Let’s define intervention: what exactly are we advocating for?

Intervention has, over the years, taken on many variant definitions, the most dominant being ‘the manipulation of one nation’s internal affairs by another’ (David N Gibbs). We can add to this definition the possibility of outsiders interfering in a particular nation’s affairs for altruistic reasons which include the protection of human rights, disease control and women’s empowerment among others.

Although the world has put DRC through countless bouts of intervention, its people are still laboring in mines and farms on their motherland, while a good number have lost their families and lives to local strife as well as botched interference by outsiders.

Trivia Question: Name 4 intervention missions (past/current) in DRC and the key actors involved.

Discussion: Define intervention. List key features which you believe must characterize a successful intervention regardless of which conflict it is or its location.

– Over the years, DRC has seen an influx of foreigners all of whom preach the rhetoric of ‘humanitarian intervention’

• King Leopold took the country on as a personal franchise in the late 1800’s to ‘help’ Congolese utilize their natural resources
• The Belgian government took over in 1906 to ‘save’ them from Leopold’s wrath but only made suffering more systematic
• (In a deal with Belgians sans Congolese), USA came in the 1940’s and took the uranium it dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• The CIA then helped to assassinate DRC first democratically elected leader, Patrice Lumumba in 1961, to ‘save’ DRC from a potentially ‘communist’ leader
• USA would there after (1969 to early 90’s) financially prop Mobutu, DRC’s worst ever local dictator
• Today, Congolese who thought they had finally settled are running away from fresh violence by both the FDLR and the national army which includes carelessly conscripted former rebels, as a result of UN’s Kimia II operation (http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/Uneasy-Alliance)

-All this while, the world was and is still clapping at everything called intervention, regardless of its details

• There is strong literature documenting King Leopold’s humanitarian proclamations before he was handed DRC (check out Who killed the Congo by Philippa Schuyler)
• During the cold war, people blindly rallied against everything labeled ‘communist’
• Today, we are still pressuring the UN and capable governments, especially the USA’s, to intervene; we have equated every pro-DRC speech and ‘official visit’ to the country to seriousness, action and hope for change

• We have not asked the Congolese what they think about their history and current situation or what they suggest as steps forward
• Intervention efforts are still relying on western perspective literature definitions of what peace and development should be around the world
• We are still purchasing conflict minerals but wondering why the ‘blood mineral’ trade is still lucrative and difficult to combat
• We are still treating symptoms instead of root causes (treating rape victims four times over instead of cutting off income and therefore arms supply to the arrogant rebels)

• Preventing conflict is a great place to start and it is important that global citizens and governments take GPTF recommendations of risk assessment very seriously
• Currently, DRC can also benefit so much from prevention of botched interventions which lobbyists have not bothered to define, actors have not researched, and are generally differently phrased repetitions of “you Congolese have a problem; we are civilized and will teach you what to do so that you get out of it …”

1. Brainstorm possible steps that can be taken towards giving intervention missions the necessary background information for success, especially on ground perspectives

2. Many interventions have laid way for more chaos and suffering. Which tactics can we employ so as to ‘graduate’ to missions which solve existent problems and lay way for peace and reconciliation, in a country where ‘democratic’ elections in Kinshasa have no bearing on the chaos in Eastern Congo’s mines? Yet we continue to sigh and take a break every time such pawn elections take place.

Check the blog on Friday for answers and analysis. To receive trivia, discussion, and news briefs, email education@standnow.org to subscribe.

-Sharon Muhwezi, STAND Congo Education Coordinator

In a post earlier this month, we discussed the importance of leadership in preventing genocide. The Genocide Prevention Task Force (GPTF) Report specifically calls upon the American president, Congress, and people to lead and support genocide prevention initiatives. But what exactly does the GPTF suggest as methods of preventing genocide? This week’s trivia and discussion and the second chapter of the GPTF report highlight early warning as the first step in a successful genocide prevention strategy. Early warning, on a most basic level, consists of getting critical information to policymakers in time for them to take effective preventive action.

Early warning ought to begin by scanning and assessing short- and long-term risks; this "watch list" would be important for determining which situations merit further monitoring, analysis, and communication to policy makers concerning preventive action. A notable challenge of early warning is that the earlier the warning, the lower the confidence that the trends reported are significant; early warnings are easy to dismiss as alarmist.

