Last week, the ENOUGH Project released a report urging the international community to change its approach toward the conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) – to abandon its tradition of “parachute diplomacy” and peacekeeping quick-fixes in favor of sustained, high-level pressure that will achieve a political settlement and establish long-term security in the region.

Specifically, ENOUGH argues that the international community should:

Give MONUC (the UN peacekeeping mission in DRC) explicit directions to use force to protect civilians from attack by all armed groups: The deployment of an additional 3,000 peacekeepers to reinforce MONUC recently authorized by the UN Security council will take months, posing a significant obstacle to the improvement of security conditions in the east. However, according to ENOUGH, the force’s inability to protect civilians is due more to a lack of political will than inadequate equipment and troop levels. The UNSC plans to renew MONUC’s mandate this month, and ENOUGH advocates that the mandate be revised to make explicit the responsibility of peacekeepers to use force to protect civilians, and that troop-contributing countries hold their forces accountable for carrying out this mandate.

Develop a structure and strategy for sustained diplomacy: According to ENOUGH, the mediation team made up of former Nigerian President Olesegun Obasanjo and former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa will need substantial backing from the US, the UK, the EU, and other outside actors with leverage. Those involved in the political process should focus on eroding rebel leader General Laurent Nkunda’s support within DRC, removing the FDLR from the country, and pressuring the Rwandan government to end cross-border support for Nkunda.

Introduce accountability for atrocities committed by all parties to the conflict: In order to address the persistence of impunity in eastern DRC, ENOUGH argues that MONUC should raise the profile of its reporting on human rights abuses, and that the International Criminal Court should investigate crimes committed during the most recent round of fighting.

Plan a credible counterinsurgency strategy to remove the FDLR (Rwandan Hutu militia) from eastern Congo: In light of the DRC and Rwandan governments’ inability and unwillingness to deal with the presence of the FDLR, ENOUGH argues that the US and European countries should pressure FDLR leadership – in Congo and abroad – through financial, diplomatic, and judicial channels, explore options for military action to deal with the militia, and pressure the DRC and Rwandan governments to increase efforts to toward demobilizing and reintegrating rank-and-file FDLR fighters.

Lay the ground work for long-term follow through: In order to break the cycle of conflict in DRC, ENOUGH argues that the drivers of the violence must be addressed. This includes measures to decrease demand for illegally exploited minerals from eastern DRC, a sustained effort to normalize relations between Congo and Rwanda, a multilateral effort to establish and capable and professional Congolese army, a sustained effort toward accountability for human rights abuses, and greater investment in local peace building initiatives and building capacity in Congolese civil society.

Click here to read the full report, to access the related activist brief, and to download an audio version.

Violence erupted again this week along the volatile faultline that is the town of Abyei.
Abeyi is an oil-rich area that lies on the border between North Sudan and South Sudan, which both claim as their territory. It is largely populated by Southern Sudanese Ngok Dinka and their nomadic neighbors, the Northern Sudanese Misseriya. Abyei has historically been an important bridge between the North and the South, and its importance grew with the discovery of oil within its boundaries. After the 40-year Sudan Civil War, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, bringing it to the more than 4 deacdes- long civil war to a close. One of the most challenging issues to negotiate was the question of Abyei. So a separate agreement was created called the Abeyi Protocol, which called for both sides to withdraw their troops to pre-Civil War levels and for a Border Commission to be sent to investigate the boundaries. The Border Commission ruled Abyei was part of the South, but the Government of Sudan in Kharotum disregarded the ruling.
Since the Civil War, Abyei has been the site of many clashes that appear to have their origins in clashes between the Dinka and the Misseriya, and almost always inevitably involve the Governments of Sudan and Southern Sudan respectively to send in their armies. in an area so closely contested, the smallest of frictions is likely to escalate to national proportions: The last major such clash was in May, and though it began as an argument at a checkpoint, it escalated so quickly that it ended up displaced 50,000 and it was feared that the clash would reignite the Civil War.
However, the faultline once again proved to be active, and according to the Associated Press,
“Mukhtar Babu Nimr, a tribal chief, said the flare-up in Abyei started with a scuffle between policemen and an Arab butcher who declined to move to a new town market. They said he argued with the newly deployed police and then stabbed one of them.
Nimr said wider violence ensued and police fired in the air to disperse a crowd. Soldiers also newly in the region fired back, believing they were under attack, he said.
But an Abyei resident, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said the security forces clashed over how to resolve the butcher issue. The resident said two policemen were killed in the violence.”

