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.

Why "genocide" is like peanut butter

Suffice it to say, I'm a little brain-dead this week. What with rehearsal 4 hours a night almost every night and homework and exams fast approaching I'm definitely feeling the end-of-semester-crunch. Given that and since there's not much news coming out of Burundi I was at a little bit of a loss as to what to write about this week.

Of course, like every college student I have survival food in my room for those late night, oh-my-God-will-I-ever-finish-this-paper kind of moments; and the cornerstone to college survival (besides Ramen noodles): PEANUT BUTTER, a jar of which is right beside my laptop so it's extra-handy.

So, I thought, "Huh, peanut butter is kind of like 'genocide'(the word, not the act)." Genocide is a word you hear from activists a lot to describe the situation in Darfur but something you rarely hear from politicians and supranational actors. Why is this? The answer: fear, or, more politely, apprehension. You see, "genocide" is a very politicized word, much like many other things this day and age. For "genocide" carries with it certain responsibilities, like the responsibility to act to prevent genocide. Luckily, the conflict in Darfur has been labelled a genocide by certain institutions including the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the Committee on Conscience of the USHMM, and the US Congress. However, the UN has resisted calling it genocide and so has the AU.

As I mentioned a few posts back I don't care what you call the situation in Darfur so long as you agree that what is going on there is going from bad to worse and that the international community has the obligation to do something about it.

So, why is "genocide" like peanut butter? Because it's a word that sometimes gets stuck in your mouth. For student activists likes us "genocide" is like peanut butter in that in that it's often in our mouths at least once a week. For politicians, on the other hand, "genocide" is like peanut butter in that, for them, it gets stuck to the roof of their mouths and just stays there.

What I’m Reading II

I have to apologize to everyone for not writing in so long, but I’ve been a little short on both time and ideas lately. To continue on with the theme of my last post though, I’d like to make another book recommendation. (For anyone wondering what the answer to the title of my last pick - “Will Genocide Ever End?” is, it basically boils down to ‘yes - with a lot of hard work.’)

The book I’m onto now is one I picked up at the Holocaust Museum’s shop during the Advanced Leadership Summit last month. “Darfur: A Short History of a Long War” by Julie Flint and Alex De Waal is a little book packed with lots of information. Published in 2005, the book obviously lacks recent developments in the Darfur Genocide and war but makes up for it by being a great resource for the political history of Sudan and Darfur specifically, the origins of the Janjaweed, and the history of racial discrimination that led the rebels to rise up against the Khartoum government in 2003.

Although it’s a little daunting at first thanks to the wall-to-wall dates and hard-to-remember Arabic names, “Darfur” is definitely worth the effort and should be required reading for anyone who wants to know anything about Darfur.

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.

ICJ decision on genocide in Bosnia

Today the International Court of Justice issued its ruling in the case Bosnia brought against Serbia for committing genocide in the early 1990s.

I have most of a Washington Post article and my thoughts over at www.livesinthebalance.com, but I wanted to hear what others think of this decision, so please post your thoughts in the comments section here!

The decision was as follows: The Court...
-Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide
-Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide
-Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide
-Finds that Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having failed fully to co-operate with that Tribunal
-Finds that Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on 8 April and 13 September 1993 in this case, inasmuch as it failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995
-Decides that Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to punish acts of genocide as defined by Article II of the Convention, or any of the other acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to co-operate fully with that Tribunal
-Finds that, as regards the breaches by Serbia of the obligations referred to...above, the case is not one in which an order for payment of compensation, or, in respect of the violation referred to in subparagraph (5), a direction to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, would be appropriate

What do you think?

Ambivalence Kills: the UN’s Failure in Bosnia and Everywhere Else

One of the main principles of the United Nations is that the organization must remain utterly neutral at all costs in order to mediate between the belligerent parties in a conflict. That makes sense in principle, but the absolute refusal to take sides has led the UN down a dangerous path: that of moral equivalency. By this way of thinking, nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. To the UN, no party in a conflict is at fault; they all just need to stop fighting.

The UN is even hesitant to lay blame in cases of genocide.

There isn’t enough space here to explain why the UN doesn’t work, so I’ll just say that it doesn’t. The folly of moral equivalency and the often deliberate deception and even lying that the UN does in its effort to avoid laying blame is best illustrated by an example.