This week’s trivia question asked you to name at least two warning signs for assessing risk of genocide. The GPTF Report says that the two strongest indicators of potential genocide and mass atrocities are the existence of armed conflict or a change in regime character. Other factors include: state-led discrimination; history of genocide and mass atrocities; exclusionary ideology; autocratic regime; leadership instability; nonviolent protest; high infant mortality; ethnically polarized elite; low trade openness/non-member of GATT/WTO (Barbara Harff).

This week’s discussion asked what the impact of these recommendations would have on Sudan, Burma, and Congo. Below, the STAND E-team provides their analysis.

Attacks against ethnic minorities in Burma have been taking place since the 1970s, though they have increased in the past decade.  GPTF recommendation 2-2, suggesting that genocide early warning be established as a priority of the intelligence community “as a means to improve reporting and assessments on the potential for genocide and mass atrocities,” would have been a useful measure to monitor the escalation of these attacks.  Burma is isolated and its media is repressed, and thus the military regime’s attacks went on for some time without notice or comment from the international community.  By making early warning a clear priority, situations like that in Burma, where the warning signs such as armed conflict and autocratic regime as stated in the report clearly exist, would receive greater attention.  With early warning institutionalized as a priority, the conditions in Burma leading to genocide could not be overlooked.

This week’s topic is the importance of early warning in genocide prevention. To learn more, read the second chapter of the Genocide Prevention Task Force Report.

Email education@standnow.org with the answer to the trivia question. Congratulations to Lyssa Wilson for being the first to respond with the correct answer last week!

Trivia: What are at least two warning signs for assessing risk of genocide?

Discussion: The Genocide Prevention Task Force Report outlines the challenges of and recommendations for the inclusion of early warning 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 early warning impact the conflicts in Sudan, Congo, Burma and other areas of concern if they were implemented into government policy?

DISCUSSION GUIDE

classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui>

KEY FACTS ON EARLY WARNING

GPTF Report Chapter 2:

Early Warning: Assessing Risks and Triggering Action

Summary

• Early warning: getting critical information to policymakers in time for them to take effective preventive action

• Some preventive strategies can be employed without respect to when and where risks are greatest, but most will need to be targeted to specific situations at specific points in time; there are few one-size-fits-all solutions.

• Early warning procedures should begin with global scanning and assessment of short- and long-term risks ("watch list"), then move to detailed monitoring and analysis of high-risk situations, and end with reliable mechanisms for communicating results to policymakers in a way that will promote sound preventive action

• Weakest link of early warning: communication of warning analysis to decision makers and a mechanism for using this analysis to support appropriate policy action

• Challenges:
  • Tendency of US embassies to report only from capitals more than remote rural areas; insufficient practice for assessing risks of potential violence
  • While scholars have identified some long-term risk factors, it is difficult to find generalizable near-term indicators, "accelerators," or triggers of genocide and mass atrocities.
  • Earlier warning typically means lower confidence that the apparent trends toward mass atrocities are real and significant; they are easier to dismiss as being alarmist

• Empirical analysis by the US government-sponsored Political Instability Task Force (PITF) and others indicates that the existence of armed conflict or a change in regime character are the strongest and most reliable factors in assessing risks of genocide.

• Other risk factors:
  • Armed Conflict
  • State-led discrimination
  • History of genocide/mass atrocities
  • Exclusionary ideology
  • autocratic regime
  • Leadership instability
  • Nonviolent protest
  • High infant mortality
  • Ethnically polarized elite
  • Low trade openness/non-member of GATT/WTO
  • (from Barbara Harff)

GENOCIDE PREVENTION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations:

• Recommendation 2-1: The director of national intelligence should initiate the preparation of a national intelligence estimate (NIE) on worldwide risks of genocide and mass atrocities.
  •  This would engage policy analysts and policy-makers in posing relevant questions, considering evidence, and making judgments.
  •  NIEs are typically briefed to the President, members of Congress and other senior officials, therefore raising the profile of certain issues and highlighting areas of poor knowledge

• Recommendation 2-2: The national security advisor and the director of national intelligence should establish genocide early warning as a formal priority for the intelligence community as a means to improve reporting and assessments on the potential for genocide and mass atrocities.
  • Genocide and mass atrocities should be explicitly mentioned as a priority in the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF).