The fact that the conflict quickly had escalated to pit the police against the army and ultimately kill 2 police offers and 9 civilians and displace almost 10,000 civilians shows he height of the instability in the region.
However, often overlooked in this story is a strange foreshadowing: the Government of Sudan had actually been building its troop presence in the area since December 8, allegedly responding to the threat that the militarily-powerful Darfur rebel group called the Justice and Equality Movement intended on invading the area. The Government of Southern Sudan expressed its outrage and discomfort with this arrangement, and massive international appeals went out to try and avert another strong armed confrontation. None besides the flare-up mentioned above have happened, but this marks a notch of the consistent trend of the arms and military race that the North and South are engaged in before the 2011 referendum on the South’s independence.
The international community would be well-advised to keep an eye on this highly volatile region as a sort of litmus test for the country’s political and military dynamics as a whole.
 

Sudan:

Tribal fighting between the rival tribes Fallata and Habaniya in Darfur ended up killing 75  people to estimates of 150 people, including several policemen, and displacing hundreds. In a separate incident in West Darfur, a leader of a camp of displaced Darfuris was shot dead by unidentified gunmen.

Violence also broke out again in the oil-rich town of Abyei, which lies on the border between North and South Sudan and was the site of similar violent confrontations last May. The northern Government of Sudan built up its troops around the border town after it claims it heard rumors of the Darfur rebel group JEM‘s intention to attack the town. The Government of South Sudan called for an end to the build-up of forces, but the inevitable clashes killed at least one and forced thousands to flee before the North withdrew its troops today, allowing some of the displaced to return.

On Human Rights Day, President Bush met with Dr. Halima Bashir , a survivor of the Darfur genocide and an author of a book on the subject. He expressed his frustration with UN efforts in Darfur and his hope that President-Elect Obama will continue to make Darfur a priority for the United States

There has been much discussion around Obama and Darfur recently after the Genocide Prevention Task Force, composed of many prominent individuals such as Madeleine Albright, released an 170+ page report with recommendations on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocity. Obama’s team reportedly welcomed the report. The New York Times released a great piece about the state of Darfur today.

Burma:

Campaigners have called on UN leader Ban Ki-Moon to reverse his decision not to visit Burma, saying that a top level visit is essential if the country’s military regime is to consider the release of political prisoners and halt the crackdown on dissidents.

Burma did however get some attention from a group of Nobel Laureates and in an unrelated speech from Laura Bush.

Burma’s military government released the daughter of Burma’s former dictator Ne Win after 6 years of house arrest.

Congo:

A United Nations report found evidence of strong links between the Congolese and Rwandan officials and armed groups , making the charge that the governments were using those armed groups as proxies.

Peace talks between the CNDP and the Congolese government began in Nairobi. After initial reports that the talks were making progress despite the non-involvement of Joseph Kabila and Laurant Nkunda, after three days of stalling, it appears as if the talks have collapsed over lack of progress that the chief mediator attributed largely to the rebels.

Meanwhile, while talks stall, the numbers of those affected by hunger and disease and rape as a result of the war continue to grow.

WFP resumed aid to the northern DRC’s Orientale province, providing food to 70,000 IDPs displaced due to attacks by the LRA.

European Union officials remain divided on whether or not to send in an EU peacekeeping force to support the struggling UN peacekeeping force. Nicholas Sarkozy declined to send French forces to the country due to the conflict’s close proximity to Rwanda. France’s foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner explained that tense relations with Rwanda remain problematic and could pose a threat to its troops.

The Genocide Prevention Task Force was convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the United States Institute for Peace, and the American Academy of Diplomacy and launched on November 13, 2007 and released its report to the public on December 8, 2008.  Its goals are: (1) To spotlight genocide prevention as a national priority; and; (2) To develop practical policy recommendations to enhance the capacity of the U.S. government to respond to emerging threats of genocide and mass atrocities. This group came together to assemble their diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise to develop an 174-page guide to the institutionalized prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. The report, released on the 60th anniversary of the Genocide Convention, outlines in 6 critical areas what the United States can do to prevent and stop genocide and mass atrocities across the globe – and one of the first actions they cite is empowering the American people to build an anti-genocide constituency.

