This piece, written by the Enough Project‘s Executive Director John Bradshaw, originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

In April 2012, President Obama went all-in rhetorically when he asserted that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a "core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States." Such statements are in part an outgrowth of the American public’s horror at the genocide and atrocities of recent decades in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur. But as the limited U.S. response to the ongoing conflict in Syria illustrates, there is not yet a full understanding of the centrality of preventing mass atrocities to our national security.

Today, in addition to the fighting in Syria, brutal conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and areas of Central Africa that are plagued by Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army continue to result in the death and displacement of hundreds of thousands of people, especially affecting women and children. These kinds of conflicts cross borders and perpetuate regional instability, inevitably drawing in U.S. diplomatic, humanitarian, and sometimes military resources. The shock and outrage we feel in the face of atrocities such as the rampant sexual violence against women in the Congo, Burma, and elsewhere should motivate us as a nation to find solutions.

Establishing a sustained national commitment to preventing atrocity crimes will require the creation of informed and active constituencies both within government and among the general public. In this effort, the next administration, regardless of who wins the election, will have the full support of a coalition of 22 human rights organizations and individuals that identified atrocity prevention as a priority human rights concern in the recently issued "10 Critical Human Rights Challenges for the Next American President."

The Obama administration responded to pressure from current and former policymakers as well as advocacy groups by creating the new Atrocities Prevention Board (APB), which builds on recommendations from the Genocide Prevention Task Force. If fully realized, the APB would represent a seminal moment in initiating a "whole of government" approach to tackling atrocity crimes. The APB, chaired by the National Security Council, is designed to work across agencies–including the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Treasury and the CIA–to more effectively utilize existing diplomatic and intelligence capabilities while also enlisting new tools, such as better targeted sanctions and innovative technologies for early warning. However, so far the APB has been a top-down initiative that lacks full acceptance by rank-and-file officials in the State Department and elsewhere.

If the APB is to be accepted and integrated into the relevant departments, the right bureaucratic incentives must be established. The tendency to view human rights concerns as a nuisance is deeply embedded in the State Department and the Pentagon, and those officials who care–and there are many–are forced to fight to have their voices heard. If raising concerns about pregenocide situations continues to be seen as a distraction from the perceived priority of promoting good bilateral relations with the host government, officers will be reluctant to take the lead on these issues. The next administration needs to signal strongly and repeatedly from its highest levels that atrocity prevention is a major priority, and that those who work effectively on the issue will be recognized and rewarded.

Nongovernmental organizations are also an essential part of atrocity prevention, providing early warning information from the field in atrocity-prone regions. To be successful, the APB must not only develop a more defined role within the government, but also build more effective partnerships with outside groups that work on these problems.

Beyond the vital task of institutionalizing atrocity prevention within the bureaucracy, the next administration needs to consistently send the message to the public and Congress that preventing genocide and mass atrocities is in the national interest. The new secretary of state should reinforce the fact that preventing atrocities in fragile states means avoiding crises of displacement and insecurity that necessitate the commitment of even greater U.S. resources and lead to long-term instability. In Congress, there are strong champions from both parties dedicated to preventing atrocity crimes, and the next administration should collaborate closely with them to see that sufficient resources are appropriated for this work.

Finally, strengthening the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an essential element in any effort to end the culture of impunity that prevails in regions vulnerable to atrocity crimes and replace it with a principle of deterrence. The value of such deterrence should be evident to administration officials and members of Congress who are concerned with optimizing resources for conflict prevention and crisis response.

The president’s statement in April was a potent expression of the gravity with which Americans view atrocity crimes. Turning rhetoric into reality and fully engaging U.S. capacities to prevent and punish these abuses will require a long slog through interagency meetings, congressional markups, and public debates. But it is a worthy goal, and we are embarked as a nation on the right path to achieve it.

This blog is part of the series "Ten Critical Human Rights Challenges for the Next President," sponsored by Freedom House. The series will feature renowned experts writing on some of the top human rights issues that should be addressed by the presidential candidates and the next administration. As the candidates participate in policy debates we look forward to a lively discussion of these and other important foreign affairs issues facing our country. For the full series please visit the Freedom at Issue Blog.

