With less than two weeks to go before Sudan will hold its first multi-party elections since 1986, Yasir Arman—presidential candidate for the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)—announced that he was withdrawing from the race. Arman cited the unresolved and escalating conflict in Darfur as well as election “fraud” as his reason for the sudden discontinuation with the presidential race. SPLM is also boycotting all elections in the volatile region of Darfur; however, they will participate in the parliamentary elections in the rest of Sudan’s regions. Many other parties have been threatening for weeks to boycott the elections due to the complexities surrounding the voter registration process as well as the voting itself, both of which make it unclear whether or not these elections will truly be free and fair. Most major parties in Sudan have withdrawn from the presidential elections, and some have also announced their intent to pull out of the parliamentary and municipal polls as well. There is reason to believe that the rest of the groups who were threatening to boycott and withdraw will go through with their intentions now that SPLM has announced their decision for a partial boycott.

      Special Envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration is currently in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, presiding over crisis talks with some of the key leaders, in the hopes that the elections will still occur on time. At a news briefing in Washington D.C., State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley suggested that Gration believes the elections can be salvaged. He called the political situation in Sudan extremely fluid, also stating that the announced decisions of the political parties to boycott the elections are not necessarily final.

      To read more about the upcoming elections click HERE.

-Emma Smith, STAND National Sudan Education Coordinator

Like in Darfur and the Congo, sexual violence is used as a weapon of war in Burma.  Soldiers systematically rape ethnic women with the sanction of their superiors and with impunity.  Outside of the context of conflict, we see rape as a crime against one person, but when used in conflict, rape is a systematic tactic that affects not only the people who have been raped but also their entire society.     

Trivia: How many cases of rape have been punished by Burmese military tribunals? 

Discussion: What is the impact of rape as a weapon of war on ethnic conflict in Burma?  How do we address it in relation to the conflict as a whole? 

Last week our discussion focused on the sixth chapter of the Genocide Prevention Task Force (GPTF) Report, International Action. Preventing genocide is not a responsibility for the US alone. While previous recommendations have addressed changes in the procedures of the US government in responding to the threat and outbreak of genocide and mass atrocities, the GPTF recognizes that prevention will most likely be successful when the international community as a whole is engaged. Historically, the international community has a poor track record. In some instances, national interests of state actors may be stronger than their will to stop the atrocities. Due to hesitant or disdainful views of the US, American leadership may be poorly received on these issues. These are the challenges. However, there are strong signs of increased willingness to stop atrocities. The Responsibility to Protect and growing consensus on accountability for crimes (as seen with the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the International Criminal Court).

The trivia asked for an example of an international justice mechanism which can be seen as a positive sign of growing consensus on accountability for crimes. Possible answers include: the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court.

The discussion asked you to consider how GPTF recommendations on international action would affect Sudan, Burma, Congo and other areas of concern if they were incorporated into US policy. Below, the STAND E-team provides their analysis.

SUDAN
Sudan’s crises do not exist in a vacuum: they exist in context of a global system in which crises cross borders, actors transcend national boundaries, and international systems intertwine with local conflicts. Thus no one international actor can intervene successfully in Sudan; instead, the international community must develop a concerted and interdisciplinary strategy. To do this, the US government should invest in strengthening those international systems through robust diplomatic and capacity-building activities with potential partners in combating genocidal violence and strengthening international institutions designed to do this, such as the International Criminal Court and the UN Security Council.

BURMA
When it comes to international institutions, the UN has great potential to be effective but that potential is rarely realized in the case of genocides and mass atrocities. The issue of the Security Council veto is especially problematic because SC members such as China with interests in countries where these conflicts are occurring use their vetoes to block any sort of meaningful action against abusive and genocidal regimes. This is true in the case of Burma, where China has supported the military regime and provided economic partnership. China has used its veto power to prevent the passage of UN resolutions that would hurt the regime, which makes Recommendation 6-2, that the Secretary of State should “undertake robust diplomatic efforts toward negotiating an agreement among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on non-use of veto in cases concerning genocide or mass atrocities” particularly relevant. Implementation would greatly reduce China’s power to support Burma’s abusive regime and stand in the way of international action against it.

CONGO
Strengthening institutions is as important in prevention of genocide as in maintaining the regular functioning of a state. Institutions make and break states, and in DR Congo it is evident that weak institutions are compliant and can hardly contain or resolve the situation. With the national army preying on its citizens, criminals manning many of the police stations and jails, and a seriously corrupt judicial system, this country is in dire need of institutional stream lining. However, care is to be taken in this pursuit, so that USA and other interveners don’t interpret ‘empty’ elections in Kinshasa as a sign of emerging democracy and freedom. In forming more functional institutions, there is need to pay attention to their actions and how they are affecting the lives of Congolese, instead of, for example, just celebrating the mere existence of a coalition government on paper.