During the Bosnian War in the early 1990s, the Bosnian capital Sarajevo was subjected to a vicious siege in which civilians were specifically targeted by the Serb forces in the surrounding hills. A Washington Post article of the time gives a taste of the carnage. It also tells of the infamous Bread Line Massacre in which eighteen people were killed by a Serb shell while waiting in line for food. When UN investigators looked at the site, the UN took their report and refused to lay blame where it belonged in this and other incidents for fear of alarming Bosnian Serbs.

In many others such bombings, the UN actually began to consistently blame the Bosnian government for attacking its own people and framing the Serb aggressors in order to gain international sympathy.

When the UN lets its neutrality drag it down into inaction or even push it so far as to lay blame on victims for their own suffering, it becomes an accomplice - either active or passive - in murder, sometimes even genocide. If the UN would let go of its obsession with leveling the playing field between aggressor and victim and take a side once in a while, maybe it would finally have some success in saving lives somewhere in the world. Unless the UN soon starts to stand up and defend the weak, it will be too busy trying to wash the blood off its hands to avoid sinking into irrelevance.

Darfur could be to turning point for the UN, but its opportunity to do some good is fading quickly.

The world's worst dictators & me

Hi everyone, I am Martha Heinemann Bixby and I'm here to introduce myself with my first post. My focus for this blog will be the North Caucuses, but I'll probably pop in with my opinions on all kinds of things, from Darfur to dictators, Bosnia to the movies Blood Diamond or Babel.

Of course, despite the title to this post I am not one of the world's worst dictators - although I would enjoy a larger-than-life rotating gold statue of myself in my hometown. What I want to talk about here, in my first post, is Parade Magazine's annual list of the world's 20 worst dictators, released last weekend. This list has a number of implications in the world of genocide studies, especially in activism and genocide prevention.

Topping the list for the 3rd year in a row is Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan. According to Parade, "Omar al-Bashir retains his position as the worst dictator because of his ongoing deadly human-rights abuses in the Darfur region of Sudan. Over the last four years, at least 200,000 people there have been killed by pro-Bashir forces. Nationwide, 5.3 million have been driven from their homes, and more than 700,000 have fled the country. But at the UN last September, Bashir blamed international aid groups for exaggerating the problems as a ploy to raise money for their organizations. And in November, he argued that war-related deaths in Darfur were less than 9,000. Despite agreeing to a 60-day ceasefire last month, he has been accused by his people of ordering troops to continue their attacks." In 2005 when Parade first named Al-Bashir the #1 worst dictator I remember feeling so pleased that they actually recognized how awful he was, and the impunity with which he was killing his own people. However, I'm sure it was quite nearly a tie between him and Kim Jong Ill, #2 that year, it's just that al-Bashir tried a little harder to be an incredibly brutal ideologue.

Even beyond al-Bashir this year’s list of the world’s worst dictators is of interest to the genocide-prevention community. Number 3, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, is the man behind “all decisions regarding Iran’s relations, its nuclear program and domestic freedoms” according to Parade. That presumably includes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats of genocide against Jews, Iran’s fueling of the ethnic civil war in Iraq and the Holocaust cartoon conference last year.

Parade’s commentary on dictator #4, China’s Hu Jintao, focuses on the human rights situation within China. Equally important, however, is China’s repeated involvement in ethnic conflicts around the globe – especially Darfur – to undermine human rights and reinforce the power of brutal regimes. This policy is in effect, many believe, so that China can have exclusive economic relations with these countries because the United States and other “Western” powers won’t deal with them. And yet, we’ll all watch the ’08 Olympics there… reminders of the ’36 Olympics, anyone? At least we have Olympian Joey Cheek on our side – too bad he’s a skater and so couldn’t boycott Beijing.

The final dictator I’ll discuss today squeezed in at #20, Vladimir Putin, his first year on the list (I guess with Saparmurad Niyazov gone and Fidel Castro rendered virtually powerless, there’s more room this year). Parade does not mention the situation in Chechnya in it’s profile of Putin, probably because there’ve been plenty of news-making human rights abuses in Russia beyond Chechnya in the past 12 months. Chechnya, one of the many regions that make-up the North Caucuses, remains an area of “Genocide Alert” for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Committee on Conscience due to the “Past persecution of Chechens as a people, The demonization of Chechens as a group within Russian society and The level of violence directed against Chechen civilians by Russian forces”. It is up to the world community to continue to monitor the situation in Chechnya so that Putin does not rise to replace al-Bashir as a genocidal world’s worst dictator.

