Of Candidates and Conflict

With the economy in a tail-spin and a dire global security situation, America's voters have plenty to consider as they vote for their next President. In the face of such immediate concerns, it's naive to think that the candidates' stance on genocide prevention and ethnic conflict will be an issue of any significance to the outcome on November 4. But it's not immaterial, either, even to those voters who don't consider themselves part of the "anti-genocide constituency." The candidates' views on Darfur and other conflict-ridden areas sheds light not only on issues of conscience, but also on the orientation of foreign policy.

Genocide and ethnic conflict is stoked by instability, which the US government has also recognized fosters terrorism. By recognizing that the same socio-political instability that leads to genocide threatens US national security generally, Presidential candidates display a nuanced understanding of foreign policy. It's a welcome sign, then, that Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain all signed a May 2008 letter pledging their "unstinting resolve" to ensure "peace and security for the people of Sudan." Senators Obama and McCain, the eventual major-party candidates for the Presidency, also both expressed a willingness to intervene to stop genocide in their second debate.

Nevertheless, one candidate is clearly better poised to address the instability that threatens both future genocides and future threats to US national security: Barack Obama. Senator Obama's chief qualification in this regard is that he would immediately bring much higher political capital to the global stage. In a Bush-weary world, Mr. Obama would represent welcome change to European and African governments, all crucial allies in the fight against extremism in all its forms. Of course, popularity will not sustain a robust foreign policy. But throughout the campaign, Senator Obama and his advisers have repeatedly stressed the importance of the non-military ("non-kinetic") dimensions of national security, suggesting that such dimensions will assume prominence in an Obama foreign policy. The non-profit Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), moreover, notes that Obama has recieved an "A" for his work on Darfur in the Senate, while McCain has been slapped with a "C." "Senator Barack Obama," concludes CGS, "has a firmer grip on the conditions of the Sudanese people and action desperately needed to make the end of genocide in Darfur a reality."

Whatever the election's outcome, though, the next president can take a number of steps to reduce the threats posed by socio-economic instability. The next administration should instruct the Pentagon's new Africa Command to serve as a model for military-civil cooperation in intelligence, economic development, and civil society enhancement. The possibility of a United Nations-sponsored "rapid deployment force," designed to enable UN-sanctioned humanitarian interventions, should be explored. Most of all, the next administration should take the opportunity to reintroduce itself to the world as guarantor of global stability, security, and prosperity. America's conscience, and it's long-term interest, do not permit it to be otherwise- something that the past eight years have proven at such cost.

Africom- A new take on US military involvement in Africa

This past week, the US Department of Defense announced the creation of Africa Command, a new Unified Combatant Command with responsibility for US military forces operating across Africa. The creation of Africom, as it is known, is significant for two reasons. It is the first time that America has created a military command for Africa- previously, operations on the continent had been directed by the European Command in Germany. Africa-watchers can take some heart from this development that Africa will fall more routinely on the radars of senior US defense and security officials. Even more significantly, Africom appears to represent a new direction for civil-military partnerships. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was quoted by The New York Times as saying that Africom will focus on supporting State Department and US Agency for International Development efforts, including by involving military personnel in community health and development activities.

Some, including Kenneth Bacon, President of Refugees International, have criticized the military's move into areas traditionally dominated by civilian agencies and non-governmental organizations. But like it or not, the military has the money and the political clout to do things that such instititions only dream of. Civil-military partnerships have great potential for ameliorating the conditions that lead to ethnic violence, as well as for stopping conflicts once they begin. A robust civil-military presence could do much to enhance stability in some of Africa's weak states, thereby decreasing the potential for unrest to occur.

But it will take an adept commander to turn this potential into reality. Army General William Ward, who has been named to head Africom, should begin by enhancing support to the African Union mission in Darfur. Conscience dictates that the world's most recent genocide be the first and chief beneficiary of the US military's enhanced interest in Africa. Beyond that, the European Union mission in Congo, as well as fragile national forces in Africa's North-central and Horn regions, are sorely in need of US military logistics, communications, and intelligence support.

With the creation of Africom, the Pentagon has taken a laudable if overdue step towards recognizing that poverty, underdevelopment and instability threatens US security. The next step is to make Africom an active and effective agent of stability throughout the continent. Now to you, General Ward. We're anxious to see what you do with your new command.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.