for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As the first step in holding the architects of the Darfur genocide accountable before the international community, the indictment represents an achievement for the rule of law and the cause of human rights. However, it also betrays the frailty of international capacity to deal with threats such as genocide; the two men are unlikely to be tried, since Sudan refuses to hand them over to ICC prosecutors, and the Court has no enforcement capabilities.

Indeed, the UN peacekeeping force that has been proposed for Darfur (and which might be the only hope of enforcing the ICC indictments) was rejected by the Chadian government. According to its Foreign Minister, Chad refuses a military peacekeeping force on its eastern border, and would accept only one consisting of police.

Sadly, Chad is likely to get its way. Yet the increasingly brazen attacks on Darfurian refugees in Chad and the Central African Republic, not to mention the military firepower brought to bear against Darfuris in Sudan, illustrate that a substantial military peacekeeping force is necessary to bring peace to north-central Africa. Chad's intransigence may well not only pervert the course of justice in bringing perpetrators of genocide to account, but also lead to even more pain for a long-suffering people. The scorched earth pictured above has long been all too familiar to many Darfuris; it is a scene that now haunts Chad as well, and, without the action of the international community, is likely to become ever more common.

News from Chechnya

Voice of America reports:

Chechnya's parliament has approved a former rebel leader as the war-torn region's president. The approval came one day after Ramzan Kadyrov was nominated for the post by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bill Gasperini has more for VOA from Moscow.

The former rebel, who has previously served as prime minister of the republic, is credited with helping subdue militant separatists in Chechnya. But human rights groups say security forces under Mr. Kadyrov's control have aducted, tortured and killed many civilians who are suspected of being separatist rebels.

The new president has also been accused of being involved in the killing of Anna Politovskaya, a high-profile journalist with the opposition daily Novaya Gazeta who reported frequently on Chechnya. She was gunned down in her Moscow apartment building last October just before an article was due to appear linking Mr. Kadyrov to torture. He has denied the charges, saying that "he would never kill a woman."

The new Chechen president praised Mr. Putin and pledged to do his best in his new post. Mr. Kadyrov is the son of Ahkmad Kadyrov, who was the president of Chechnya until he was assassinated in 2004.

This clearly doesn't bode well for human rights in Chechnya, but it is unclear how this will affect ethnic relations. Mr. Kadyrov, like his father, had initially fought on the Chechen sepratist side - so he might be more sympathetic than he initally appears. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the next few months.

The photo is by Dmitry Nikiforov for the AP.

Gendered Genocide

In pictures of displaced people in Darfur, there are never any men. There are only women and children. The Janjaweed targets the men and boys for murder. Like the violence perpetrated against women in Darfur, the violence against men is often sexualized. Men are often castrated when they are killed, an act that states that they are killed to prevent them from reproducing, thus implying that the Janjaweed's intent is to destroy the civilians in Darfur. Women are not killed, but they are raped, abducted, forced into sexual slavery, tortured, and forced to flee their homes.

After the women and girls are raped, they suffer myriad consequences. They are usually ostracized from their communities which causes them economic instability and affects their health. Ultimately, it leads to "the destruction of the social fabric of their communities". In perpetuating gender-based violence, the Janjaweed is tearing apart the culture these women knew prior to the genocide.

The Darfur Genocide harms women in other ways, as well. They are no longer safe going to the market, to collect food for their livestock, to draw water from the well because they may be raped by lurking soldiers. In Internally Displaced Person (IDP) camps, families are marrying their daughters off earlier, in an attempt to protect them from rape. Early marriage robs women of educational and employment opportunities. Furthermore, due to the lack of educational and professional opportunities in IDP camps, more and more girls are becoming involved in sex work.

Providing protection for the people of Darfur is essential to resolving the crisis. We must remember, however, that the violence of the genocide is gendered. It is primarily women who will have to live in post-genocide Darfur and their needs--economic security, health care, education, job training--must be central to the rebuilding and reconciliation of Darfur.

Happy International Women's Day!

The Power of Charity

The question that I am most often asked about Darfur is what people can really do to help. We talk a lot about “spreading awareness” and “taking action”, but to most people these are just buzz words and catch phrases with no practical implications. Most often this takes the form of signing petitions and writing letters to politicians in the hope that they can do something to stop the killing in Darfur. For the most part, I hate to say, these efforts have been unsuccessful and even when they produce results, they are too slow for the average person on the street to see them as a valuable product of their own action, especially when they’ve signed the same petition and written the same letter over and over again.

So, how do people take more direct action to stop the suffering in Darfur? Well, as much as I would like to advocate taking up arms and literally defending the people suffering there, that just isn’t realistic. It is with their wallet that the average person can make a difference. Maybe that sounds a bit clichéd and people are a bit sick of hearing that they should give money to some new Third World cause, it really can make a difference in Darfur.

Think about it: the IDP camps of Darfur are now being used as weapons against the people inside them. Hunger is as much a weapon of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed as are bullets and bombs. This means that every dollar donated to humanitarian aid for Darfur is a life-saving dollar. Darfur presents a remarkable opportunity to people who do not otherwise know how to help: actively resisting genocide just by donating money.

Here are a few charities providing aid to the people of Darfur:

In Canada: Oxfam Canadian Students for Darfur Appeal and in the United States: International Rescue Committee, and in the United Kingdom: Red Cross

Signs of Hope in Burundi

Sometimes, I feel like a broken record by saying, "Burundi, although it has had its problems..." etc, etc, etc. In fact, one all too often hears stories beginning similarly when Africa is concerned. As someone who's an International Studies major I tend to look at Africa (though I know very little, generally speaking, in terms of specifics) through a post-colonial lens. Given the fact that many countries came into Africa and carved out pieces for themselves by drawing artificial borders which gave no reflection of the demographics of groups they would be splitting up it is no wonder that problems have persisted to this day. But, I'll stop here with the rantings of an INTS major and turn to something that bodes well for Burundi's future.


Yesterday, Reuters reported that Burundi has recently shown signs of hope in terms of its ability to function as a legitimate democracy free from some of its earlier vices (such as torture, unjust imprisonment, some of which we've discussed). Specifically, it was cited in the article that the "ouster of the ruling party's unpopular chairman, the acquittal of suspects in a vague coup plot, and the release of jailed reporters" were all especially encouraging.


The effective vote of no confidence in Hussein Radjabu's (former leader of the CNDD-FDD) leadership is something I wrote about back at the beginning of February. Essentially, this was the first sign of the initiation of a debate with larger implications, most importantly, that of having an environment in which a referendum on a person's leadership is taken seriously and something which I consider fundamental to a democracy.


Further, I'm glad to have learned of an update in the form of the acquittal mentioned above of those who had been held and tortured of which I wrote about even longer ago. Finally, it's really great to hear of the freeing of journalists who had been held in prison. A democracy depends on the freedom of its citizens to have access to information; journalists fill this vital role.