10. Syrian forces battle for control of Homs
9. GCC calls meeting to prevent massacre of Homs
8. Gulf-EU meeting calls for Syrian political settlement
7. Kerry calls for US-Russia talks on Syria
6. US companies investing in Burma must show respect for human rights
5. Brazilian police break up protests
4. Protests overshadow football finals in Brazil
3. Peacekeepers deployed in Mali
Written by Natasha Kieval, Programs Intern
Happy 4th of July! On this revered American holiday, we celebrate our independence from Great Britain. America is often called the “Land of the Free,” but the word “freedom” is often problematic – what exactly does it mean?
According to Dictionary.com, freedom is “the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.”
Freedom House derives its definition of freedom from assessing two categories: political rights and civil rights. Each year, it releases its “Freedom in the World” report, ranking each nation in the world as “free,” “partly free,” or “not free.” For methodology and more details on how these rankings are reached, click here.
The US is categorized as “free,” receiving the highest rankings in both the categories of political rights and civil rights. In these rankings, it is joined by many other countries, including Austria, Barbados, Estonia, and Norway.
Syria, in the middle of major conflict, was categorized as “not free” and given the worst possible ratings in both categories. Syria saw a “decline in freedom” this year, which Freedom House attributed to increased sectarian violence and targeted attacks on opposition Sunni Muslims.
Sudan was also given the worst possible ratings in both the civil and political rights categories, due to the “government’s elements of both radical Islamism and traditional military junta.” South Sudan was ranked slightly higher, but was also categorized as “not free.”
Freedom House also attributed Congo’s categorization as “not free” to its armed conflicts.
In contrast, Burma was one of the world’s countries that made the most gains in freedom. Though it is still classified as “not free,” the successful participation of the opposition party in national elections improved its rankings. Ethnic violence as well as repressive governmental actions prevent it from being classified as “partly free.” It now has better rankings than China in both the categories of political rights and civil rights.
Of our post-conflict areas, Cambodia and Rwanda were ranked not free, and Armenia and Bosnia were ranked partly free. Of our developing conflict areas, Mali and Russia were ranked not free, Turkey was ranked partly free, and Brazil was ranked free. Though in these places the risk of mass atrocity is low, other problems persist that are not addressed by this report.
What does this all mean? Personally, I’m not sure I completely agree with Freedom House’s rankings or definition. The US is not the perfect model of freedom, and to receive the best rankings with little critical discussion seems a little too idealistic. I also feel there are factors left out of the definition of freedom – social mobility and economic rights are just two things I would include in my definition. Societies that prioritize the wealthy and don’t allow for personal growth are not free in my mind, nor are nations that don’t strive towards equality and protection for all citizens, economically and politically.
What does freedom mean to you? We asked a few members of STAND:
“To me, freedom is, and always will be a process rather than an end-goal. There is always more work to be done and more ways to become more and more free. Boiling lived experiences of entire nations to “free,” “partly free,” and “not free” can minimize the nuances of what it truly means to be free, not to mention how it implies sweeping generalizations and comparisons. Political rights and civil liberties are certainly important when discussing freedom, but there are so many other dimensions that go into it. Do social conventions inhibit or promote the political rights and civil liberties that exist in a society? Does socioeconomic status? Are people aware of these rights and liberties? Designating a country as “free” makes it seem as though work is complete, when in fact it is always ongoing, even in nations that have perfect scores.”- Haley Aubuchon, Development Intern
“Liberation from oppressive systems including those that privilege a few and marginalize most and a realization of complex human security in the context of a positive peace.” – Sean Langberg, Education Coordinator
“Freedom, in it’s purest form, is a lack of all types of oppression from hierarchies of power in conjunction with a societal effort to level inequalities and provide the conditions for individuals to pursue the way in which the wish to live.” – Danny Hirschel-Burns, Policy Coordinator
Do you have thoughts on the meaning of freedom? Or an opinion on the Freedom House report? Feel free to write something and email us at infoatstandnow@gmail.com.
To see the full report, visit the Freedom House website.
This post is an excerpt from the CRS report “Armed Conflict in Syria: US and International Response,” and is the third post in our series “#Syriasly” which examines the conflict from a variety of perspectives. This week, we outline the US’s response to date. Check out our previous posts from a Syrian-American activist’s perspective and an overview of the conflict.