AREAS OF CONCERN
The final chapter of the GPTF report encourages the U.S. and other international actors to strengthen the norms and institutions of high-risk states as a way to prevent genocide and mass atrocities. This includes providing aid and support to international partners willing to institute any of the above measures to prevent genocide and mass atrocities and to institutionalize intelligence sharing, cooperation among NGOs and multinational corporations and plan preventative measures. All these actions can help protect civilians and restore stability to conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka. Yet these measures cannot be undertaken without U.S. leadership and commitment to preventing genocide and mass atrocities.

Email education@standnow.org to receive weekly trivia, discussion guides, and news briefs.

Last Thursday, the US Holocaust Museum, one of the convening organizations of the Genocide Prevention Task Force, hosted New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof on Voices of Genocide Prevention. Kristof discussed his work on illuminating human rights abuses worldwide through his columns and books and explained his philosophy of using journalism to engage his audience in the issues he covers, including Darfur and Congo. "Because if I can make people spill their coffee in the morning and help put those issues on the agenda," he says, "then that’s the first step toward getting them resolved." He recognized that in order to get people to feel connected to conflicts happening half a world away, he needed to bring people in with the power of a story–which often means covering terrible tragedy while also recognizing the hope and spirit that survives.

While Kristof recognizes that oftentimes activist movements, inevitably and out of necessity, oversimplify incredibly complex crises, he stood by the importance of emotionally engaging people to bring them into a more in depth understanding. He thinks that the initial emotional exposure to stories is the only chance of people seeking further engagement in an issue. Furthermore, he is incredibly confident that the anti-genocide movement has had an impact onDarfur; "there are hundreds of thousands of people who are alive today both in Chad and in Darfur itself who wouldn’t be if it hadn’t been for that kind of movement," he commented.

In the places and issues he has covered, from brothels in Cambodia to sexual violence in Congo, "you see unbelievably brutal atrocities and you meet absolutely terrible people, warlords and others. But you also see unbelievable altruism and incredible compassion." While his work to expose these crises may leave some feeling hopeless, he believes that "it’s trying to use that spotlight to illuminate something that has not received adequate attention in the hopes that a little more attention really will make a difference."

You can listen to the entire interview here.

The only word I can think of that could encompass our trip to Burma is “overpowering.” Before the trip, I had spent a lot of time researching, learning, and writing about the conflict. I was fascinated by it and compelled to teach others about it, but at such a great distance, with so little contact with actual people affected by it, I had a hard time relating to it on a deeper level than intellectual interest and sympathy for the suffering people whose stories I had read.

After going on this trip, and seeing the landscape, and having long conversations with Burmese people who have suffered but also fought back, I’ve realized that there are a few different ways people can understand issues like Burma. We can look at it academically, and understand it through principles and theory. We can understand it from an advocacy perspective, analyzing it to determine how we can most effectively take action and find compelling stories to capture the attention of our target audience. Or we can understand it from their own perspective. By this I don’t mean that we sympathize with the people caught up in conflict beyond their control. I mean that instead of looking in from the outside, we can understand it the way they understand it, and see the value in how they choose to lead their communities and fight their own fight.

I’m not saying this last way is easy. It’s probably impossible for any of us to really get there. I understood this mentally, but I couldn’t really wrap my head around it emotionally until I went on this trip. Several of the groups of Burmese pro-democracy activists we met with told us that a major problem with mobilizing resistance is that there is no culture of human rights or democracy in Burma. This means that ordinary Burmese people don’t necessarily have an intellectual context that legitimizes their complaints against the military regime– to quote a member of Generation Wave, a hip-hop and graffiti art resistance group, the people of Burma “don’t know that they’re right.” But just like the people in Burma must learn to conceptualize things that to us seem to be based in basic moral principles, we have to try, from such a great difference and with so much silence between us, to understand the terms in which they view their own lives. 

Let’s start with the term “victim.” It suggests powerlessness – a prisoner or a refugee, someone who has suffered who has no escape, someone with no control over the course of their lives as they are caught up in the conflict surrounding them. Let’s back up and see who these people really are. Some are men and women who have risked and sometimes chosen imprisonment, torture, and death to fight for their freedom, many of whom are suffering the consequences. Some are mothers and fathers who took the initiative to leave their homes and communities to protect their families from harm. Some are impoverished but would rather live on a dump than move to a refugee camp because in the camps they won’t have the chance to earn a living. Some are monks who are using their roles as community leaders to provide services for migrants and promote democracy from outside Burma.

These people all make choices, and as actors in the resistance movement they will continue to make the most necessary choices that will determine their future and the future of their country. Every person in a refugee camp has an individual story, and wants his or her own chance to earn a livelihood and strive for a secure and happy life. Most of all, the people we spoke to wanted to return home, though in some cases they will never be able to. Despite all of its problems, it is still their homeland.

I don’t mean to say that after nine days I completely understand what it means to be Burmese and that makes me qualified to dictate what needs to be done. Of course not – it would take a lifetime to truly understand, and even then it’s not for us to determine the solution to Burma’s problems. That’s the responsibility of the Burmese. But if we try to understand the conflict from their perspective, we can understand how best to help them as they take on that responsibility, and that makes us better and more effective activists in the end.