BURMA

Following her recent 17-day trip to the US, Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has expressed her willingness to eventually become president of Myanmar. As general secretary of her party, the National League for Democracy, she consistently repeated the three pillars of her party’s platform: establish the rule of law, amend the constitution, and bring about peace between the Myanmar government and ethnic minorities. In response to Suu Kyi’s statement, current Myanmar President Thein Sein expressed his support of the idea only if the people of Myanmar will it so in elections.

Additionally, the US has officially passed a law allowing financial support to be given to Burma through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. However, 17 human rights organizations, including United to End Genocide and US Campaign for Burma, have expressed great concern over the new policy claiming it is premature to reward the former military dictatorship with such financial freedoms.

Rumors have been circulating about the possible nomination of Myanmar President Thein Sein as a Nobel Peace Prize winner due to the drastic democratic reforms he has undertaken in the country. Recent democratic reforms have also resurfaced a debate concerning the country’s name: Burma or Myanmar. The New York Times has written an interesting article about the resurfacing of the debate, click here to read it.

In June of this year, two Kachin refugees were arrested by seven government police and were accused of being violent Kachin Rebels. The refugees alleged that they were forced to have sexual intercourse, dance their traditional Kacin dances naked, and pretend to be crucified (due to their Christian faith). The case was originally set for September, but the accused failed to show up both times and again for a third time on October 3 of last week. Many domestic and international observers have viewed this case closely, as well as the recent arrests of many Peace Day activists in Yangon earlier this month, as a test for Myanmar’s newly reformed judiciary systems.

And finally, more Buddhists monks have marched to protest the presence of the local Muslim Rohingya peoples in Rakhine State in western Burma. The protest took place in the town of Sittwe, located in Rakhine State, where more than 400 monks and 1000 townspeople took part. Click here to watch a video of part of the protest.

SUDAN

The government of Sudan has disclosed its willingness to split Abyei. The details were announced just after Russian envoy to Sudan, Mikhail Margelov, met President Bashir. Ambassador El-Abeed Marawah Ahmed, the spokesman of the Sudanese ministry of Foreign Affairs, revealed that Bashir agreed to divide the region of Abyei between the Dinka Ngok and the Misseriya tribes. He said that the government of Sudan considers this a satisfactory option to solve the issues in the disputed area and to find a formula for peaceful co-existence for all parties.

In other news, retaliatory Mortar shelling by rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N), in Kadugli, left at least six dead and several injured. The attacks coincided with an ongoing peace forum in the city intended to bring together rival political parties. The rebels claimed responsibility, accusing Khartoum of conducting frequent aerial raids in the Nuba Mountains.

SOUTH SUDAN

Rebels in Jonglei State are committing “crimes against humanity,” said Joshua Konyi Irer, the Commissioner of Pibor County. Commissioner Konyi accuses Yauyau’s forces of murdering and raping civilians, looting cattle, sheep and goats, culminating in the displacement of hundreds of people of people in the villages. Other sources also indicate that several villages among them Koth Char, Manybol, Lekuangole are under also the rebel control.

Meanwhile, the Toposa ethnic group in Eastern Equatoria state has condemned the allegation directed toward the state governor Louis Lobong Lojore, that he had links with militia groups operating in the state. Governor Lobong has since been summoned to Juba last week in order to answer for the charges. The allegations were labled against the governor by deputy chairperson of information, Michael Losike Lokerui, an MP who also hails from the same the tribe as the governor himself. But governor Lobong has denied the charges.

SYRIA

Human Rights Watch reports that Syrian government forces have dropped Russian-made cluster bombs over civilian areas in the past week, cutting the route from Damascus to Aleppo. Often times, these bombs do not fully explode on the ground, and can kill and maim civilians long after a war has ended. Though the bombs were Russian-made, it is unknown how or when Syria acquired them.