(* the cartoon is from here)

The spread of genocide in Africa

Buried underneath the now-familiar headlines of brewing crises in the Middle East is one that deserves front-page attention: the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that spillover from the violence in Darfur threatens to recreate the 1994 Rwandan genocide in eastern Chad. More than 200,000 Darfuris have fled conflict by crossing the border into neighboring Chad, and the Sudanese government-backed Janjaweed militia has followed them, killing hundreds and leaving up to 110,000 homeless, according to the BBC. The familiar pattern of violence in Darfur, in which government-backed militias attack villages, often inspiring copycat killings, seems to becoming replicated in Chad. A UNHCR representative chillingly reported that "We are seeing elements that closely resemble what we saw in Rwanda in the genocide in 1994." Similar conflict threatens to spread into the Central African Republic (see map), threatening to raise the specter of a genocidal, regional conflagration. This prospect makes it all the more imperative that the Sudanese government be forced to accept a UN peacekeeping force to suplement the weak AU force currently in operation in Sudan. Click here to sign a petition urging President Bush to take firm action to compel Sudan to accept a UN force.

ENOUGH

The Center for American Progress and International Crisis Group are collaborating in a new initiative,ENOUGH: the Project to End Genocide and Mass Atrocities. The first in the series, titled "The Answer To Darfur" and featuring Gayle Smith (Center for American Progress), John Prendergast (ICG), and Colin Thomas-Jensen (ICG), calls for a "coherent and synchronized strategy." How can nations overcome global complacency to reach such a strategy? The featured speakers propose a "3P" Strategy: Protect the Vulnerable, Punish the Perpetrators, and Promote Peace.

"Protect the Vulnerable" is a common goal of Darfur activists. Punishing the perpetrators, one might argue, is important only after the people have been protected. Promoting Peace. What exactly does this mean? Weren't we promoting peace while thrusting the Darfur Peace Agreement in May 2006 at noncomplying rebels? Is this the same kind of peace promoted in 2005 when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed between the North and South? While both sides did sign, whether progress is being made is questionable, and in 2009, the South will have the opportunity to vote for secession.

Prendergast and Jensen recognize that long-term peace requires a sustainable, inclusive political process. To act consistently with our favorite phrase "Never Again," we must consider human rights first, of course. This must be followed up, however, with sound, long-term action to establish stability. Herein lies the real challenge.

Sudan denied AU position: no honors for supporters of genocide.

The African Union retained its integrity this week when it denied Sudan's bid to head the AU for 2007. The leadership position was instead given to Ghana, and the Union Chief, Alpha Oumar Konaré, used his opening speech to attack Sudan for orchestrating the attacks on civilians. "We appeal to the government of Sudan to stop attacking and bombarding Darfur and restore peace," he said.

This comes shortly after the few remaining aid organizations have declared in a report to the UN that they are just "holding the line" and may be forced to leave because of increasing violence. One aid worker said, "We simply cannot do our jobs if our lives are threatened."

Yesterday, two major French aid organizations abandoned their stations, leaving behind 130,000 Internally Displaced Persons after two of their workers were brutally raped, and others held at gun point, while rebel factions stole materials, trucks, computers, and cell phones. Aid organizations have requested security assistance to allow them to continue their vital work, but none has been granted.

A Brief History of the Bosnian War and Genocide

For almost five decades following the end of the Second World War, Europe saw a period of great tension during the Cold War, but avoided any large armed conflicts. Then communism fell and in mid 1991 the Republic of Yugoslavia began to fall apart. First Croatia, then Slovenia declared independence from the federation of six republics which had been held together only by the aggressive suppression of its constituent ethnicities. Bosnia was not far behind and in early 1992 a referendum declared it independent too. The people of Bosnia are collectively known as Bosniaks, but the country is made up of ethnic Croats, Serbs, and Muslims.

Within two months of the referendum, open war had broken out in Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs set up a shadow republic within the country called the Republika Srpska and with the cooperation of the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) based in Serbia, began to wage a brutal, vicious war against the Bosnia government and people. Sarajevo, the capital and host of the 1984 Olympic Games, was subjected to a nearly four-year siege - the longest in the history of modern warfare. Its defenders came from all of Bosnia’s three peoples and were targeted by Serb forces for their loyalty to the multi-ethnic government.

