The Power of Grassroots Mobilization: From Arab Spring to STAND

By Communications Task Force Blogger Zoya Waliany

    We all know the story of the event that set ablaze the Arab World—the lone action of martyrdom by Tunisian Mohammed Boazizi. In an act of desperation due to his inability to run his business because of governmental restrictions, he set himself on fire, and thereby sparked the beginning of a global revolution.

Inspired by Boazizi’s actions, Tunisians were able to end the Ben Ali regime a mere 10 days after Boazizi’s death this January.  His actions, though devastating for his family, are lauded by several and are credited as spurning what many are calling a “people’s revolution,” deconstructing tyrannical Arab regimes around the Arab world.

This “people’s revolution” is comprised of thousands of Arabs turned activists, both young and old, fighting for a change in their respective countries. Tired, frustrated Arabs, most notably the youth, have taken to the streets to demand that their voices be heard. From the corners of Cairo to the alleyways of Tunisia to the neighborhoods of Syria to the squares of Libya, Arabs are peacefully protesting, demonstrating with powerfully worded signs, chanting slogans, utilizing social media, and taking a stand.

The valiant actions of the Arab protestors are inspiring and trendsetting. Tunisia led to Egypt led to Libya and the list continues to this very second. Arabs are not only inspired because they see their peers standing up for their rights and trying to make a difference, but also because they see their peers achieving results. Tunisia toppled its government; Egypt toppled its government; Libya toppled its government. The Arab protestors are making things happen.

Similarly, student activists like the upSTANDers in America are making things happen. Student activists at the grassroots level of policy work are also taking to the streets, peacefully protesting, demonstrating with powerfully worded signs, chanting slogans, utilizing social media, and taking a stand.

We too have seen results, including the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, dozens of appointments of special envoys to focus areas like Burma and Darfur, and the passage of SCR 71, setting a precedent for genocide prevention legislation. The Arab Spring undeniably parallels the genocide prevention movement of student activists and reveals the power of grassroots mobilization—or put simply, making our voices heard. Just as the Arab protestors are able to influence their governing systems, student leadership can have a tremendous influence on our policy makers. When we protest, lobby, utilize social media, and demonstrate, our policy makers have no choice but to listen.

I’m not implying that Representative Michelle Bachmann bares resemblance to Gaddafi, nor am I encouraging self-immolation. However, the Arab Spring absolutely highlights the power of the people. This power is comprehensible in any language, not just Arabic; we too may draw inspiration from the courageous acts of the Arab protestors. We must recognize that our genocide prevention movement is our “people’s revolution” and continue our march all the way to our Tahrir Square.

Conference Testimonial: Why You Should Attend the End Genocide Action Summit

By Communications Task Force Blogger Roberta Barnett

I joined STAND my freshman year of high school for a pretty typical reason, learning about genocide in school and Model UN. After I discovered an interest in education, I was pretty much destined to be nothing more than the kid who stood in front of rooms full of kids rambling about Darfur.  And that was pretty much me until the end of my sophomore year in high school, when I registered my chapter as an official core chapter. I started receiving emails about STAND events and finally, actually going to them.  After attending STAND events, I can say that I am much better equipped as a chapter leader, more knowledgeable on educational issues, and have met some of the most intelligent and compassionate people I could ever hope to meet.  

This past year, when STAND was holding a conference for students across the country, I knew I had to go.  I already had the pleasure of meeting core chapter leaders at STAND Camp 2010, had met even more upSTANDers at a local conference, and learned more about organization, leadership, and education with each session I attended.  I hopped in my car and after five hours behind the wheel, reached the conference in Washington DC.
Even though it was a smaller conference than usual, I was immediately impressed with the panel of experts on Libya and the insight they provided into the then-escalating conflict.  I really enjoyed the ideas different groups came up with in the breakout sessions.  One such idea — to increase STAND’s involvement with Diaspora groups — helped to shape the concept for STAND’s amazing new initiative “STAND with Diaspora & Civil Society Communities.”  I’ll never forget talking with men from the Nuba Mountains, just as the conflict was emerging in the region; nor will I forget the room full of anti-genocide activists who sang me “Happy Birthday” the day I turned seventeen.