• Recommendation 2-3: The State Department and the intelligence community should incorporate training on early warning of genocide and mass atrocities into programs for foreign service and intelligence officers and analysts.
  • It is imperative that individuals in the US foreign policy apparatus understand genocide and mass atrocities and recognize warning signs.

• Recommendation 2-4: The national security advisor should create a "mass atrocities alert channel" for reporting on acute warning of genocide or mass atrocities akin to the State Department’s "dissent channel."
  • This channel would be a seldom used fail-safe mechanism, reserved for significant risk situations, to ensure that critical information reaches high-level policymakers.
  • A message would be sent directly to co-chairs of Atrocities Prevention Committee (APC [a new institutional structure recommended by the GPTF]) requiring prompt response from Washington and immediate discussion by the APC.

• Recommendation 2-5: The national security advisor should make warning of genocide or mass atrocities an "automatic trigger" of policy review.
  • There is a need for balance; the trigger should not be too sensitive nor should there be too high of a bar for its use. Rather, response should be tiered:
  • Most acute level of warning should trigger a discussion of options at NSC Deputies meeting; less acute but still serious warnings should trigger deeper analysis and preparation of crisis response by the APC; appearance or reappearance of a country on the Atrocities Watch List should trigger further information collection, consultation, and preparation of crisis response.

• Recommendation 2-6: The State Department and USAID should expand ongoing cooperation with other governments, the United Nations, regional organizations, NGOs, and other civil society actors on early warning of genocide and mass atrocities.
  • The State Department should initiate a permanent network of international actors committed to sharing information on risks of genocide and mass atrocities.
  • The US should support information-sharing at the UN.
  • The US should support development of early warning in the African Union, African regional organizations, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and other regional organizations.
  • NGOs and civil society (including religious leaders and institutions) are critical partners for information collection and analysis
    

KEY QUESTIONS:

• How might these recommendations have improved US government response to rising levels of violence in Southern Sudan?

• Would warnings of a return to violence from NGOs in Sudan have been received and addressed by the US government if these recommendations were in place?

• How would information gathering have been more effective in reporting an escalation of attacks on ethnic minorities on Burma?

• Which risk factors of genocide and mass atrocities were present in Burma that may have triggered further attention and potential crisis response?

• What risk factors were present in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

• If early warning were implemented, how might we have been forewarned of recent clashes in Western Equateur province in Congo?

• Given the importance of early warning, should activists and policymakers be more informed about Areas of Concern, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Sri Lanka?

To read more about Sudan, Congo, Burma and other areas of concern, check out the STAND Learn site. To read about recent developments, check the STAND Blog for past weekly news briefs. These resources may be useful in considering the implication of early warning on current conflicts of interest.

Over one year ago, the Genocide Prevention Task Force, a project of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the American Academy of Diplomacy, and the US Institute of Peace, released a report detailing recommendations for US policymakers on preventing genocide. The report acknowledges that the current US government response to genocide and mass atrocities is ad hoc; there are no standing institutional mechanisms nor procedures for addressing potential and emerging crises. The report analyzes the importance of early warning, early prevention, preventive diplomacy, military options, and international action as necessary components of a comprehensive genocide prevention strategy.

In addition, the report emphasizes the importance of leadership, the indespensible ingredient, on behalf of the American president, Congress, and people. Specifically, the Task Force urges the American president “to demonstrate at the outset that preventing genocide and mass atrocities is a national priority.” The upcoming State of the Union address is one opportunity for President Obama to make it clear that genocide prevention is a national priority on his agenda. Doing so has important implications for Sudan, Burma, and the Democratic Republic of Congo as well as other current and potential conflicts.

    Just a few days ago, President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan gave his perspective on the state of Sudan, stating that he was optimistic about the future of peace in both South Sudan and Darfur.  However, the same day ten aid agencies issued a report saying that a “lethal cocktail” of rising violence, chronic poverty, and political tensions run the risk of plunging Sudan back into civil war. The New York Times ran a front page story citing that although the violence in Darfur has slowed down in recent years, tensions and the risk of a return to violence will remain high unless Sudan undergoes significant structural changes in governance.