Until the end of the war in 1995, all sides (Croatia later invaded as well) in the conflict committed atrocities, but over ninety percent have been attributed to Serb forces who attempted to drive all others out of the land and establish “Greater Serbia.” Massacres and unprecedented cruelty became the norm, culminating in the Srebrenica massacre of July 11, 1995 - the largest in Europe since the end of the war - which saw 8 000 Muslim men and boys slaughtered (srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com). An estimated 250 000 people were killed in the war, and various high-level figures have been indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Many have been convicted, some are still at large.

Glimmers of Hope for Justice

Two recent events offer hope for the present and future victims of genocide. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's mission to Sudan represents a renewed American commitment to the success of the UN peacekeeping plan for Darfur. That a probable presidential candidate pays so much attention to the plan is also heartening. But the extent of Gov. Richardson's influence remains unclear; he brokered a previous deal with the Sudanese President, Omar el-Bashir, but does not have an official US government title. Bashir's cautious maneuvering with regards to the UN peacekeeping plan suggests he may play a delaying game; if so, Gov. Richardson will need all his diplomatic acumen to force Bashir to accept a strong and credible UN force.

A second reason for optimism in the New Year is the trial by a UN War Crimes Tribunal of Colonel Tharcisse Renzaho, a prefect in charge of Rwanda's capital Kigali during the 1994 genocide. In many ways the UN tribunal for Rwanda represents a landmark for international justice: it delivered the first-ever judgement of the crime of genocide by an international court. For those who believe the international community has a key role in punishing and deterring the perpetrators of genocide, the trial of Col. Renzaho is reason for hope that crimes against humanity will not go unpunished.

Saddam Hussein’s Execution: Cheating Justice?

The hanging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein two weeks ago has been big news recently. A lot of media attention has been given to his trial for the 1982 Dujail massacre of 148 Shi’ite Muslims, his ultimate conviction, and execution. A lot less attention, however, has been given to the other trial he was on - for the Kurdish Genocide. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of about 200 000 Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s and displacement over a million more. Had his trial been allowed to run its course, Saddam almost certainly would have been convicted and sentenced to death. That will never happen now.

A lot of people speculated that the appeal ruling and execution from the Dujail conviction might be delayed to coincide with the end of the Kurdish Genocide trial. Apparently the Iraqi Government was just too impatient. Some might ask what it matters, since Saddam is dead now anyhow. The fact is that a dead man can’t stand trial and with Saddam’s execution all charges of genocide against him were dropped. I can’t help but be reminded of earlier this year when former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic died of natural causes in the Hague while on trial for genocide and other crimes against humanity. Milosevic had been the first sitting head of state indicted for war crimes. His death cheated the world and the people who suffered at his hands and sought justice.

Once again, another victimized people has been cheated of justice and closure by the untimely death of a dictator on trial. Once again, the world has been cheated of a precedent-setting legal decision against a former dictator and all of the doors to intervention and justice which could have been opened everywhere. Let’s hope that the Genocide trial goes forth without any more interference and that Hussein’s six former codefendants get what they deserve.

Personal Introduction

Hello everyone. Before I get started on writing my first entry to this blog, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Christopher Tuckwood and I am in my fourth year at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Here I am majoring in Medieval Studies with a minor in Jewish Studies. Genocide prevention is something which I’ve been interested in for quite a long time now and I have been active in doing Darfur advocacy for three years now, since I organized my first fundraiser in early 2004. Since then, I have founded a chapter of Students Taking Action Now: Darfur (STAND) Canada on my campus, and also founded and acted as president of the Genocide Action Group at my university, which has over two hundred members. We have been quite active in raising both money and awareness by hosting film showings, guest speakers, conferences, and getting as much attention as possible in our local media, which is the best tool for raising awareness.

Now, I am a proud member of the USHMM Student Genocide Prevention Board (also the sole Canadian member) and will be regularly contributing to this blog. The topics on which I will be writing are varied, but I will mostly be focusing on Darfur and Bosnia, while also contributing to any discussion on the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other relevant international law. Rwanda is another particular area of interest and “expertise” of mine.