This year’s conference, the End Genocide Action Summit, looks like it’s shaping up to be even better than last year’s conference.  With a host of speakers who are high-profile leaders in their fields, an exciting agenda, hundreds of activists from across the country, and a lobby day to put all you’ve learned into practice, there’s sure to be something that anyone can take away from this conference.

Being involved in an anti-genocide organization, your inbox is probably flooded with STAND-related emails.  Here’s a chance to put a face to all of those Regional Organizers, National Coordinators, and yes, even us Bloggers!  Personally, I can’t wait to see you there!  

Connecting the Dots

By Communications Task Force Blogger Janina Pescinski
What do sustainability, the green economy, and volunteerism have to do with genocide prevention?  I wondered last week as I headed to the 64th Annual United Nations Department of Public Information Non-Governmental Organization Conference in Bonn, Germany. These topics and many others were discussed at the conference with the idea of connecting the dots, which made me consider how genocide fits into this picture.

Every year the UN has a conference for NGOs to discuss and strategize around a topic of international importance. This year the conference was held around the theme “sustainable societies, responsive citizens”. I got an inside look at the conference as a youth representative of Rutgers University and as a member of the Youth Subcommittee responsible for planning youth events and mobilizing young people to have maximum impact at the conference.

I have no background in sustainability or the environment since I’ve always focused on human rights. But the fields are clearly linked, and these themes have far-reaching implications. At the conference we considered everything from population dynamics to agriculture to education, all of which integrate human rights and sustainability. And although genocide and mass atrocities were not discussed explicitly, I began connecting these dots myself.

Mass atrocities occur in societies that aren’t sustainable, whether due to a lack of environmental, economic, or political sustainability. Because of this insustainability, these societies cannot continue on their current path, various groups are marginalized, and if preventative measures are not taken atrocities may be committed. To rectify this, volunteerism is one strategy that can be used to build sustainable communities through citizen participation in addition to government policy objectives. But government policy regarding mass atrocities also has to be sustainable, and this is a step we are beginning to take. For example, look at the recent Presidential Directive on Mass Atrocities: it creates a framework intended to provide sustainable solutions for preventing genocide.

The most inspiring part of the conference was the impact youth were able to have when we organized amongst ourselves. Each afternoon the youth met to discuss the outcomes document being drafted with policy proposals from the conference. We assembled our own policy objectives on behalf of the youth and were able to integrate them into the declaration that will be presented to the UN. The declaration highlights the need for youth empowerment and “recommends promotion of youth volunteering  strategies which engage young people as agents for sustainable development and peace”. This is proof that the international community is taking our efforts as youth volunteers and activists seriously and is making a commitment to further promote youth engagement. 

This conference taught me to keep in mind the power we have as youth as well as the importance of connecting the dots between genocide and other international issues. Doing so opens a whole host of possibilities for new partnerships, and ultimately the solutions we achieve will be more successful because they will be more comprehensive!

Sustainable Progress for the Deepening Somali Conflict

By Communications Task Force Blogger Tyler S. Bugg

At a recent regional summit in Kenya, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi pushed for creating “corridors of humanitarian assistance” to the aid of Somalian instability. Political instability, longstanding absences in rule of law, and tight control from Islamist al-Shabab militia groups have been undermining the successful delivery of aid packages to some of the most famine-hit regions of Somalia. After the United Nations formally recognized the spreading of serious famine in parts of Somalia, al-Shabab rebel groups have continued imposing stringent restrictions on the delivery of food aid to regions of Somalia. Aid is not reaching enough people.

The tensions in the face of humanitarian and peackeeping efforts in Somalia beckon other questions: What is humanitarian aid? What does it hope to accomplish? It is working?

Even though the crisis in Somalia continues to struggle with what is now known as a decade-long conflict, pledges of humanitarian aid to the country have seen just as much time. Aid from the African Union, several NGOs, and even the United States, have oftentimes never materialized, being driven out of the region after continued threats from Al Shabab and similar groups. Zenawi’s messages for rush-assistance is more of the same; it’s much of why al-Shabab aid interception and political backlash has been reignited.