Since March 2011, U.S. unilateral and multilateral policy initiatives toward the Syrian civil war have sought to stop the violence, push for the departure of President Asad, and begin a political transition to a more democratic form of government. During the conflict’s initial phase, when President Asad met non-violent civil protest with repressive force, the Administration denounced the regime’s violent measures, expanded existing U.S. sanctions on Syrian government officials, and insisted that the government enact substantive political reforms to meet protestor demands. After President Asad continued his strategy of violently suppressing dissent while refusing to resign, the Administration called for Asad’s resignation in August 2011. For the next year, U.S. officials attempted to work multilaterally through the United Nations to sanction the regime, reach a cease-fire, and endorse a political transition plan. All of these efforts were stymied by Russian and Chinese rejections of such proposals at the Security Council and unabated violence on the ground inside Syria.
After a year of conflict and without any consensus at the United Nations Security Council on approaches to end the violence, President Obama continued to pursue primarily non-military approaches toward the civil war. The White House continued to reject calls for unilateral U.S. military intervention or lethal support to rebel forces. However, during the summer of 2012, reports of alleged Asad regime preparation of munitions with chemical agents led President Obama to remark that the movement or use of such agents would constitute a “red line” and cause him to change his calculus.
With international attempts having failed at the baseline goal of bringing about a durable ceasefire, U.S. officials focused more intently on unifying the Syrian opposition. From September 2012 to February 2013, U.S. policy concentrated heavily on helping lay the foundation for a more unified political and armed opposition that could serve as a recipient of potentially greater U.S. and international support. The United States also took preliminary steps to support the defense of states bordering Syria, such as Turkey and Jordan, with the deployment of Patriot missile batteries to the former and small contingents of U.S. military personnel to the latter.
By the spring of 2013, as the death toll from the conflict had surpassed 70,000 and refugee outflows had reached over a million Syrians, the United States expanded humanitarian aid to U.N. agencies and neighboring states while providing limited, non-lethal assistance to the newly formed Syrian Opposition Coalition. By April 2013, reports that the Administration may be considering lethal assistance also surfaced. Meanwhile, in May 2013, the United States and Russia agreed to jointly work toward convening a peace conference in Geneva in the hopes of bringing Syrian combatants to the negotiating table. However, the lifting of the European arms embargo, reports of new Russian weapons shipments, Hezbollah’s acknowledgement of its involvement in the conflict, and indications of continued infighting among opposition groups cast some doubt on the likelihood of successful negotiations.
The June 2013 confirmation by U.S. intelligence of limited chemical weapons use appears to have created a new inflection point. In the words of White House officials, “The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has.” Congress and the Administration may now debate a new direction in U.S. policy as Syria’s war drags on.[Update: This report was published on June 13, and since then President Obama has decided to provide arms to the Syrian opposition.]
For a timeline of US policy toward Syria as well as a discussion of future policy options, read the full report.
Written by Natasha Kieval, Programs Intern
In recent years, Burma has taken some steps towards a more liberal government: opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was released from prison and elected to parliament, press restrictions have been lifted, and new laws have been enacted to expand labor rights and eliminate the use of child soldiers. Though these steps are criticized for being incomplete or ignored, President Sein has said that Burma cannot be expected to be more democratic yet as it is a work in progress. In light of these reforms, in the past 2 years the US government has eased its sanctions on Burma, including those on 4 major Burmese banks. However, many believe that the US has moved too quickly in removing these sanctions, instead believing that the US should use its leverage to persuade the Burmese government to reduce its violence.
Burma’s continued conflict between its various ethnic groups and the military government has resulted in a horrifying humanitarian crisis. According to the US Campaign for Burma, the government has used “forced labor, forced displacement, sexual violence, and executions” to eliminate opposition. Of the 30 armed ethnic groups in the country, some have signed ceasefire agreements with the government, though there have been calls for a national dialogue to solve these issues. The national army has also broken a ceasefire agreement with the Kachin people.
Last week, the Wilson Center hosted a delegation from the Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, the bicameral Burmese parliament. Among the delegates was Shwe Mann, the speaker of the Pyithu Hluttaw, the lower house. Mann spoke about his interest in learning from the United States about ideas of power sharing. However, when he was asked directly about the 2008 constitution and its provisions that protect military power, his response was simply that it is being reviewed. The 2008 constitution requires that 25% of the parliament to automatically be held by the military, and all presidents of Burma must have military experience. The ongoing power of the military in the Burmese government is widely criticized, and Mann avoided the question. Other issues that were brought up during the question and answer session included land confiscation by the government, a two child policy for Rohingya Muslims, and ethnic separation. Mann, who fielded the majority of the questions, demonstrated his skill in avoiding addressing these issues, repeating the words “we are reviewing” several times.
