Anti-genocide partners John Prendergast and George Clooney recently penned an opinion piece in USA Today, calling for the United States to use both carrots and sticks to leverage Sudan towards peace in Darfur and throughout the country. Prendergast later wrote that the article is, in part, a response to Special Envoy Gen. Scott Gration’s recent concern about the lack of U.S. leverage in Sudan. As Bec Hamilton noted in a recent blog post, the clear-cut call for the balanced use of incentives and pressures is an important development for the Sudan activist community, which has previously expressed "skepticism" towards the use of incentives by the U.S. government. Prendergast and Clooney recommend the use of a wide variety of multilateral tools to both pressure and incentivize the Sudanese regime towards positive change:

On the carrots side, the U.S. should present a quid pro quo with an expiration date by the end of the year: In exchange for peace in Darfur and the South, the U.S. would move to normalize relations with Sudan and work in the U.N. Security Council to suspend the war crimes indictment of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir under Article 16 of the International Criminal Court charter. On the sticks side, a U.S.-led initiative should build international support for severe consequences for anyone promoting war, whether they are ruling party officials, militias, rebels, or southern Sudan’s leaders.

Bec Hamilton, a human rights lawyer and author of an upcoming book on Darfur activism, criticized Prendergast and Clooney for their insistence on leveraging international justice:

The ICC’s work can be suspended by the UN Security Council in the interests of peace, but we should always be clear that the ICC is not a bargaining chip to be used to gain leverage to push for peace. Justice is not a tap to be turned on and off at will by countries looking for leverage – even with the best of intentions. Indeed the very vision behind the creation of the ICC is to break away from this old world view where justice is like any other item in the “leverage toolbox” of pressures and incentives; it should not be seen as a tradeable commodity.

The discourse on international justice’s role in multilateral diplomacy is a useful and important component of reaching an equitable solution to Sudan’s conflicts. On that note, I attended the Human Rights Watch Film Festival yesterday, for a screening of a new documentary on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, entitled War Don Don. For those interested in continuing this critical discussion–on the contributions of international justice to the maintenance of peace, on the successes and failings of courts responsible for prosecuting genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and on the impact of these courts on post-conflict societies–I highly recommend the film. The last screening is tonight, but HBO will screen the documentary in the fall.

Vice President Joseph Biden is in Africa this week, leading an interagency delegation through the continent before the 2010 World Cup kicks off on Friday. According to The Cable, Biden’s trip will not focus primarily on soccer diplomacy: rather, the purpose of his trip is to provide oversight for the execution of the Obama administration’s Sudan policy. In an administration whose Sudan policy decisions have been marred by internal divisions, Vice President Biden’s senior-level leadership on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement’s implementation process, relationships with Southern Sudanese leadership, and the Darfur peace process is welcome progress.

We asked Vice President Biden to make Sudan a priority during this trip and we hope that the Vice President’s leadership in this matter will inaugurate a period of increased diplomatic efforts to facilitate a peaceful referendum on Southern Sudanese independence and an end to the renewed fighting in Darfur. We will continue to follow Vice President Biden and his delegation as they facilitate the Obama administration’s Sudan policy over the next week.

"Where we can, America must. Why Darfur? Because, we can."

Recent reports indicate that the United States government sent a junior-level consular officer to the inauguration of Omar al-Bashir last week, drawing criticism from a variety of human rights organizations. In the aftermath of the elections, the Genocide Intervention Network and its partner organizations cautioned the Obama administration about legitimizing the election results. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley defended the administration’s actions, pointing out that the inauguration also included the installment of SPLM Chairman Salva Kiir as the first vice president of Sudan and the president of the Government of Southern Sudan.

We must ensure that the Obama administration’s diplomatic outreach to the Sudanese regime does not translate into a weak policy going forward. We must urge the Obama administration to fully implement the Sudan policy articulated last October. We must shift our focus to the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, ensuring that the Sudanese government, as well as regional and international actors, work to facilitate a peaceful referendum on Southern Sudanese independence in early 2011. In addition, we must encourage the progress of an inclusive peace process in Doha, which will facilitate an end to the still-raging conflict between the Sudanese government and Darfur rebel groups.