Continued steps at help have, so far, largely been ineffective. Response to the intensifying Somalian conflict has been, at best, tactical. Food aid is not enough.

To create progress in Somalia, more substantive strategy is needed. Emergency assistance, while perhaps helpful, is only temporary; putting the redevelopment of Somalia’s political, economic, and social infrastructures back in the hands of Somalians is vital to fostering faster and greater progress. Support of initiatives like the soon-to-be Nairobi Action Plan— investing in the most drought-effected areas with long-term, sustainable livestock-keeping communities– is a step in the right direction. It’s a step that solutions to conflict local and community-felt. It’s support for their own rights, their own progress.

The more time we waste by avoiding long-term strategy, the more expansive al-Shabab and ally networks spread throughout the globe, and the more the Somali crisis deepens. Somalia needs humanitarian aid of definitions much broader than food; it needs the pressure of knowledge, willpower, and sustainability to make substantive progress. Pushing the United States and other members of the international community to actively support a collaborative and cooperative stance in creating sustainable economic and political growth can be the answer in returning Somalis to the rights and the country they deserve.

The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of STAND.

US Condemns Violence in South Kordofan

By Advocacy Coordinator Maria Thomson

On Wednesday, August 31st, the United States State Department released a joint statement calling for the Government of Sudan to immediately cease its bombings in South Kordofan, and urged both northern and southern Sudanese governments to allow humanitarian access into the region:

The United States remains deeply concerned about reports of continued bombings of civilian areas in Southern Kordofan by the Sudanese Air Force, despite the Government of Sudan’s announcement of a unilateral two-week ceasefire last week. The United States urges the Government of Sudan to adhere to its commitment and to immediately cease aerial bombings, particularly of civilian areas.

We are also concerned over allegations of support from the Government of South Sudan to military forces aligned with Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North in Southern Kordofan. The United States calls on both sides to allow unfettered humanitarian access to affected populations in Southern Kordofan and urges the parties to resume formal negotiations to reach a permanent cessation of hostilities and a political settlement.
 

The same day, the US Department of State also announced the appointment of Mary C. Yates as interim Chargé d’Affaires at the US Embassy in Khartoum, effective immediately.  Yates will join current US Special Envoy for Sudan Princeton Lyman as part of the United States’ diplomatic team to Sudan.  Both Yates’ appointment as well as the State Department’s intensifying calls for an end to violence in South Kordofan signal increasing efforts by the United States to apply diplomatic pressure on Sudan and South Sudan for their fulfillment of a peaceful transition into two distinct states.

No Fly Zone in Libya: A  Much Needed Victory

By Communications Task Force Blogger Zoya Waliany

As a member of an anti-genocide student coalition, an organization that deals almost entirely with international affairs, I rarely see the results of the work I do. After tabling for hours to get signatures on a petition to stop the use of child soldiers, I don’t get to find out the outcome of said petition the next day. Or the next year, even. Activists of this type of work—trying to stop global human rights violations, receive little to no gratification for their work. We’re not like other activists, who might volunteer at a local shelter or organize a food drive for the local food bank, and attain that immediate satisfaction of doing something good. We, instead, never know if our humanitarian efforts are beneficial, or in vain. Indeed, this is the most discouraging part of being an activist in the fight against genocide. I know that the work that my student chapter organizes is important; I know that the work STAND does is vital. At the same time, however, I never get to see tangible results of these important works. It’s enough to make me consider joining Habitat for Humanity instead!
   
But recently, however, we witnessed the beginning of something amazing—the foundations of a new, liberated Libya. In the past weeks, I have been anxiously refreshing the Al Jazeera English webpage awaiting news about the opposition forces in Libya and their gaining grounds in Tripoli, one of the final steps to the Revolution. It appears as though things are finally going the right way, and the Libyan people may topple the regime that has been suppressing their freedom for so long. Of course, credit is greatly due to the brave and courageous efforts of the Libyan people. This portrayal of human spirit is truly inspiring. Yet, Libyans themselves are also crediting the outside help they received from various sources, such as NATO and the United States. Ziad Majed, a columnist for Now Lebanon, a Lebanese online news source, notes that, “[Qaddafi’s fall] happened after military operations in which NATO played a decisive role… The echoes of the colonel’s fall will hasten the toppling of Qaddafi clones in other countries.”
   