Today, hundreds of Syrian and Lebanese supporters of Assad staged a rally in Beirut to thank China and Russia for supporting the Damascus regime. Posters bore the words, “Thank you Russia!” and “Lebanon forever with Assad’s Syria,” chanting slogans against Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are supporting revolts against the Assad regime. Last week, Turkey intercepted a Syrian plane and confiscated its cargo, saying the plane was carrying military supplies. Syria has called the incident an act of piracy and a violation of international law. Syria-Turkey relations have been crumbling since Turkey banned Syrian civil aviation flights over the incident. Syria retaliated by banning Turkish civilian flights, which has taken effect today.

As battles have intensified, Syria has rejected a call by the UN chief to declare a unilateral ceasefire. Thursday was recorded as one of the deadliest days since the conflict began in March 2011, with at least 240 people killed nationwide, totaling to over 32,000 people dead since last March.

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

This weekend brought together French-speaking countries in Kinshasa for the Francophonie summit, “Environmental and economic challenges faced with good governance”, despite French President Hollande’s criticisms of human rights violations in the country. Holland told reporters that, “speaking French also means speaking of human rights, since the human rights were written in French.” Quebec Prime Minister PAuline Marois earlier said that she would not be meeting Kabila in private because of the rights situation in his country.

Opening the summit, Kabila declared that “an unjust war has been forced on us,” referring to Rwanda’s alleged involvement in the M-23 revolt in North Kivu. The Kivu question as well as the Mali crisis were expected to dominate closed-door discussions at the summit.

Congolese Minister of Communication Lambert Mende said that a neutral force of 4,000 troops will deploy on DRC’s eastern border with Rwanda and Uganda by the end of the year to combat rebel forces. This decision came after the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region on October 8. The ICGLR will submit a proposal for the force to the UNSC. Tanzania has already offered a battalion for the force.

In the US, Congolese diaspora have continued performances of “Cry for Peace: Voices from the Congo,” a play that began in Syracuse, New York, but has recently moved to a Manhattan Stage. The show features Congolese voices, as well as the voice of a Congolese-Belgian woman torn between cultures. Each piece brings a voice to the disempowered, and the play omits all mentions of tribes, as they are seeking to bring together Congolese in the US and repair relationships between people of different tribes.

By Christine Ly, American University STAND and National Media Task Force

With the lifting of the import ban on Burma on September 27, the last bit of trade-based leverage that the US had on the authoritarian country was gone. This on top of this past June’s lifting of the investment ban by the Obama administration is reason for much criticism that it’s just too soon to reward the Burmese government for reversible reforms. However, citing a statement from the White House, President Obama says that “easing sanctions is a strong signal of our support for reform, and will provide immediate incentives for reformers and significant benefits to the people of Burma”. In the same statement, the US Government also expresses concerns “about the lack of transparency in Burma’s investment environment and the military’s role in the economy”. To elaborate on these truly vital concerns, it’s important to understand the relationship between the Burmese economy and its deep-rooted ties to government cronies and the military elite.

A 1-minute retelling of the Tatmadaw (aka the Burmese Army): the military junta ruled Burma from 1962 to 2011. Elections in 2010 saw the installation of a “civilian” government led by ex-General Thein Sein. However, due to the 2008 Constitution, the military still occupies 25% of the Parliament’s seats. This fact in particular has many Burma-watchers suspicious of the independence of the legislature from the military.

The economy during military rule was pretty much a disaster. Mismanaged state-owned firms dominated the economy. The military imposed as many as 22 simultaneous import tariffs as high as 500%. It also stunted its own economic growth by banning the export of its highest-earning commodities including rice, teak, oil, and gems.

The economy as it is now is still in shambles. In terms of corruption, Burma is ranked 180 out of 184 according to Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index. Together the military and state own hundreds of major assets including airports and gas pipelines. The recent privatization rush should not be taken as a positive reform, considering that most of the buyers are also linked to the military. For example, the top buyers are military-run corporations such as “Union of Myanmar Economic Holdings, which controls the army’s pension fund, and the Myanmar Economic Corporation, which oversees funds from the sale of state-owned enterprises” according to Voice of America. The former is actually already on the US Government’s sanctions blacklist.

