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