Reading about NATO’s assistance in Libya reminds me of an action item that my chapter at UT organized last semester—encouraging students to call Secretary Clinton, asking her to pressure the implementation of a no-fly zone in Libya. A no-fly zone is a territory over an area which aircrafts are not permitted to fly, and this action is usually taken in a military context. On March 17, 2011, the UN approved a no-fly zone over Libya, and NATO took control of this operation on March 23. This no-fly zone, and the assistance of NATO and other forces, as Majed notes, played a role in the Libyan people’s recent victory.

As such, I feel as though this no-fly zone implementation was finally a manifestation of the unfaltering work of my university’s chapter, in conjunction with STAND’s members’ steadfast work nationwide. We asked students to call Secretary Clinton; we organized a petition to request the no-fly zone’s implementation; we finally see results. In some small way, we as genocide activists were able to give our support and assistance to the heroic Libyan people. And I believe this knowledge is something worth sticking around for.

Why Intervene in Libya, but not Syria?

By Advocacy Coordinator Maria Thomson
In the midst of developing situations in Libya and Syria in recent weeks, many policy commentators have questioned divergent US actions regarding the two conflicts which, at face value, share similar traits of opposition movements against entrenched, corrupt dictatorships and governmental violence against civilians. Beyond this convenient categorization, however, lies a number of significant differences between the Libyan and Syrian conflicts which necessitate unique approaches in US policy.

The United States’ decision to engage in the Libyan conflict by way of supporting the NATO-led “no-fly zone” derived from many situational factors. Qaddafi never denied his intent to violently suppress protestors, and issued strong direct statements that he would “show no mercy” to protesters and that “we will find you in your closets.” These were severely startling to many international observers, and reports of atrocities against civilians coinciding with these statements jumpstarted conversations internationally over possibilities for greater preventative action.

 Contributing to these conversations were the voices of Libyan civilians themselves, many of whom criticized the US and international community for not taking greater action faster.  Secondly, though rebel forces fluctuated in a series of advancements and retreats, Qaddafi’s forces were vulnerable, as he had “deliberately neglected the 50,000-member army to diminish its ability to topple him” and thus made the proposed military and tactical support from NATO more likely to be successful. Additionally, Qaddafi’s administration not only had few allies internationally or locally, but rather had many opponents, including Egypt and Tunisia on its right and left, which had each just undergone democratic uprisings of their own and had little sympathy for Qaddafi. Crucially, the Arab League also endorsed the implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya, contributing to a strong international coalition in favor of the policy. Ultimately, concern over increasing violence against civilians as well as strong pressure from human rights advocacy constituencies led the UNSC to express support for the intervention, which has been working steadily with Libyan rebel forces to date.

With respect to the situational considerations made in deciding to support the no-fly zone, circumstances in Syria were — and continue to be — quite disparate from those in Libya. Where Qaddafi candidly stated his purpose, Bashar al-Assad has refused to admit to violence or human rights abuses against civilians, and is instead claiming to be a reformer and arguing that the government is the victim of a “foreign conspiracy.” This denial has discouraged several UNSC members (notably, Russia and China) from supporting stronger consequences for Assad’s regime, and the countries have alternatively been “simply urging Syrian authorities to speed up their proposed reforms.” Additionally, Russia continues to sell Syria weaponry, citing a lack of international sanctions forbidding it to do so. This source of defense for Assad’s government would make even more difficult a military intervention that would already be struggling against an army much stronger than Libya’s (at 325,000 regular forces and over 100,000 paramilitary) and strongly loyal to the ruling Baath party. Moreover, protesters have not called for any foreign intervention, and their consistently nonviolent demonstrations indicate no place for or interest in foreign military involvement. (Even if a military intervention were to be approved, Syrian protesters’ lack of systemic weapons use would mean that foreign interveners would hold more responsibility in this mission, unlike the supporting role NATO assumed in Libya). Furthermore, Syria has a strong alliance with Iran, as well as relationships with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, so some foreign policy analysts believe resorting to military intervention in Syria could escalate violence and disrupt delicate attempts by the Obama administration to promote Arab-Israeli peace. Tony Badran from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies commented, "For the president to take a forceful approach to Syria, they’d have to admit that the policy of engagement with Syria was an absolute failure and that they have to completely recalibrate the policy."