Genocide is the greatest of all evils which human beings commit against each other. It is not a strictly past historical phenomenon, it is not something limited to one part of the world, and it is not something which can be easily ended, particularly due to the apathy of the international community and powerful governments. As Samantha Power has stated, we live in the “Age of Genocide” and the movement to end and prevent it is the premier moral imperative of our time. Ultimately, saving real lives is our first goal. Just trying is never enough and we must constantly seek out the most effective ways to actually accomplish real solutions. Even if success is often elusive or not achieved in the short-term, our efforts do have significance. Those who struggle against the perpetrators of genocide can at least stand up and be counted as refusing to remain silent - as so many others have - in the face of this ultimate evil.

Genocide and the International System

Hi everyone,

I'm Scott Moore, originally from Kentucky and currently a junior at Princeton University. Like most people, I see genocide as one of the worst reflections of humanity. But my academic interests in the international system- the nations, people, and institutions that make up our world- have given me another reason to fear the ravages of genocide and ethnic cleansing. These atrocities are the most serious of violations of the norms and rules that the international system relies upon to preserve the global peace. Quite simply, genocides degrade the entire international system. I'll be blogging about a lot of things, but I will be focusing on the effects of genocide and ethnic conflict from a wider international system. I hope I can provoke some useful debate about the harms that genocide inflicts on us all. Thanks,

As 2006 comes to a close, so too does the tenure of Kofi Annan as Secretary-General of the United Nations. He may well be best remembered by history as having faced the strains placed on the international community by the Iraq War and nuclear proliferation. But Mr. Annan should also be remembered for the doctrine that bears his name, asserting the right and responsibility of the international community to intervene when a state fails to respect the human rights of its citizens. The concept of responsibility is worthy of particular emphasis. As the world reels from the division of more recent conflicts, it is easy to forget that less than a decade ago the United States and NATO led an intervention in Serbia to halt ethnic cleansing in the province of Kosovo. The international community bonded together to effect regime in the name of human rights. Underpinning this landmark move was the Annan Doctrine, with its emphasis on the need for the international community to recognize gross human rights violations as a threat to all humanity. Today, as we confront such violations in Darfur, the world would do well to remember the precedent of Kosovo and the Annan Doctrine.

The government of Sudan and the United Nations have recently announced the tentative establishment of a joint UN-African Union force intended to halt the killing in Darfur and other regions of Sudan. While far too late for thousands of the genocide's victims, the announcement represents a renewed international commitment to stopping the violence. What remains to be done is to ensure that the force has the necessary capabilities to provide security and begin rebuilding a nation shattered by war. Here again we meet the responsibility of the international community, especially the United States and the developed nations, to support the peacekeeping effort in Sudan. It is a responsibility that is not without urgency: the suffering of the Sudanese people is long-standing, and the threat of wider conflict in the Horn of Africa looms. Though it seems at times far-removed, conflict in Sudan is part of a tangled web of geopolitical interests that include arms, oil, and the fight against terror. Peace and security in Sudan is a matter of global responsibility.

The suffering of the Sudanese people ought to be reason enough for the United States and others to do their part to stabilize and rebuild Sudan. But it is the effect of this suffering on the international system that offers an equally compelling reason to act. As long as regimes can reasonably expect the international community to shirk its responsibility to hold them to account for the treatment of their people, the threat of genocide and ethnic cleansing remains. This most wretched of stains on the human conscience also threatens the rights and freedoms of people everywhere. Today's interconnected world depends on global systems to provide security and stability. By failing to apply this system in Sudan, the world's governments bring the threat of ethnic violence that much closer to the doorsteps to their own people.

Poor nations will supply the bulk of the manpower for the new peacekeeping force; the United States and other developed nations must be prepared to provide funding, intelligence, logistical support, and political muscle. It is a small contribution that faces down an enormous threat, and a responsibility that is shirked at the peril of all humanity.

Ana's Introduction :)

Hi! Before I begin my first post, I'd like to introduce myself:

My name is Ana Halper. I'm a freshman at Florida Atlantic University in South Florida, and I've been participating in human rights activism for about 3 and a half years, and Darfur activism for about two. I am the vice president of my school's chapter of Amnesty International, and I plan to pursue a career in human rights or international aid. I am currently working on several Darfur projects, including selling t-shirts for an incredible cause, planning a community rally, and collaborating with MTVU to bring a benefit concert to my campus.

As an activist, I am very honored to be a part of the Museum's Student Genocide Prevention Board, and as a writer, I look forward to contributing to this blog. I plan to explore the issues surrounding the Darfur genocide, as well as a humans rights concern that hits closer to home: the torture debate in the United States.