It is clear that Burma has a long road ahead as it works towards a more inclusive government. However, not all news from Burma is negative. President Sein has made significant efforts to liberalize the country, which has generated hope for a more democratic Burma among the international community, the US government, Burma watchers, and more. Mann also spoke of a women’s protection law that is being discussed, which would be a step in the right direction. If you are interested in learning more about Burma’s current political situation, check out this New York Times article and the US Campaign for Burma.
This post, written by Natasha Kieval, Programs Intern, is the first in our new series focusing on post-conflict countries.
Many people know of the genocide that happened in Cambodia in the 1970s. Over 2 million Cambodians were killed in a movement led by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge communist government. Read STAND’s history of the genocide here. Today, Cambodia’s government is led by Prime Minister Hun Sen of the Cambodian People’s Party. Though Cambodia is a parliamentary, representative democracy on paper, in the past year over 1 million people have been forced out of work and their homes by the government, according to the US House of Representatives.
Last week, Amnesty International screened the documentary “Even a Bird Needs a Nest,” which focuses on residents in the Boeung Kak district of the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh. Civilians in this area have been forcibly evicted from their homes by the corrupt government, which is offering the land to powerful companies for commercial development. Meanwhile, the residents of these homes are made to live in relocation camps that do not provide even the most basic services. The film focuses on a strong group of women that is demonstrating against the government. Says one woman: “People are not afraid of dying. They are afraid of losing their homes.”
Sam Rainsy, leader of the opposition party (SRP), spoke from his exiled location: “This regime is neither democratic nor communistic. We have leaders who consider Cambodia their personal possession.” One civilian said, “I don’t think Pol Pot was as cruel as this government.” The government first asks civilians to negotiate for their homes – offering small monetary compensation. Some have signed negotiations, but never received what they were promised. If civilians refuse to negotiate, the government floods their homes or pumps sand in until they are ruined and the residents are forced to leave. Relocation camps that are set up for evicted citizens provide few amenities. A Cambodian at the Ang Andong relocation camp said: “I’ve lived here for 5 years. No one has come to ask me if I’m okay. I have no hatred or fear left.” When asked about the evictions, Prime Minister Hun Sen said only that Cambodia’s biggest problem is the wealth gap, and “we can’t do anything about it.”
Protesters have taken to the streets, demonstrating against the government. A group of residents from Boeung Kak even gathered outside of the French embassy to beg for help. Many of the leaders of these protests have been arrested. Mu Sochua, an elected member of the SRP in the parliament, was one such protester. As she was taken away, she said, “I am very hopeful that one day our country will be united.”
It has been 34 years since the genocide in Cambodia came to an end. Though progress has been made, it is clear that the government is still persecuting its civilians, which although is not outright killing, could be seen as another kind of mass atrocity. STAND will continue to analyze post-conflict areas in the coming weeks – make sure to check back!
10. During final remarks as US ambassador to the UN,Susan Rice says history will “judge harshly” Security Council inaction in Syria
9. Syrian foreign minister says the government will attend peace talks in Geneva to form a unity government, not allow transfer of power
8. Syrian conflict continues to spill over into Lebanon, including bus passengers stabbed in Beirut and Nusra Front rebels attacking the Lebanese army.
7. Damascus hit by suicide attack near the Maryameye Orthodox Church, at least 4 dead
6. Observatory for Human Rights claims the death toll in Syria has topped 100,000
5. Over 150,000 government protests have occurred in Brazil (check back tomorrow for more details!) and protests continue despite government concessions
4. Turkey’s EU bid delayed amid reports of arrests connected to recent protests
3. South Sudan closer to obtaining oil pipeline
2. Tribal clashes kill at least 40 people near Darfur
1. Cambodia begins election campaign that is expected to continue the reign of Prime Minister Hun Sen
This post was written by Rana Dbeis, vice president of Save our Syrian Freedom and an intern at the Syrian-American Alliance. It is the second post in our series “#Syriasly” that presents the Syrian conflict from a variety of perspectives. Check our our first post in this series here.
Three years ago, I would jump out of my chair in excitement when I heard the word “Syria” in the news. When I would come across the word in a textbook or book, I would re-read the lines over and over again in awe at the fact that my country was actually mentioned. Pathetic, I know, but Syria was always fairly calm compared to its surrounding regions. Now, you can’t come across a single media outlet without seeing or hearing the word Syria mentioned at least once or twice. If only it was mentioned in a positive light. But here I am two and half years later, contemplating what the next event for Syria should be. This is a normal day in the life of Syrian-American activist.