Given these divergences from the situation in Libya, foreign military intervention does not appear to be an appropriate policy approach for influencing Assad’s regime and mitigating atrocities against nonviolent protesters. Rather, human rights advocacy constituencies are pushing for more severe sanctions for the Syrian government, particularly in the energy sector, serving both to directly limit governmental resources and render continued violence against civilians unprofitable, as well as to set an example for other countries to follow.

The Syria Sanctions Act of 2011 (S. 1472) establishes penalties within the US for any companies that continue to participate in Syria’s petroleum sector, by way of contract prohibition, denial of loans, and blocking of property. This would essentially force foreign companies to choose between continuing operations in Syria or avoiding serious consequences in the United States.

In examining the potential impact of these sanctions on civilians populations, policy analysts at the Genocide Intervention Network/Save Darfur Coalition have determined that the preexisting economic conditions created by continued unrest in Syria have been and will continue to be significantly more damaging than would be the newly proposed sanctions. These economic conditions include:

• Unilateral reduction in oil exports, representing a loss of at least US $127 million in total oil receipts over July alone;
• The destruction of Syria’s tourism industry, which annually generated US $8 billion and represented approximately 13% of the national GDP prior to unrest;
  
• The devaluation of the Syrian pound, which had fallen 17% by August and will increasingly affect Syrians living on fixed or marginal incomes; and
  
• Pre-existing economic conditions, such as economic inequality and uneven growth, which caused 6.7 million Syrians (33.6% of the population) to be considered impoverished by UNDP as of 2007.
  

The Syria Sanctions Act of 2011 represents a crucial opportunity to take action in changing the direction of governmental violence and oppression in Syria. With more questions about S. 1472, or to find out how you can get involved in advocacy efforts, please contact Maria Thomson at advocacy@standnow.org. Exercise your privilege of a democratic government and make your voice heard!

Weekly Update from the STAND Education Team

Libya, Syria, DRC, Sudan

Major Developments:

•   Libyan rebels, with NATO support, seize control of most of Tripoli

•   President Obama calls for Assad to resign and issues new sanctions

•   U.S. Ambassador to DRC affirms the U.S. will have limited engagement in upcoming elections

•   Sudan Sentinel Project finds evidence of mass graves in Nuba Mountains and South Kordofan

Libya and Syria 

•   After a swift military offensive, Libyan rebels made significant gains in their effort to seize control of the Libyan capital of Tripoli from forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Qaddafi. New York Times reports that sporadic fighting and loyalist sniper activity continues in and around Tripoli, particularly in the district surrounding Colonel Qaddafi’s fortified compound of Bab-al-Abiziya.

•   Colonel Qaddafi, wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, remains at large. According to NYT and Reuters, Qaddafi has released several defiant statements since the 23rd of August, goading rebels on issues on unity and vowing to fight to the end, NYT also reports that NATO is providing the rebels assistance in their search for Col. Qaddafi.  Al-Jazeera reports that the National Transitional Council (NTC) has placed a $1.7 million dollar bounty on Col. Qaddafi, aiming to expedite his capture.

•   Considering the Syrian government continuing its violent crackdown on protestors, BBC news reports that the United States and European Union have proposed a UN resolution which would tighten sanctions on Syrian oil sales and the financial assets of Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad and other elites in the Syrian regime.

•   The move comes after President Obama and several other world leaders explicitly called for President Assad to step down.  On August 18, the White House issued an executive order which strengthens US sanctions on Syrian assets, Al-Jazeera reports that the European Union is looking to pursue a similar course of action.

•   On Tuesday, the United Nations Human Rights Council dispatched a team to investigate what it called “systematic human rights violations” by the Syrian government, with the UN claiming that some 2,200 civilians have been killed in the crackdown by Syrian military and internal security forces since the beginning of the protests.