When the US lifts the investment ban on Burma, they could potentially give a boost to the wealth of the Tatmadaw. This is because the most attractive sectors for foreign investors are in the extractive industries including oil, gas, precious stones, metals, and teak wood. These are all controlled by state firms such as the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise that monopolize corporations through mandatory majority stakes, sidelining any foreign investors. In other sectors, incoming investors are required to partner up with domestic firms for up to 50% ownership.

Like the conflict minerals of the Congo and oil in Sudan, Burma’s military exploits its natural resources to fund its operations. The Tatmadaw commits human rights abuses with impunity and natural resource extraction and other development projects are often the site of such violence. There are constant reports from on-the-ground civil society groups of villagers being forced to move to make way for construction, incidents of civilians forced to work on gas pipelines, the overall destruction of the environment as companies drill for oil, mine for metals and gems, etc. It’s not uncommon to also hear testimonies of villagers of shootings, mortar attacks, intimidation, and physical threats by the military who claim that they are “guarding” the construction site. Without barriers to investment, FDI will increase and in turn development projects will proliferate. Looking at the correlation between development projects and the perpetuation of human rights violations, there are doubts that it was the right time for the US to lift sanctions.

Next up: More corruption! The State Department is imposing reporting requirements for businesses that invest in Burma, but are they too weak?

By Krista Mobley, Ohio University STAND

On the rainy Tuesday evening of September 25th, ten members of Ohio University’s STAND chapter gathered to watch “Sudan and South Sudan 101: The Basics.” With some chocolate chip cookies and delicious zucchini bread in tow, we all met in our chapter leader’s self-proclaimed “man cave.” Aside from the discomfort that title invoked in some members, it ended up being a super successful bonding sesh for OU STAND.

The webinar’s purpose was to update its audience on the growing conflicts Sudan and South Sudan face by educating the viewers on the different situations brought on and exacerbated by their division. Our attention has shifted from solely Darfur in pre-two-state-Sudan, to many other conflict areas in both countries after their split, especially along the border. In Sudan, Darfur, Blue Nile State, South Kordofan and the Nuba Mountains are three conflicts that grant primary concern. In South Sudan, the main concern is the violence taking place in the eastern Jonglei State. Resources like oil are still common drivers in these conflicts, followed by problems at the local-level, for example the proliferation of arms.

The webinar schooled us on the historical, socio-economic, environmental, and political factors influencing these ever-developing issues. The discussion of the various regions successfully provided a descriptive synopsis of everything from the inaccessibility of areas to NGOs to the marginalization of ethnic groups. A few technical malfunctions in the duration of the webinar provided us time to converse about the information, the familiar voices, and even the sweet poster décor of our chapter leader’s cave. Nearing the end of the webinar, we tweeted our questions for the brief and informative Q&A.

It was awesome to hang out with the STAND chapter outside of our weekly meetings. The event provided a nice reprieve from the daily grind of homework and exams galore. It was really simple too. We discussed the idea of watching the webinar together at our meeting. Make it a Facebook event and throw snacks into the mix, and people are unlikely to decline the invitation. It is such a small task but reaps major benefits. Having friendships with people in the organization allows for a greater sense of unity within the group.

And really, what can beat the combination of social events and social activism? I would be hard-pressed to find a better one!

Our Student Director, Mickey Jackson, spoke at yesterday’s Vigil for Sudan at Lafayette Park in Washington, DC. Below is the text of his remarks. The Vigil was hosted by Voices for Sudan, a network of Sudanese organizations throughout the United States. Click here to learn more about STAND’s new partnership with Voices for Sudan.   

We have come here today to commemorate the millions of Sudanese men, women, and children who are no longer with us as the result of atrocities committed over the past two decades. You know, when we talk about such large numbers, it is easy to forget but important to remember that every one of those individuals had a name. Every one of those individuals had a mother and a father, had sisters and brothers, had friends, had a future. Each individual death was, in other words, a tragedy of unfathomable magnitude in its own right, and when multiplied by the millions the scale is simply mind-numbing. With this in mind, it is my hope that our commemoration today will inspire us to re-dedicate ourselves to helping, in any way that we can, to ensure that the tragedies of the past are no longer repeated.