    All this could be prevented with leadership from the Government of Sudan; however with President Bashir indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and responsible for the marginalization and destruction of much of his country, this is beyond unimaginable. And, according to the principles of the Responsibility to Protect, if a government fails to protect its own people, it becomes the responsibility of the world to protect them.

    The aid agencies warned that “unless the world acts soon” civil war would once again visit Sudan, and specifically cited the United States as needing to show leadership in helping to prevent this impending crisis from occurring.

    The writing is on the wall, the world is shining a spotlight on it: massive and potentially genocidal violence is imminent in Sudan. As President Omar al-Bashir dismisses it from his capitol of Khartoum, will President Obama call attention to it from his capitol of Washington DC in his State of the Union? And more importantly, will he and Congress lead the world in acting to prevent this impending crisis? Perhaps, but perhaps not unless the American people show leadership first in holding them accountable.

Leadership is essential in addressing complex issues such as those facing Sudan. It requires not only decisive action from government officials but also from individuals and organizations in the international community. One way to promote leadership and hold leaders accountable is by empowering citizens with information and resources to take action. In this digital age, the internet can be a valuable go to resource for individuals seeking to learn more about the situation in Sudan, connect with like-minded advocates, and explore opportunities to make a difference. By leveraging the power of technology and collective action, individuals can become leaders in their own right and contribute to a more just and peaceful world.

Recommendation 1-4 of the GPTF report suggests that the president “launch a major diplomatic initiative to strengthen global efforts towards prevention.”  In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, President Obama spoke about the necessity of taking action against “repression in Burma” in the context of international law and human rights standards.  This recognition of the conflict in an address to the international community is a first step that President Obama must follow with action to foster global cooperation to end these human rights abuses.  The demands in H.Res. 898, for example, rely heavily on the international community to collectively achieve goals that will hold the military regime in Burma accountable for their actions.  It calls on the EU, ASEAN, and the UN Security Council specifically to strengthen sanctions against Burma, as well as countries throughout the world to put in place an arms embargo against the Burmese military regime.  President Obama must use a focus on human rights and genocide prevention in his foreign policy to foster the crucial international support to make these measures a reality.

Mentioning the results of risk assessment procedures in annual reports and the State of the Union, thereby making them known to policy makers, will prevent much future instability, like the recent deaths and displacements that resulted from Kimia II. Most importantly, preventing the many mushrooming insurgencies in Eastern Congo would enable us focus effort on the most difficult rebels, while protecting the people and secured territories. Thanks to globalization and technology, we have the ability to monitor the peace and conflict dynamics in DR Congo. Along with shifting ways of approach of existing conflict, the USA should shift methods when it comes to processing incoming tips and warnings on conflict. Currently, irregular information by highly placed UN and embassy officials is valued more than that offered by NGOs and on ground monitors like the Human Rights Watch who have to cry out too many times before their warnings are taken seriously; this way many chances of prevention are missed. President Obama must emphasize genocide prevention in his State of the Union address.

Download the full GPTF report here.

Email education@standnow.org to sign up for weekly education newsletters.

In this week’s issue: the International Crisis Group releases a report warning of wider conflict in Sudan, ethnic ceasefire militias in Burma increase opium production to purchase weapons, and the Lord’s Resistance Army threatens a repeat of last year’s Christmas massacre in DR Congo

Areas of Concern

• Bahr Idriss Abu Garda will reportedly accept the decision of the ICC judges and is prepared to face a possible indictment for an attack on AU peacekeepers at Haskinita in 2007.

• International Crisis Group released a new report on Sudan, stating that with the upcoming elections and the continuing crisis in Darfur, Sudan is under threat of a wider conflict. At this moment, the role of international actors is crucial, and progress needs to be made on: legal reforms, referendums for South Sudan and Abyei, a Darfur peace agreement including provisions related to the national elections and how two independent Sudanese states would relate to each other after a possible independence declaration. Read the full report here.

• A delegation of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom held a press conference with Congressmen Wolf, Payne and Smith, where they argued that the Obama administration’s policy of engagement with the Sudanese government is not working and that the government should alter its policy towards Sudan, with the President taking a stronger role in the policy.