•   Al-Jazeera reported that Syrian security forces, including armored elements, have resumed their assault of the city Deir ez Zour.

DRC

•   The upcoming November elections continue to heat up in DRC. With over 32 million registered voters, all eyes will be on DRC to ensure transparency and accountability. However questions of legitimacy continue to be raised, especially since the announcement by the ruling People’s Party for Reconstruction and Democracy that incumbent President Joseph Kabila will be their nominee.  Although, Kabila has not announced his official candidacy, he is expected to accept the nomination. Kabila first came to power in 2001 following the assassination of his father, Laurent-Desire Kabila, and won Congo’s first democratic election in 2006. However, he remains a controversial player on the Congolese political scene as violence and rape perpetuated by militia and rebel groups has continues in the eastern region of the country despite the official end of the Second Congo War in 2003. He also recently proposed constitutional changes to make the presidential election a one-round, winner-take-all poll. Despite these factors, President Obama has expressed confidence in the country’s ability to hold ‘free and fair’ elections in November. U.S. Ambassador James Entwistle said recently, "Everything the United States is doing in the Democratic Republic of Congo is designed to help ensure that what happened in and to that country in the late ’90s and the early 2000s, statistically the worst war since World War II, is to make sure that it never happens again and to help them recover from it." How this will be implemented on the ground, however, remains a large question.

•   The first democratic elections in 2006 were among the most expensive and expansive in Africa at the time with security before and during the elections provided by MONUSCO (the UN mission in DRC) and the international community providing 80% of election funding. The 2011 elections have so far been met with little international attention or funding, with only 40% of election funds donated at this time. This could by caused by donor fatigue or apathy, but it could prove to be an obstacle to legitimate elections in November.

•   The debate over the actual affects of the Dodd-Frank provision on conflict minerals has continued since David Aronson’s Op-Ed in the New York Times "How Congress Devestated Congo" was published. Experts have come forward in favor of the piece, agreeing that section 1502 has created a de facto embargo on the mineral trade in Congo and has actually benefitted abusive military commanders, while others have expressed disagreement with the piece and believe section 1502 is creating tangible change on the ground. Opponents to the conflict-minerals only approach say there needs to be a more comprehensive reform narrative including the security sector, governance, and civil society. 

Check out the following articles to track the debate:

Congo-Siasa- (http://congosiasa.blogspot.com/2011/08/thoughts-about-conflict-   minerals.html),

Enough Project- (http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/facts-and-opportunities-conflict-minerals-and-livelihoods),

Texas in Africa- (http://texasinafrica.blogspot.com/2011/08/dodd-frank-catastrophe.html)

David Aronson- (http://www.congoresources.org/2011/08/response-to-enough.html#more)

Sudan

•   The New York Times reported on August 24th  that the Satellite Sentinel Project monitoring Sudan says it has found new evidence of mass graves in the Nuba Mountains region, where the government has recently waged a fierce campaign to stamp out rebels. The Enough Project updated their report saying that the Satellite Sentinel Project has confirmed the evidence of mass graves and systematic mass killings of civilians in South Kordofan. 

•   Sudan’s president Omar Al-Bashir announced a temporary ceasefire in the country’s war-stricken state of South Kordofan, two days after talks with the rebels Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) dissolved in disagreement.. The armed opposition Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) has voiced skepticism in reaction to a truce declared by Sudan’s president Omar Al-Bashir in South Kordofan State, saying the move aims to deflect attention from abuses and an imminent military offensive.

•   South Sudan’s army on Tuesday announced it expelled militia forces from the strategic town of Kaka, which was described as a major victory for the newly established state.

•   An estimated 4,000 refugees from Sudan’s South Kordofan State have arrived in South Sudan’s Unity State, according to the UN as fighting between Sudan’s military and the opposition group the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) enters its eleventh week.

The education update is produced every Thursday to update STAND members and the advocacy community about developments with regards to genocide and crimes against humanity.  For more information contact the following:

Education Coordinator: Sean Langberg education@standnow.org

Sudan Education Coordiator: Emma Smith esmith@standnow.org

DRC Education Coordinator: Siobhan Kelly skelley@standnow.org

Emerging Crises Education Coordinator: Tom Dolzall tdolzall@standnow.org

"For those who take the stand for freedom and honor."