Since we as a movement are already marching down that path, let’s take the time to read, review, and reflect on the detailed, comprehensive, and practical recommendations put forth by this array of experts.

You can find the full text of the report here: http://www.usip.org/genocide_taskforce/report.html . However, if you are pressed for time because of finals this time of year, please read the summary of the recommendations only from the report that STAND’s Education Team has assembled. A more in-depth outline of the challenges and opportunities the United States faces in making this into a reality will be available on the website over the weekend, so please check back on Saturday or Sunday for that. And in the meantime, feel free to review the recommendations:

LEADERSHIP
The potential for positive and effective action increases immensely and immediately when high-level officials take a leadership role in an issue. However, we cannot depend on the luck of having strong personalities in power – we need to institutionalize anti-genocide leadership in our nation:

The President of the United States of America can:
1. Include strong statements on the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities in his or her inaugural address and every State of the Union address,
2. Use methods such as Presidential Directives to encourage and institutionalize cooperation throughout the different agencies of government
3. Create an Atrocities Prevention Committee, an new institution that could coordinate across different agencies, especially with strong links to the national security advisor
4. Mobilize international cooperation on this issue by delivering strong statements accompanied by tangible actions to the UN General Assembly, G-8 summits, regional summits, and bilateral meetings with other heads of state.

Congress can:
1. Allocate $200 million annually to the international affairs budget to finance a genocide prevention initiative – this is less than a dollar every year for every American.
2. Reserve an additional $50 million every year for rapid allocation to emergency situations, because “mass atrocities do not follow US government budget cycles”
3. Use these funds to support
i. diplomatic initiatives by regional or nongovernmental actors
ii. targeted stabilization projects
iii. urgent military assistance to peace operations
iv. direct nonmilitary intervention (jamming radios and cell phones)
v. inducements to influential leaders
4. Empower the newly created Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission to monitor emerging threats of genocide and act as a vehicle to inform Congress
5. Ensure that all regional subcommittees of the House and Senate foreign affairs and foreign relations committees should add prevention of genocide and mass atrocities to their jurisdictions.
The American people can:
1. Build a permanent constituency for the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities

EARLY WARNING

The director of national intelligence should:
o establish genocide early warning as a formal priority for the intelligence community
o prepare a National Intelligence Estimate (NiE, which is one of the most high-level intelligence community assessments) on genocide and mass atrocities, which would:
 sensitize the intelligence community
 be brief to the president, Congress, and senior officials
 highlight areas of poor knowledge and consensus
The national security advisor should:
o create a “mass atrocities alert channel”, which would send concerns abut impending atrocities to high-level policymakers in the case of an emergency when all other lines of reporting have failed
o create a new warning-response mechanism that is calibrated on the severity and urgency of the warning, which can automatically trigger a series of policy and review responses
The State Department should:
o launch a diplomatic initiative to create a permanent network of international actors who continuously exchange information on risks of genocide and MA
o pursue information from UN agencies with a presence in the field
 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
 United National Development Programme (UNDP)
 UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR)
 Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO)
 United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
o share information with:
 UN Department of Political Affairs
 DPKO
 UN Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
 Secretary General’s special advisor on the prevention of genocide
o support the development of regional early warning systems
o better engage NGOs, civil society, and religious institutions in information collection and analysis.
o equip the front lines of America’s foreign policy by incorporating trainings on early warnings of genocide and MA into programs for foreign service and intelligence officers and analysts

EARLY PREVENTION
Preventing severe escalation of violence by:
• influencing leaders early in the game:
o giving positive incentives to encourage leaders to develop responsible policies towards their people (i.e. grants, loans, debt relief, technical assistance and training, favorable trade and investment policies)
o giving negative incentives to deter leaders from committing atrocities towards their people (i.e. freezing assets, sanctions, travel bans, indictments etc)
cutting off the flow of weapons:
o identify efforts to collect and distribute resources for conflict in high-risk areas through tracking of arms purchases
o arms embargoes and sanctions and legal actions against those who violate them
building capacity of civil society:
o supporting power-sharing (however keep in mind: there is no one formula for power distribution)
o supporting democratic transition (however, keep in mind that the introduction of electoral competition into divided societies can sometimes heighten conflict)
o supporting transparent law enforcement and ending cultures of impunity
o supporting efforts of national reconciliation to address the legacy of past abuses
o supporting economic growth that is widespread and ivolves accountability inuse of public and natural resources (however, keepin mind the potential for economic marginalization)
o support a fee and empower media (however, keep in mind the media can also contribute to escalations of violence
reforming security forces to make sure they represent elements of a diverse society and answer to the civilian sector as well.