Via the Genocide Intervention Network’s Facebook page:

A leaked copy of Obama’s National Security Strategy appeared on Foreign Policy’s "The Cable" this morning and includes language on Sudan, genocide and mass atrocity prevention,and the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Highlighting these issues in the NSS is an important step – it’s our job as advocates to hold the administration and Congress accountable for actually implementing these strategies. The leaked language is below, as well as a link to the full report.

Pages 26-27

Invest in the Capacity of Strong and Capable Partners: 
Where governments are incapable of meeting their citizens’ basic needs and fulfilling their responsibilities to provide security within their borders, the consequences are often global and may directly threaten the American people. To advance our common security, we must address the underlying political and economic deficits that foster instability, enable radicalization and extremism, and ultimately undermine the ability of governments to manage threats within their borders and to be our partners in addressing common challenges. To invest in the capacity of strong and capable partners, we will work to: 

Foster Security and Reconstruction in the Aftermath of Conflict: The United States and the international community cannot shy away from the difficult task of pursuing stabilization in conflict and post-conflict environments. In countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, building the capacity necessary for security, economic growth and good governance is the only path to long term peace and security. But we have also learned that the effectiveness of these efforts is profoundly affected by the capacity of governments an the political will of their leaders. We will take these constraints into account in designing appropriate assistance strategies and will facilitate the kind of collaboration that is essential-within our government and with international organizations-in those instances when we engage in the difficult work of helping to bring conflicts to an end.

Pursue Sustainable and Responsible Security Systems in At-Risk States:
Proactively investing in stronger societies and human welfare is far more effective and efficient than responding after state collapse. The United States must improve its capability to strengthen the security of states at risk of conflict and violence. We will undertake long-term, sustained efforts to strengthen the capacity of security forces to guarantee internal security, defend against external threats, and promote regional security and respect for human rights and the rule of law. We will also continue to strengthen the administrative and oversight capability of civilian security sector institutions, and the effectiveness of criminal justice.

Prevent the Emergence of Conflict: Our strategy goes beyond meeting the challenges of today, and includes preventing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of tomorrow. This requires investing now in the capable partners of the future; building today the capacity to strengthen the foundations of our common security, and modernizing our capabilities in order to ensure that we are agile in the face of change.

We have already begun to reorient and strengthen our development agenda; to take stock of and enhance our capabilities; and to forge new and more effective means of applying the skills of our military, diplomats, and development experts. These kinds of measures will help us diminish military risk, act before crises and conflicts erupt, and ensure that governments are better able to serve their people.

Pages 47-48

Peacekeeping and Armed Conflict: The untold loss of human life, suffering, and property damage that results from armed conflict necessitates that all responsible nations work to prevent it. No single nation can or should shoulder the burden for managing or resolving the world’s armed conflicts. To this end, we will place renewed emphasis on deterrence and prevention by mobilizing diplomatic action, and use development and security sector assistance to build the capacity of at-risk nations and reduce the appeal of violent extremism. But when international forces are needed to respond to threats and keep the peace, we will work with international partners to ensure they are-ready, able, and willing. We will continue to build support in other countries to contribute to sustaining global peace and stability operations, through U.N. peacekeeping and regional organizations, such as NATOand the African Union. We will continue to broaden the pool of troop and police contributors, working to ensure that they are properly trained and equipped, that their mandates are matched to means, and that their missions are backed by the political action necessary to build and sustain peace. 

In Sudan, which has been marred by violent conflict for decades, the United States remains committed to working with the international community to support implementation of outstanding elements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and ensure that the referendum on the future of Southern Sudan in 2011 happens on time and that its results are respected. In addition, we will continue to engage in the efforts necessary to support peace and stability after the referendum, and continue to work to secure peace, dignity, and accountability in Darfur.