By Grassroots Coordinator Matthew Lloyd-Thomas

I first visited Tuol Sleng, the notorious prison that played a role in the deaths of some 20,000 Cambodians. I’m sure that plenty of you have followed the trial of Duch, the man who ran the prison during the four years of the Khmer Rouge. Just as Auschwitz is an enduring testament to the brutality of the Holocaust, so too is Tuol Sleng to the Cambodian Genocide. Only a moment after stepping off the street into the prison, I entered a room containing a single bed and a chain. For the four years that the Khmer Rouge controlled Cambodia, so-called VIP political prisoners, accused of spying for the CIA or KGB, were chained to the bed and beaten, often to death. In the other buildings were cells for less important prisoners measuring one by two meters. Those, perhaps, are the most chilling. Stepping into the small, dark cell, I could almost feel the beaten and starved prisoners around me, hear their breath, and sense the terror at what they surely knew their fate to be.

Later in the afternoon, I traveled outside of Phnom Penh to the Choeung Ek, a site where the prisoners of Tuol Sleng were sent for execution. Located amongst quiet farms in the lush Cambodian countryside, it is hard to imagine that only a few decades ago, thousands of people were killed there. Walking into the fields, the first, and most prominent, object is a large Buddhist stupa filled with 5,000 skulls exhumed from the surrounding mass graves. In the darkening light of the early evening, it was a thoroughly macabre sight that was followed by an equally macabre walk amongst the mass graves. While they now only appear as rather large holes filled with grass, they once held hundreds of bodies each. Our guide explained to me how most were killed. They were forced to kneel beside the grave and were then beaten, in the head, with, most frequently, an axe. The Khmer Rouge did not believe that prisoners were worth wasting bullets on. My guide’s brother, by the way, was a victim of the genocide. And while the graves have been exhumed, the dead still litter Choeung Ek. As it is the rainy season, bones rise above the mud, reminding the visitor of the ubiquitous nature of the brutality. Perhaps most disturbing, though, was the tree that was used to throw babies against. Khmer Rouge soldiers would hold babies by their feet and fling their heads into the tree before discarding them in a nearby mass grave. The black stain of dried blood is still on the tree.

These, though, are all graphic details that we have encountered before in books on any number of genocides. They are not the most important things when we consider places like Tuol Sleng and the Killing Fields.

What is more important, rather, is looking ahead and realizing that in the tragedy of the past lies a call to action in the present. It is easy, in our movement, to forget what we are working for. In the midst of policy briefs, metrics, frustrating emails and long hours that can seem unappreciated, places like Tuol Sleng all too often escape our consideration. Their chilling nature, though, is necessary to, on occasion, return to, for it reminds us of why our work is important, and why it is worth losing sleep over.

At the bottom of a stairwell at Tuol Sleng, people from around the world have written messages in languages from Japanese to Khmer to English. Two messages, written next to each other, stood out to me. The first read, "Don’t let shit like this ever happen again. Please!" It is easy to forget that we are at the forefront of fulfilling this request. As I said earlier, the day-to-day business of STAND, more often than not, does not allow us time to think about the historic nature of our work. As I walked through Tuol Sleng, though, my understanding of STAND went beyond "creating a permanent anti-genocide constituency" to a more simplistic, but perhaps more effective idea: making sure that shit like this doesn’t ever happen again.

As I’ve alluded to, though, our work often goes unappreciated. We struggle to get people to meetings. Convincing people to lobby is impossible. Ensuring that a chapter stays active is a superhuman task. And amidst all this, we don’t have much more than our small group of activists for support. Even our parents tire of hearing about the DRC and South Kordofan. Our small victories, like getting a chapter started, don’t make headlines and convincing our friends of the importance of our work is, at the least, difficult. But at Tuol Sleng someone wrote on a wall beneath a stairwell, "For those who take the stand for freedom and honor." That one sentence is all the support I will ever need. Perhaps an email fails to communicate the significance I felt from these few words, but all I can say is that at that moment, in an uncharacteristic surge of optimism, I truly believed King’s statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Lobby Day Experiences