The sixth and final chapter of the Genocide Prevention Task Force (GPTF) Report addresses international action. Preventing genocide and mass atrocities should not be a responsibility of the US alone; prevention has the best chances of succeeding when the whole international community is engaged.

What is an example of an international justice mechanism that can be seen as a positive sign of the growing consensus on accountability for crimes?  

The Genocide Prevention Task Force Report outlines the challenges of and recommendations for the inclusion of early prevention of genocide and mass atrocities into US foreign policy. While the report analyzes these recommendations on a general level, it does not specifically apply them to current conflicts or troublesome areas which threaten to become conflict zones.   

How would the GPTF recommendations on international action impact the conflicts in Sudan, Congo, Burma and other areas of concern if they were implemented into government policy? 

• National interests of state actors may overshadow their will to stop atrocities from occurring.
• American leadership may be badly received due to hesitant or disdainful views of the US.
• The Responsibility to Protect is a step forward in counteracting these challenges.
• A greater consensus on the importance of accountability for crimes committed can be seen with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda as well as the International Criminal Court.
   

• Recommendation 6-1: The secretary of state should launch a major diplomatic initiative to create among like-minded governments, international organizations, and NGOs a formal network dedicated to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities.
  • This would institutionalize information- and intelligence-sharing and cooperation.
  • This network would be instrumental in the coordination of preventive strategies.
  • The US should convene a major international conference to establish this network and engage multinational corporations.
• Recommendation 6-2: The secretary of state should undertake robust diplomatic efforts toward negotiating an agreement among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council on non-use of the veto in cases concerning genocide or mass atrocities.
  • Threatening a veto has either watered down resolutions to make them ineffective, or has resulted in no resolution at all.
  • Permanent members would agree not to use the veto unless three members are in favor of using their veto.
• Recommendation 6-3: The State Department should support the efforts currently under way to elevate the priority of preventing genocide and mass atrocities at the United Nations.
  • The US should support the UN secretary general’s special advisor on the prevention of genocide and work to strengthen the UN high commissioner for human rights.
  • The US should work to reform the UN Human Rights Council.
• Recommendation 6-4: The State Department, USAID, and Department of Defense should provide capacity-building assistance to international partners who are willing to take measures to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.
  • Capacity-building may take the form of further development of regional early warning systems, enhancing preventive diplomacy capabilities, and building military capabilities.
• Recommendation 6-5: The secretary of state should reaffirm U.S. commitment to nonimpunity for perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities.
  • While the US does not support the Rome Statute which established the ICC at present, it should work to clarify the crime of "aggression" during scheduled discussions.
  • The US should provide information to the ICC.

• What are the challenges to engaging the international community when certain state actors have a significant investment in the country facing conflict? For instance, how could the US engage China in promoting peace in Sudan?
• If the use of the veto makes passing a UN Security Council resolution difficult, and acting without UN support makes US action illegitimate, how can the US respond to current crises?
• If other national interests overshadow the priority of genocide prevention for all countries (including the US), how will these recommendations, if implemented, help promote prevention? 

Email education@standnow.org to subscribe to newsletters containing trivia, a discussion guide, and weekly news briefs.

Last week’s discussion topic was Sudan’s elections. The trivia asked what Sudanese will vote for in the upcoming elections. The answer is that they will vote for president of the republic and semi-autonomous south as well as for national, southern, and state legislative assemblies. The discussion asked you to consider why the April 2010 elections in Sudan are so important.

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which was signed in 2005, ended the 21-year civil war between the north and south of Sudan. It also required that the Sudanese government hold national elections for national positions (such as President of Sudan), local positions (such as local members of parliament and governors), and Southern Sudanese positions (such as President of Southern Sudan) and mandated a national census and a referendum for possible southern independence, which is currently scheduled for 2011. You can read more about the CPA and what it entails in our recent discussion guide. 

  For the citizens of Darfur, the elections contain many complications. Some people have even boycotted the voter registration process. This and similar obstacles notwithstanding, more than four fifths of eligible voters registered in the past few weeks, indicating that the polls just might ”reflect the will of the people.”  For the citizens who remain in IDP camps within Darfur, the elections go beyond complicated. According to Imagining the Election—a publication by the National Democratic Institute (NDI)—most of the citizens in Darfur and especially those in IDP camps exhibited a lack of familiarity with the electoral process, such as secret ballots or registering prior to voting. The NDI also states that one of the obstacles facing most of the internally displaced persons is that they lack proper identification, and so they might not be allowed to register or cast their vote. You can read the full NDI report here.

Even though most of the citizens know that the elections are happening and are unhappy with the current Sudanese government, most analysts believe that current president Omar al-Bashir will be re-elected, despite the fact that the International Criminal Court indicted him in 2009 with five counts of crimes against humanity, including murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape in Darfur.

 Much is at stake with these elections. They could allow the citizens to boot the current president out, paving the way for the 2011 referendum and peace, or they could re-elect al-Bashir, legitimizing his faulty leadership. The international community must step in to ensure that these elections are as transparent as possible, allowing the Sudanese to cast their votes freely.