• Ethnic ceasefire militias in Shan State have reportedly increased opium production to purchase weapons in the event of renewed hostilities. According to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, opium cultivation has increased by 11% this year, with Shan State supplying 95% of Burmese opium.

• The Democratic Karen Buddhist Army is reportedly involved in human trafficking where they sell migrant workers crossing the Burma-Thai border to fishermen along the border.

• Vijay Nambiar, currently serving as Chief of Staff to Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon will reportedly succeed Ibrahim Gambari as the U.N. Special Envoy to Burma

• Human Rights Watch released a new report detailing human rights violations in eastern DR Congo since the beginning of the anti-FDLR Kimia II operation. Since January, more than 1,400 civilians have been killed in the east, including numerous instances of reprisal attacks carried out against civilians by members of the FDLR and FARDC.

• According to Alan Doss, political head of MONUC, the Kimia II operation will reportedly end on December 31, 2009. Doss said that the operation’s political goals had been fulfilled, but the FDLR remains a threat to peace in eastern DR Congo.

• The Congolese army continues to attack the FDLR in North Kivu, with fighting reported in the Masisi, Walikale and Lubero regions of the province.

• The LRA has threatened to repeat its Christmas massacres of 2008, reportedly targeting villages near Ngirimo, Bangadi and Niangara in the northeastern DR Congo and threatening that the LRA will ‘celebrate the holidays’ with the villagers. There is limited protection in the region from LRA attacks, due to a lack of peacekeepers and abuses committed by FARDC soldiers against the local populace.

• According to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, security force members were involved in the bombings that killed more than 100 people in Baghdad last week. Al-Maliki charged that at least 45 members of multiple agencies were complicit in the car bombings.

• The UN Assistance Mission in Iraq released its report on human rights violations in the country, noting that civilians remain the main victims of indiscriminate shelling, shooting, suicide bombings and other atrocities. UNAMI reports that 1,841 civilians were killed in the first six months of 2009, compared to 6,787 reported by the Iraqi Ministry of Health and 2,340 documented by Iraq Body Count.

• Fighting in Pakistan continues in the Orakzai and Kurram districts of the FATA, in addition to the ongoing army offensive in South Waziristan. There have been no reports of civilian casualties, likely due to a ban on journalists in the region.

• A car bomb exploded in the market of Dera Ghazi Khan in Pakistan’s Punjab province, killing 27. On Friday, insurgents targeted a Mosque in the town in the Lower Dir region of the FATA. GI-NET considers both of these attacks as examples of targeting civilians for tactical gain.

• The most recent U.S. drone attack killed fifteen people in North Waziristan, including seven people that the Pakistani government deemed as foreigners.

• Al-Shabaab banned UN Mine Action from operating in southern Somalia, accusing the group of undertaking the work of previously banned organizations as well as disrupting peace and justice.

• A gun battle broke out between factions of Hizbul Islam insurgents south of Mogadishu, reportedly over the public execution of criminals in the country.

Sri Lanka

• Alleged comments by Sri Lankan general Sareth Fonseka earlier this week appeared to suggest that Sri Lankan soldiers executed LTTE rebels when they tried to surrender in May. On Monday, General Fonseka denied his remark and stated that there were no surrender attempts made by the LTTE.

Around the World

• Sudan’s two main political parties reportedly came to an agreement on the terms of the north-south referendum. The deal reported allows for independence of South Sudan so long as at least 60% of registered voters turn out and at least 51% of the population votes yes.

• The Sudanese government has announced plans to crack down on opposition demonstrations in the interest of national security, stating that the opposition parties are seeking to topple the government.

• The former head of Guinea’s Presidential Guard, Abubaker Diakite, admitted to shooting junta leader Moussa Dadis Camara. Diakite reportedly fired at Camara in response to a plan to have Diakite face the consequences of the September 28^th massacre in the Guinean capital of Conakry.

• Human Rights Watch released a report stating that the massacre on September 28 was likely a crime against humanity and that the attacks may have been planned in advance.

• Former Khmer Rouge leader Khieu Samphan has been charged with genocide by the Extraordinary Chambers of in the Courts of Cambodia, the UN-backed war crimes tribunal in Phnom Penh. Samphan’s charges relate to the mass killings of Vietnamese and Cham Muslims under his rule.