By Chapter Leader Esther Smith

Prior to speaking with my Alaskan politicians, I had concocted several potential scenarios. The first was hardly imaginative, but the most hoped for: complete success and reception regarding anti-genocidal activism. The second wasn’t hoped for, but far more likely: polite dialogue and half-hearted promises of action. And, the third was least liked and (in my nervous mind) most likely: complete rejection and utter embarrassment for my first attempts at lobbying. With three close STAND friends—Katy Lindquist (Colby College), Sonia Sen (U. of Arizona), and Danny Hirschel-Burns (Swarthmore College)—I spent the night before anxiously reading materials about South Kordofan and memorizing points of interest. I perused my Senators’ history of anti-genocidal action, crafting unique ways to remember the specifics of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act and the details of slaughter in the Nuba Mountains.
 
So, admittedly, I had butterflies doing gymnastics in my stomach as Capitol Hill came into sight on Monday, August 1st. Despite my feigned confidence, I expected apathy—remembering Congressional disinterest or blatant opposition to past efforts in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Darfur. I was absolutely shocked, as one can imagine, when my dream, first scenario was realized. As an Alaskan resident, I was graced by opportunistic meetings with not just one, but two of my Senatorial offices. Additionally—and most excellently—I personally spoke with both of my Senators. The success story—the meeting that was most impressionable and valuable—is the one I want to relay here.
 
Although STANDcamp offered me a first opportunity for lobbying, I have met and spoken with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in the past. Slight political disagreements aside, she has always been amicable, kind, and incredibly receptive to the pleas (or criticisms) of her constituency. I was delighted that her very values seemed to transcend into her staff, counsel members, and interns. Upon arrival a few minutes prior to the 10:00AM meeting, I chatted with her office staff about Alaskan locations, sports, etc. With great delight, and without delay, I was introduced to Nathan S. Bergerbest (Senior Counsel for Senator Murkowski). Mr. Bergerbest quickly became (and has continued to be) a valuable asset in communication with my Senator.
 
Maintaining what I hoped was respectful brevity (accompanied by succinct analysis), I explained the purpose of my visit—speaking about STAND’s mission, the reality of South Kordofon, and the measures we’d like implemented. In addition, I pointed out Senator Murkowski’s past history of involvement with human rights legislation (drawing parallels to the U.S.’s relationship with Darfur, Sudan). Mr. Bergerbest comfortably dialogued with me on the subject of South Kordofan, sustaining my sneaking hope that the meeting would yield tangible support. As the conversation progressed, he expressed wonder at STAND’s advocacy and appreciation for youth activism.
 
Wonderfully, the meeting did not end with the conclusion of our conversation—but continued with several minutes of audience with Senator Lisa Murkowski. Similar to Mr. Bergerbest in reaction, she was delighted by our meeting and supportive of further action. Specifically, her office was requesting further information regarding the creation of a sign-on letter that would petition the United Nations to investigate Omar Al-Bashir’s violence in South Kordofan. After digressing and concluding with pleasantries that surrounded local Alaskan dives and activities, I departed with uninhibited hope and the promise of future communication. 

And, I’m happy to report that the following interaction (generated through e-mail) hasn’t punctured that buoyant balloon of hope (if I can be so dramatic in diction). The last few weeks have been filled with purposeful communication between Mr. Bergerbest and myself, with a few noteworthy additional contacts. In particular, I have contacted (and e-mailed with) Allyson Neville-Morgan (the Senior Advocacy Associate at GI-Net) and Darren Fenwick (the Senior Manager of Government Affairs at Enough). The four of us—and countless others, I’m sure—are focusing on a draft letter to the United Nations. This week, in addition, I will be included in a conference call with several of the people listed above. All of this in mind, I am relentlessly excited for STAND’s future.
 
Indubitably, my first experience with lobbying was remarkably rewarding and overwhelmingly successful. As a college student, Alaskan voter, and human rights activist, I felt like I had a direct voice. I am honored to be a part of a political process that has the potential to shape global history in a way that respects and promotes human rights.

Esther Smith
President of STAND at
Hawaii Pacific University

The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the STAND.