In 2001, President George W. Bush was given a memo outlining the ways in which the international community had failed to prevent and stop the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. In the margins of that memo, he scribbled four short words: “Not on my watch.” Three years later, when Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that genocide was taking place in Darfur, a small group of students at Georgetown University decided that were going to do whatever they could to ensure that that promise was kept. And so they formed an organization called STAND, an acronym that stood for “Students Taking Action Now in Darfur.” But those Georgetown students weren’t the only young people who decided that apathy in the face of genocide was unacceptable. Across the country, in cities and in small towns, high school and college students made the decision to speak up. Working alongside faith groups, service organizations, and members of the Sudanese diaspora, they held rallies and vigils, wrote op-eds and letters to the editor, made phone calls to the White House, and met with their Congressional representatives. Today, STAND chapters at approximately 100 high schools and colleges continue to advocate for measures to end mass atrocities in Sudan and elsewhere.

Today, in 2012, we can look back and acknowledge that the movement that arose in response to the genocide in Darfur has made somewhat of a difference. Students and non-students alike helped persuade 22 state governments and dozens of universities to stop investing in companies whose activities in Sudan were supporting the Bashir regime. We pressed Congress to support funding for peacekeeping in Darfur and humanitarian relief to those affected by the violence. In late 2010, as the South Sudanese independence referendum approached and concerns grew that large-scale violence would break out, activist pressure pushed the Obama administration to launch a “diplomatic surge” that helped facilitate a peaceful and credible referendum. It is important to recognize these successes.

But it is even more important to acknowledge that our presence here today is a reflection of the fact that our work is not and cannot be done, not even close. Our work cannot be done so long as the Sudanese military continues to bomb villages in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. Our work cannot be done so long as hundreds of thousands of people face famine as the result of the Bashir regime’s deliberate decision to deny them access to humanitarian aid. Our work cannot be done so long as, after nine years and multiple peace agreements, nearly two million Darfuri civilians remain in refugee camps and continue to face periodic attacks. Our work is not and cannot be done, and the stories we have heard and will hear today remind us why it is so important that that work continue.

Over the past few months, we’ve seen ordinary people around Sudan rising in protest against the Bashir regime. In the face of tear gas, arrests, and torture, these brave individuals have stood up to demand an end to one-party rule and human rights abuses. This should give us hope for the future of Sudan—all of Sudan. For, in the end, it will be the people of Sudan who bring about that future, and who own it. But for our part, we in the United States can and must take action in support of those who are calling for change in Sudan. In particular, we must continue to pressure our government to ensure true accountability for the perpetrators of atrocities, particularly the most recent atrocities in South Kordofan and Blue Nile. We must continue to push for an end to the humanitarian blockade. We must continue to support comprehensive measures to facilitate peace, civilian protection, and respect for human rights throughout all of Sudan, rather than piecemeal, region-specific efforts. And, perhaps most importantly, we must work ever harder to amplify the voices of those who have been personally affected by the violence, which is why the work of organizations like Voices for Sudan is so important.

Across America, students are ready to do their part in advocating for a peaceful future in Sudan. Since 2004, when images of genocide in Darfur began to flash across our TV screens, students have helped to keep this movement alive and strong in their communities, and we will not stop now. Samantha Power, whose book about the history of genocide in the modern world helped inspire a generation of activists, once observed that “silence in the face of atrocity is not neutrality; silence in the face of atrocity is acquiescence.” It is often very difficult to determine what we, as individuals, can do to help bring an end to atrocities half a world away. But at the very least, at the absolute least, it should be very clear to us that silence is not an option. Millions of past deaths, and the prospect of future deaths, allow for neither silence nor acquiescence. So may our remembrance today of those who have suffered and died spur a continued commitment to action in the days to come. Thank you.