I am originally from Hama, Syria but I was born and raised in Phoenix, Arizona, which is where I currently reside. I attend Arizona State University, yes, the number one party school in the nation. But my college experience has been anything but a party. At the start of my sophomore year, my friend and I founded a student organization called Save Our Syrian Freedom (SOS Freedom). As vice president of this organization, the majority of my time spent outside of school has been centered around Syria. My experience this past year through my work has been stressful at times, but nevertheless, successful.
As an organization we have two goals: to spread awareness to the general public and to raise money for the victims of this crisis. Our two goals go hand in hand; as people become more aware of the severity of the crisis, they will be more inclined to donate. To raise awareness, we hold walks, flash freeze mobs, and peaceful protests. We simultaneously hand out flyers that direct people to various websites where they can donate to the victims. Even though the conflict has been ongoing for two years, some people still have no idea about what’s happening. While some people show genuine interest by stopping and asking questions, others simply don’t care. That’s what makes my job so stressful—getting people to actually care. In one year, at the crux of my activism, my organization was able to raise over 9,000 dollars for Syrian orphans and refugees across the Middle East through our awareness and fundraising events.
As our organization grows, I hope to educate more people about the conflict and garner more financial support through our various events. Even though the majority of people do not seem to care, it’s the occasional caring stranger who restores my faith in humanity.
No matter how long it takes, I won’t give up on Syria.
By Natasha Kieval, STAND Programs Intern
Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer Prize winning book A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, is Obama’s pick as the new US Ambassador to the United Nations. Her book, which details US knowledge but subsequent inaction during episodes of genocides such as Rwanda, inspired Georgetown students to create STAND and guide our mission. Power has been a leading advocate in increasing public awareness of genocide and human rights abuses. STAND is excited about Power’s nomination considering her history as a leading advocate of human rights, and we hope she works with her colleagues at the United Nations to protect civilians and pursue nonviolent solutions to conflict. Check out this brief bio of Power below!
Power began her career as a journalist, covering the Bosnian genocide among other topics during the Yugoslav Wars. She then served as the Founding Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Power was Obama’s senior foreign policy advisor during his presidential campaign until 2008, when she resigned amid controversy, after she referred to Hillary Clinton as a “monster.” That same year, she joined the Obama State Department transition team, was named Special Assistant to President Obama, and became the Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the National Security Council. In 2012, she was chosen by Obama to chair the newly created Atrocities Prevention Board.
During her career, Power has focused on UN reform, the promotion of women and LGBT rights, and the protection of religious freedoms. She has campaigned against human trafficking and worked to promote human rights and democracy in the Middle East, North Africa, Sudan, and Burma. She was considered key in persuading President Obama to intervene in Libya in 2011.
Power’s history of advocating for more international action in cases of mass atrocities has led to speculation on whether the Obama administration will now pursue a more active, interventionist foreign policy. However, she has also referred to the “toolbox” of foreign policy options for the US government, including economic sanctions, ICC referrals, and bans on travel for human rights abusers instead of intervention. Her main task will be to face the crisis in Syria. While some predict that Power, an outspoken woman who started her career observing genocide in Bosnia, will advocate for increased intervention, others are skeptical that her appointment will inspire more action, citing Obama’s resistance to intervention. Power’s previous calls for intervention have also been for multilateral, international coalitions, which appear unlikely in the case of Syria. The story will unfold as her career as UN Ambassador begins in July (after Senate confirmation) – stay tuned!
“With great Power comes great responsibility.” We want to hold Samantha Power, the new US Ambassador to the UN, accountable for making atrocities prevention and response a priority. Join us in showing Samantha Power that we are paying attention by using her own words as a call to ACTION!
It’s simple: pick out a quote, take a picture, and tweet, email or post the picture to us with#AccountablePower. We’ll put all the pictures together and get them to her with our list of policy demands once she takes her position in July. Head to http://bit.ly/14oEVQd to find out more details & choose a quote. We can’t wait to see your faces!
This post, written by Natasha Kieval, STAND Programs Intern, details the ongoing conflict between Sudan and South Sudan, specifially that in the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile.