PREVENATIVE DIPLOMACY:
Again, the US should make a priority the establishment of an inter-agency Atrocities Prevention Committee, which should:
o meet every other month and as needed to review status of countries of concern and coordinate preventative action.
o prepare interagency genocide prevention and response plans for high-risk situation which would assess:
 potential points of leverage and policy intervention in detailed target country assessments
 the potential scale of violence, the impact of stability of the country, risk to US citizens, etc in an atrocities estimate and impact assessment
 a range of potential US responses matched to rising levels of crisis escalation in a policy options assessment, which should:
• include the credible threat of coercive measures,
• avoid an overly rigid “escala¬tory ladder,”
• not dismiss potential benefits of rewarding “bad people” for “good behavior.”
• engage international actors who have influence with potential perpetrators,
• be mindful of becoming hostage to peace negotiations related to a broader conflict,
• maintain consistency in the messages conveyed
The secretary of state should enhance the capacity of the U.S. government to engage in urgent preventive diplomatic action to forestall emerging crises, including strengthening the Civilian Response Corps

MILITARY RESPONSES:
director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense should leverage military capacities for intelligence and early warning and strengthen links to political-military planning and decision making.
The Departments of Defense and State should
o work to enhance the capacity of the United Nations, as well as the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States, and other regional and subregional bodies to employ military options to prevent and halt genocide and mass atrocities
o work with NATO, the European Union, and capable individual govern¬ments to increase preparedness to reinforce or replace United Nations, African Union, or other peace operations to forestall mass atrocities
o enhance the capacity of the United States and the United Nations to support a transition to long-term efforts to build peace and stability in the wake of genocidal violence
INTERNATIONAL ACTION:
The secretary of state should:
o launch a major diplomatic initiative to create among like-minded governments, interna¬tional organizations, and NGOs a formal network dedicated to the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities
o undertake robust diplomatic efforts toward negotiating an agreement among the per-manent members of the United Nations Security Council on non-use of the veto in cases concerning genocide or mass atrocities
o reaffirm U.S. commit¬ment to nonimpunity for perpetrators of genocide and mass atrocities

The State Department should
o support the efforts currently under way to elevate the priority of preventing genocide and mass atrocities at the United Nations
o work with USAID, and Department of Defense to provide capacity-building assistance to internation¬al partners who are willing to take measures to prevent genocide and mass atrocities.

60 years ago yesterday, the Genocide Convention came into being, and 60 years ago today, the United Declaration of Human Rights was also written and signed.
The creation of these two framework documents was in the wake of World War II, in which the world had witnessed some of the greatest atrocities to ever occur. And that is the key word: witness. The world had been a passive witness to the inhuman destruction of the Holocaust, and before that Armenia, and before that, many other nameless genocides. The Genocide Convention and UNDHR were both attempts to create a framework upon which the world could build the kind of peace the world was looking for after the Second World War.
Below are highlighted some of the main points of these documents, and what they mean for our movement:

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: was established on December 9, 1948, and was the first act to criminalize the act of genocide. The term genocide had recently been coined by Holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin, and the Genocide Convention defined genocide as:
“ (a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Articles IV, V, and VI state that those people responsible for genocide, no matter if they are “constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals” shall be punished by a competent court within the country or else an international court, and that all nations are required to help provide punishment for persons guilty of genocide. This is the basis off of which we can build our case for pushing the United States to support the International Criminal Court in pursuing the indictments against President Omar al-Bashir, rebels, Ahmed Haroun, and Ali Kushayb.

Articles VIII states that every nation must call upon the United Nations and fellow nations to take whatever action is “appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide”

The UN Declaration of Human Rights:
Articles 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 28 all confirm the right of human beings to have a personal identity, family identity, national identity, a voice in the political process of his or her country, and basic human identity and the dignity that comes with it. This has been denied to the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa in Darfur and the ethnic Karen in Burma, and many other marginalized groups in the conflicts we work on.