Prevent Genocide and Mass Atrocities: The United States and all member states of the U.N. have endorsed the concept of the "Responsibility to Protect’ In so doing, we have recognized that the primary responsibility for preventing genocide and mass atrocity rests with sovereign governments, but that this responsibility passes to the broader international community when sovereign governments themselves commit genocide or mass atrocities, or when they prove unable or unwillinq to take necessary action to prevent or respond to such crimes inside their borders. The United States is committed to working with our allies, and to strengthening our own internal capabilities, in order to ensure that the United States and the international community are proactively engaged in a strategic effort to prevent mass atrocities and genocide, In the event that prevention fails, the United States will work both multilaterally and bilaterally to mobilize diplomatic, humanitarian, financial, and-in certain instances-military means to prevent and respond to genocide and mass atrocities.

The inclusion of genocide and mass atrocities prevention strategies, a commitment to aggressive diplomatic action in support of peacebuilding in Sudan, and a reinforcement of U.S. cooperation with the United Nations and the international community on peacekeeping, the responsibility to protect, and conflict resolution is an encouraging step forward. Anti-genocide activists around the country must remain vigilant in ensuring the implementation of the National Security Strategy’s approach to genocide and mass atrocities prevention, in addition to other ongoing capacity-building initiatives.

Violence reignited in the Jebel Moon area of West Darfur last week, as the Sudanese army captured the area through a series of aerial and ground assaults on Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) forces. According to an army spokesperson, the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) killed 108 JEM rebels and captured 61. JEM disputed these numbers, countering that it had voluntarily evacuated the area after the ceasefire between the Sudanese government and the rebel group fell apart.

The U.S. State Department condemned the Sudanese military’s offensive on Tuesday, cautioning the Sudanese government about the potential humanitarian implications of renewed conflict in the Jebel Moon area:

The United States condemns the recent offensive actions in Darfur, particularly the Government of Sudan’s use of aerial bombings and local militias against Darfur rebel positions in the Jebel Moon area of West Darfur. Such operations endanger civilians and lead to mass displacement. Subsequent incidents of looting and attacks on infrastructure by the Justice and Equality Movement further endanger civilian populations and must immediately cease.

We urge both the Government of Sudan and the Darfur rebel movements to refrain from any further actions that would undermine the Darfur peace process or endanger civilians, and we urge all parties to return to active negotiations in the AU/UN-mediated peace process in Doha, Qatar, to reach a political settlement to the conflict in Darfur. We also call on the Government of Sudan to grant access to the affected areas to the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) and to humanitarian organizations.

In the period approaching Sudan’s January 2011 referendum, it is crucial that the United States and international community remain vigilant in their diplomatic efforts to ensure peace in Sudan. Expressing the necessity of developing capacity for peacebuilding initiatives in Darfur and South Sudan, Special Envoy to Sudan Maj. Gen. Scott Gration stated in a recent testimony,

Local peacebuilding, rule of law, and reconciliation activities must be revived and strengthened. We should not wait for a negotiated political settlement to begin improving the lives of Darfuris. 

With the risk of renewed conflict in Sudan surrounding the referendum, we cannot afford to compromise our vigilance towards peace.

Mia Newman, the incoming co-president of Stanford STAND and a guiding force behind the Stanford administration’s recent approval of a proxy voting guideline on conflict minerals from Congo, recently posted a campaign reflection on Enough Said, the Enough Project’s blog:

With the passage of the Conflict Minerals Trade Act out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the past week has been exciting for advocates working to address the problem of conflict minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Here at Stanford University’s chapter of STAND, we have another exciting (albeit smaller) success to report.

Last week, the university’s Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility and Licensing, or APIR-L, voted unanimously to recommend the adoption of a proxy voting guideline regarding Congo’s conflict minerals. If the proposal is approved by the board of trustees at its annual meeting in June, the university will be instructed to vote in favor of future shareholder proposals that ask companies to report on measures taken to avoid the sourcing of conflict minerals. In other words, Stanford would leverage its influence as a shareholder to ensure that the companies the university invests in are conflict-free—or  working to get there.

Stanford’s STAND chapter is excited about the panel’s decision and believes it is a significant step in the right direction. Given its location at the heart of Silicon Valley, Stanford has the potential to play an important role in encouraging electronics companies to assume supply chain responsibility. Adoption of the proxy voting guideline by the University would send a strong message to companies that major institutional investors are starting to take this issue seriously.

We plan to continue raising awareness on campus about the situation in the Congo and the ability of the university to use its influence to make a difference. We’ll also continue working with the university administration to explore additional steps Stanford might take in the future.