Articles 2 and 7 expressly address the issue of discrimination based on identity, which again we see in the purposefully targeting of civilians of certain ethnic, political, or religious identities in Darfur, Burma, Congo, and many other of our Areas of Concern.

Articles 13, 14, and 25 deal with the rights of all to have an adequate standard of living and protection as IDPs and refugees that are currently critically missing from the chaotic lives of the displaced of Congo, Burma, Darfur, and our other Areas of Concern.

Articles 4, 5 expressly forbid the kind of degrading violence that all the civilians in all our Areas of Concern suffer from.

However historical and momentous the creation of these documents are, without an active anti-genocide constituency they remain just that: empty frameworks. It is up to our generation to create the constituencies that will bring these framework documents to life and to actually build a genocide-free future.

Sudan:

The Government of Sudan has confirmed accusations that it is building up troops in a volatile border region between North and South Sudan.

The Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has appealed to the United Nations to support the arrest warrant the Court is likely to issue soon, perhaps in secret. Ocampo continued to accuseBashir of "inciting violence" and continuing the genocide. Former rebel leader Minni Minawi called on Sudan to cooperate with the ruling as well.

After clashes between Janjaweed militiamen and displaced Darfuris a the Hassa Hissa IDP camp, the UN deployed a team to calm the violence.

Aid operations continue to face many challenges and be under threat as masked men abducted and beat aid workers this week.

Abdel Wahid Mohammed al-Nur, a significant rebel leader, and a number of IDP leaders have resisted pressure and suggestions to engage in peace talks.

A great amount of reports and analysis is coming about the impact the new US administration will have on Sudan, especially Senator Hilary Clinton.

Here is an exclusive interview with Ahmed Haroun, the GoS Minister indicted for war crimes by the ICC

Burma:

UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday said he will not visit Burma despite a petition by over 110 former world leaders to visit and press Burma’s military junta to free all political prisoners before the end of this year.

Congo:

The UN has says the situation in Congo is spiraling out of control and condemns the human rights abuses.

Congo and Rwanda have agreed on a military plan to disband Nkunda’s militia. The UN peacekeeping mission MONUC is hoping for backup from a European Union force.

UN Special Envoy for the crisis in Eastern DRC, Olusegun Obasanjo, met for talks with Laurent Nkunda. Congo’s government has agreed to meet the rebels as well for the first time to formalize a ceasefire.

The UNCHR says more than 90,000 Congolese civilians are unaccounted for after fleeing their homes from the violence.

Human Rights Watch released a report on the situation in the DRC.

Say the word out lout: “Janjaweed”. The first set of images and word that tend to flash into people’s minds are “devil on horseback”, “militia”, “genocide”, “Arab”. But beyond these clips of words and phrases and images, do we really know who the Janjaweed are? Where they come from? What role do they truly play in this conflict and do they play this role? If we want to end the crisis in Darfur, we need to understand where these actors are coming from.
The Janjaweed come largely from a northern Darfur tribe called the Rizeygat. Very little is known about them except they are nomadic camel-herders. They are incredibly isolated and have been excluded, neglected, and manipulated by the Government of Sudan. They have little to no access to education, healthcare, political representation, etc.
As nomadic herders, the Rizeygats travel across Darfur and cross paths frequently with tribes more sedentary farming tribes like the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massalit. Over history, they have intermarried with these tribes, cooperated with these tribes, and have also competed and clashed many times with these tribes over issues of land. These clashes have intensified recently as the expanding Sahara desert has pushed the herders further into the farmers’ land.
So in 2003, when rebel groups from the Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa tribes attacked a government airbase in Darfur, the government decided to go to the Rizeygat and offered their militiamen salaries, weapons, and support for carrying out their military campaign against the Fur, Zaghawa, and Massalit. For many Rizeygat, particularly the youth who were facing bleak prospects for education and survival, the salary, security, and support offered by the government’s offer made sense. The government has also worked to highlight and leverage ethnic differences between the tribes, polarizing them greatly in a short time.
However, many Rizeygat have not been militarized and do not understand why the world lumps them into the category of “devil on horseback”. This has created a great amount of resentment among the Rizeygat who only see aid workers helping displaced Fur, Massalit, and Zaghawa and not their tribes.
So now that we know where the Janjaweed come from, how do we bring them off the path of destructive and genocidal violence? The Rizeygat community who is not participating in the Janjaweed needs to be incorporated into the peace process and recognized as a significant player. We can encourage a new generation of leadership that stays away from militarization as a livelihood and way of survival. And we can encourage that culture of non-militarized existence by helping this community get access to water, good education, and political representation and accountability.
This is one way we can work to cool the flame of conflict not just in this generation, but in generations to come. It’s time to lay the groundwork for future generations of peace in the shifting sands of Darfur, and to do that we must know where all the key players truly stand.

Darfur:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and US special envoy to Darfur Richard Williamson accused Sudan of violating the ceasefire it signed last week. The UN has sent a special delegation to investigate the alleged bombings. A Darfur rebel group has accused the Sudanese Government of new attacks.

The UN has reported that that Dafur as a whole is becoming more dangerous. Particularly, humanitarian aid groups are facing growing harassment in Darfur, and the UN has criticized the attacks. The UNhumanitarian aid chief just returned from Sudan where he urged more protection in the vulnerable camps for displaced Darfuris.

Three human rights activists have been arrested in Sudan, and were accused of spying for the International Criminal Court. Human Rights Watch has expressed its concern.

Abdel Nabi Ahmed, the leader of Sudan’s largest opposition party Umma, was killed in a car crash earlier this week.

A New York Times article discusses how President-Elect Obama’s choice of Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN means the US will have a stronger advocate for ending atrocities like the conflict in Darfur.

Burma:

This Friday, fifteen detainees, were given harsh prison sentences as part of a judicial crackdown on dissidents suspecting of leading the 2007 uprising.

India and Burma are strengthening economic ties after another round of bilateral talks.

Burma’s top military leader Than Shwe says that plans for elections in 2010 are well underway.

Congo:

Despite promises to maintain a ceasefire, Tutsi rebels led by General Laurent Nkunda captured the town of Ishasha in eastern DRC on Thursday as part of a new military offensive. The renewed fighting has caused some 13,000 Congolese to seek refugein neighboring Uganda.

General Nkunda warned on Saturday that he is prepared to go to war unless the Congolese government agrees to hold talks. According to UN-appointed mediator and former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, the government has agreed in principle to talks, but not to any details.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced on Sunday that he is in favor of sending a European force to eastern DRC to bridge the gap until authorized reinforcements for the UN peacekeeping mission in the country, MONUC, are deployed. Earlier in the week, Belgium said it would be willing to contribute to such a force.

The UN Security Council discussed the possibility of amending MONUC’s mandate in its meeting on Thursday to better address the current situation on the ground in eastern DRC.

As of just over a week ago, there were 2 arrest warrants and 1 request for an arrest warrant hanging on the walls of the International Criminal Court in the Hague that concerned the crisis in Darfur. The first two were Ahmed Haroun, the Minister for Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan, and Ali “Kaushayb”, a known Janjaweed leader; the third is a pending warrant for the arrest of the President of Sudan himself, Omar al-Bashir.

A week ago today, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, added 3 new request for arrests to that stack: three leaders of the rebel movements in Darfur.

The crime? According to CNN, in September, 2007, “a thousand rebel-led soldiers surrounded and stormed an African Union peacekeeping base in Haskanita, in southern Darfur, the ICC said. Twelve peacekeepers were killed and eight were wounded in the overnight attack, the deadliest single attack on AU peacekeepers since they began their mission in late 2004.”

Luis Moreno-Ocampo said there is significant enough evidence to support the indictment of three rebel leaders who allegedly planned, led, and directed the attack on the peacekeepers over a year ago.

The names of the rebel leaders have been kept confidential for now, in the hopes that they will surrender of their own accord. While this remains to be seen, a spokesperson for the SLA-Unity would surrender their leaders to the ICC if indicted because they believed their leaders were innocent and that their innocence would hold up in court.

What does this mean for the international community, and more specifically, the growing global anti-genocide movement?

1. It sends a message to actors in Darfur that anything endangering peacekeepers and the Darfuris they protect should not and will no longer be tolerated by the international community

2. It reminds us that we are in the middle of a complex conflict where there are not “good guys and bad guys” but rather a series of powerful actors who each have their own interests in mind

3. It counters Omar al-Bashir’s argument that the ICC is the West’s attempt at overthrowing his government and that he has been unjustly targeted by the Court.

There has been overwhelming support for this move by the international community. Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch called it “an important step toward protecting those who protect civilians…Civilians rely on peacekeepers for protection, and any hope for restoring security for civilians in Darfur depends on peacekeepers being able to do their job,” said “These warrant requests send a strong message that such crimes will not be tolerated.”