Check out our website to stay up-to-date on our efforts. Feel free to also get in touch with us through the site if you want to learn more about what we’re planning or have any experiences or advice to share.

Mia Newman is the advocacy director and incoming co-president of the Stanford University chapter of STAND.

Stanford STAND has made strides in urging its university administration to address the presence of conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo in electronics products. The chapter has recently released a statement encouraging the university’s Board of Trustees to approve guidelines that will encourage companies to clarify the origins of minerals used in electronics products:

STAND is excited about the APIR-L’s decision to recommend to the University a proxy voting guideline regarding minerals fueling the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. If approved by the Board of Trustees, this guideline will lead the University to vote in favor of future shareholder resolutions that encourage electronics companies to investigate the origins of minerals used in their products, an important step toward ensuring that they are not contributing to the ongoing violence in the DRC.

The mining of “conflict minerals,” like tungsten, tantalum (or coltan), tin, and gold, is at the root of a conflict in the DRC that has left an estimated 5.4 million dead. These minerals can be found in products like cell phones and laptops that we all use daily.

Stanford University, located at the heart of Silicon Valley, has the potential to play an important role in encouraging supply chain responsibility by electronics companies. To our knowledge, the Panel’s decision represents the first time a University entity has taken decisive action on this issue.

We hope that the Board of Trustees will vote to approve the guideline during its meeting in June.

The Stanford Daily covered the Stanford Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility & Licensing (APIR-L)’s decision regarding conflict minerals here.

When fellow TerpsSTAND member Rachel Gordon and I went in to lobby House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s office on April 5, we were feeling pretty out of place among the oversized leather couches and solid marble interior. As college students we’re used to the typical college life surroundings of well-worn dorm furniture and condensed spaces. The normal wardrobe of jeans, t-shirts and Chuck Taylor all-stars wouldn’t fly in such a professional setting, so we opted for “business casual”; the advice of no sneakers echoing in our heads.

How were we supposed to get across an urgent plea of swift action and effectively stress the dire situation on the ground in Sudan without coming across as too emotional? Thanks to STAND’s handy “how-to-lobby” guide, I had prepared a packet to present to the aide who would be meeting with us. Armed with one-pagers on the Sudan elections and the LRA, and copies of H.R. 1019, which calls for active U.S. government involvement in implementing the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, Rachel and I were ushered into a side conference room with legislative aide Fallon Shields.

How much did the Congressman know about the upcoming Sudan elections? Did he know about the millions of Sudanese refugees who were being excluded from the voting process? Was he aware that the LRA had recently found refuge in Southern Sudan and was beginning to expand their reign of terror from the Congo and Northern Uganda? As these questions came out of my mouth, I realized that I really did know what I was talking about and therefore had nothing to worry about. Shields mentioned she had met with a group lobbying for the LRA bill a week previous so she was very familiar with the LRA. This was a plus, since the LRA is unfortunately yet another threat to the Sudanese people.

The meeting was brief, lasting only about 15 minutes or so, but we left feeling proud of ourselves for bringing the plight of the Sudanese people to the attention of Rep. Hoyer’s office. It was hard to tell if we really made an impact though because we have no way of knowing whether Majority Leader Hoyer actually read our packet and Shields was well versed in the legislative demeanor, only offering vague feedback as we parted ways. Lobbying Rep. Hoyer was a challenging experience. It pushed me to formulate talking points to effectively and accurately convey a message of urgency about Sudan while not getting too caught up in an emotional appeal.

Leaving without knowing what impact we made left me feeling a little overwhelmed. In such a large legislative system, taking the time to even schedule a meeting with your Congressman or Senator may seem like a major accomplishment, but it is hard to know if your voice was really heard. You can write as many letters and raise your voice to let your concerns known, but you never know for sure if they notice your noise. Therefore, to me, lobbying presents a challenge: now that I know how to connect to the legislative process, how loud do I have to raise your voice before they answer the call?  I intend to find out.

-Grace Goode, University of Maryland, College Park ’12

Read Grace’s recent article about the Sudanese elections in the Diamondback, the University of Maryland’s independent daily student newspaper.