Stay tuned at STAND’s blog and on our Weekly News Briefs (which you can sign up for by e-mailing education@standnow.org) for all updates about the case.

As we near our final days in STAND Fast we, as advocates should probably reflect on what we have done and pat ourselves on the back for what (at least I believe) amounts to a stunning show of innovation in the way we deliver aid. The divergence in philosophy that GI Net has taken in producing efficient micro-solutions, that could have major impacts in the way conflict effected people live, represents a new brand of humanitarianism, one that is smart and lasting.
This praise, however, is given more to motivate than to celebrate the finalization of something, because you and I both know that there is a tremendous amount of work to still be done. STAND has taken on a huge task in accepting Burma into its trajectory. The civil war between the ethnic Karen and the Burmese government has lasted for 60 years, longer than that of the stand off between North and South Sudan. The government is controlled by a crime cadre who have a historical legacy of unresponsiveness and paranoia toward the international community, only topped by that of North Korea. Here, it is easy to recall the memory of only a few months ago when the regime denied foreign aid to the cyclone ravaged Irrawaddy delta, in a calculated display of negligence; the act of which undoubtedly resulted in the death of thousands. And now with China coddling Than Shew’s military state more and more, penetrating Burma seems like a mission impossible.
However, we must not forget that STAND is the number one student anti-genocide organization in the US. We have readied regular college and high school students with the education necessary to become effective advocates for Darfur, and I wish we should only have to address this conflict; and in a perfect world, no conflict at all. It is obvious though, that the world is not perfect, and it is a little discouraging to find that just as we think we have mobilized our chapters on the issue of Darfur, we must throw another complex conflict at them. It’s almost like starting form scratch. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen the look for confusion in the eyes of a fellow student when I try to explain Burma, and this is my speciality! In the end thought, this is why STAND is STAND. We recognize that as daunting as the task might be, it really can’t wait, immediate action is necessary now.
I have found I my time speaking to people about Burma that one of the most effective ways to reach my peers is by relating the situation to Darfur, a conflict that most of them are well versed in. Here are some good comparative points that you can use to demonstrate how Burma is similar to Darfur, and hopefully by basing East Burma around something many students already know, we can reach people much faster.

1. The genocide in East Burma of the ethnic Karen is the result of a civil war.

Just as the genocide in Darfur is a byproduct of the North-South war so is the targeting of the Karen in East Burma. The Karen have been demanding autonomy since 1948 after independence from the British (also ironically the colonizers of the Sudan). Under Burma’s short lived Republic from 1948 to 1962, xenophobic and nationalist General Ne Win, (who would become Burma’s military dictator) carried out numerous attacks against the Karen to promote national unity with impunity. Ne Win later forcibly took control of the government. The Karen have since been waging an insurgency to fight against this oppression, although their military numbers have dwindled to only a couple thousand.

2. China plays a heavy role in Burmese politics.

As in Sudan, the economic involvement of China in Burma means that the Chinese must be pressured to address the human rights abuses that their government funds. Recently, China has won the rights to build a 900 mile pipeline across Burma into Southwest China to transport oil and natural gas. The oil and natural gas will be brought to Burmese ports and then to the pipeline. The Chinese are doing this to avoid shipping through the strait of Malacca, one of the busiest in the world. China has also won the rights to explore the Burmese coast for oil. These new business deals will bring in millions for the Burmese junta.

3. The eventual solution to this conflict will come with the fixing of the countries overall political problem.

Just as STAND has worked for an "all Sudan solution," we should also work for an all Burma solution, because only then will the military be halted in their campaign. Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy won much support among the Karen due to the promise of a democratic process, in which Karen interest would not be marginalized. In fact, during the 1988 democratic uprising the Karen accepted many of the protesters into their bases to escape government retaliation. This became one of the main reasons General Ne Win launched a massive offensive against them. STAND should continue to stress the need for democracy in all of it’s Burma advocacy.

My hope is that this information can be used to consolidate these two topics and better communicate them to our chapters. If students can see the similarities it will become easier to see why STAND is involved in Burma, and then we can get to moving even faster. There is not time to waste. Good luck to all on STAND Fast!

-Joshua Groll, STAND’s Burma Education Coordinator