This weekend, I traveled down to the University of Miami with Mickey Jackson and Jenna Fox, STAND’s National Outreach Coordinators, and Daniel Teweles, STAND’s National Student Coordinator, for the Clinton Global Initiative University (CGIU) conference. CGIU, started by the Clinton Global Initiative at Tulane University three years ago, drew over 1300 student activists, entrepreneurs, and organizers from all 50 states and 83 countries to network and share information about organizing strategies and project development. With few expectations about my CGIU experience going into the conference, I can confidently say that I have gathered a greater understanding of STAND’s role in the global context of student organizations, and the potential effectiveness of STAND’s vision for development and growth.

In order to participate in the conference, STAND needed to make a "commitment"–a project or campaign proposal for which we intended to use the skills developed at CGIU. Our commitment relied greatly on the grassroots constituency that STAND developed through the Pledge2Protect campaign: the 51,000+ students and activists who issued their "pledge" for genocide prevention last fall. We committed ourselves to working with our parent organization, the Genocide Intervention Network, to the passage of comprehensive genocide prevention legislation. We committed to mobilize the grassroots constituency developed over the past five years around the development of a coordinated, interagency genocide prevention policy, based on the guidelines provided by the Genocide Prevention Task Force. This weekend’s conference certainly assisted us in making steps towards that goal.

The CGIU conference served as a valuable reminder that we can continue to educate and learn from other activists about the tools we use for student empowerment and mobilization. I attended a panel session on the use of social media for democracy and human rights promotion, including such social media innovators as Oscar Morales, of One Million Voices Against the FARC, and Ory Okolloh, the crowdsourcing pioneer responsible for Ushahidi. The panel repeatedly emphasized the importance of social media technology as a tool of social change, and State Department Policy Planning staff member Jared Cohen addressed the potential influence that such technology can have on policy formation.

A panel on community organizing and grassroots engagement, which my colleagues Mickey and Jenna attended, served to reinforce the maturity that STAND has accomplished over the course of our five-and-a-half year development. We continue to work to empower activists throughout the United States, to grant students a voice in shaping this country’s foreign policy priorities. Through the Genocide Intervention Network, we advocate for genocide prevention and civilian protection, emphasizing those crucial human rights issues as elements of U.S. national security. Through our CGIU commitment, we hope to further develop that balance between grassroots engagement and organizational advocacy.

Our commitment to genocide prevention can only take form through the commitment of our activists. STAND has recently undertaken a significant structural review, which we hope will allow us to better empower activists and give a grassroots voice to our advocacy priorities. We, as activists, need to take advantage of these advocacy opportunities and take a crucial role in the revised STAND structure in order for our commitment to become a reality.

Join now.

This Sunday, Sudan will hold its first national, multi-party election in nearly a quarter of a century. STAND has continued to support the Obama administration’s policy of pressured engagement with Sudan, but it is now apparent that this week’s elections will not be free and fair, and will further entrench the oppressive rule of Omar al-Bashir’s National Congress Party.

The elections, as initially planned, were a critical part of the implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the decades-long civil war in Southern Sudan. The elections were supposed to be a step towards a democratic, peaceful, and stable Sudan. The illegitimacy of this electoral process, however, creates further opportunities for conflict with Southern Sudan to reignite, particularly as the South approaches its own referendum on independence next year.

A number of events over the past few weeks have threatened the legitimacy of next week’s elections. The Sudanese government has started anew a military offensive in the Jebel Marra region of Darfur, killing hundreds of civilians and displacing tens of thousands. Two major opposition parties, the Umma Party and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), Southern Sudan’s main party, have declared their intention to boycott elections in the north, citing electoral fraud and security concerns. On an international level, the European Union has withdrawn its election observers from Darfur, citing concerns about the safety of its personnel.

Given the lack of electoral transparency, the grave security situation in Darfur, and the level of government repression of opposition parties, it is extremely unlikely that this week’s elections will be conducted in a free and fair manner. We must ensure that the Obama administration does not legitimize an illegitimate government.

Take action now. Call 1-800-GENOCIDE and tell Secretary Clinton that the United States must not recognize the results of Sudan’s illegitimate presidential elections.