Last week the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing on the Sudans, government-sponsored violence, and the extent of the humanitarian crisis that subsequently emerges. Peace negotiations regarding Darfur are continuing in Doha. Since 2011, there has also been ongoing conflict in the southern Sudanese states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, of which the principal victims are civilians. Although they were part of the southern struggle for liberation, these two states were treated differently during the negotiations of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) and are now considered part of the north, without self-determination. Today’s conflicts arise between Khartoum’s government forces (SAF) and opposition groups including the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N). The SAF also recruits poorly trained local militias that pit communities against each other. The conflicts between the government and the opposition have largely reached a stalemate which has caused the government to resort to aerial bombardment. This bombardment not only kills civilians but destroys the land, making the people unable to farm and feed themselves. As a result of the violence and systematic discrimination, 95% of people in South Kordofan have less than 1 meal per day, and this year, 1 in 5 households will experience a large gap in accessibility to food. The government is also preventing humanitarian access to most opposition-controlled areas. There have also been reports of increased ethnic tensions, especially in the Jonglei state of South Sudan. Currently, 2.3 million Darfuris are displaced, including 300,000 refugees in Chad and 1.5 million people are displaced in the state of South Kordofan. In total, 5 million Sudanese need humanitarian assistance.
According to Nancy Lindborg of USAID, the main drivers of the conflict include loss of oil revenue due to the separation (Sudan lost 75% of its revenue when South Sudan separated) and accusations by both sides that the other is supporting armed groups. John Prendergast, of the Enough Project, spoke about what the US government can do to help end the conflict: promote a comprehensive peace, support the Sudanese Revolutionary Front (SRF), which is a coalition of opposition groups, and support independent news and TV. Prendergast also suggested enhancing coalition building and helping civil administration groups to build institutional capacity. E.J. Hogendoorn of the International Crisis Group added that any post-Bashir transitional government must include the current government, the National Congress Party (NCP). Current Sudanese President Bashir has gone back and forth on whether he will seek re-election in 2015. The NCP is also experiencing economic difficulty, but it remains in power and continues to pursue violence.
While conflicts like that in Sudan often seem out-of-reach and unchangeable, it is important to remember how vital students are in bringing attention to them. One recurring theme during the hearing was the importance of students’ involvement in publicizing the Sudan conflict. This was mentioned by not only activist John Prendergast but also Rep. Frank Wolf. Members of Congress are listening, and they want to hear your voice. Don’t just stand by, stand up!
This post, written by Natasha Kieval, STAND Programs Intern, is the second in our blog series “Areas to Watch,” which covers developing conflicts. Read our first post about Turkey.
The international community has expressed increasing concerns about Russia’s human rights record. Russia’s continuous support for the Assad regime and transfer of heavy weapons has been criticized by both the US and other European countries. The Russian government’s incarceration of members of Pussy Riot, its assistance to Iran’s nuclear program, and its 2008 invasion and subsequent occupation of Georgia have also led to international criticism. Within Russia, human rights violations are also occurring. In 2012, Putin signed a law that forces NGOs to register as “foreign agents”. Most recently, the government announced that it will prohibit adoption by foreign countries that support same-sex marriage. Ongoing conflict exists in Dagestan and Chechnya, which have struggled to maintain a separate identity from Russia. Since 1999, between 3,000 and 5,000 people have “disappeared” from Chechnya. There have been reports of torture and abuse committed by the Russian government against Chechens.
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing entitled “A Dangerous Slide Backwards: Russia’s Deteriorating Human Rights Situation.” Frank Jannuzi from Amnesty International stated that “freedom is under assault” in Russia, referencing the outlaw of LGBT activism as well as a general stifling of anyone who criticizes Putin. Jannuzi emphasized that although this crackdown is more pronounced in certain regions, such as the North Caucasus, this is not just a crackdown on fringe groups, but rather a widespread suppression of Russian human rights. Leon Aron from the American Enterprise Institute spoke of the implications of this repression: a poor US/Russia relationship and an increase in Russia’s authoritarianism. Aron also stated that NGOs promote political processes and active political participation, and he suggested that the country will stagnate without them.
Addressing the issue of how the US should respond to this obvious crackdown on human rights, Stephen Sestanovich from the Council on Foreign Relations stated that the US should stay out of Russia’s political struggle, using the logic that it is not the role of the US to enforce democratic rule of law. However, according to Sestanovich, the US should emphasize the international norm that NGOs are not foreign agents and focus on the need for support for Russian NGOs by the Russian people themselves. Jannuzi urged the Senators to continue to shine a spotlight on this issue both domestically and internationally.
With Putin’s unwavering support of the Assad regime, crackdown on NGOs, and increasing authoritarianism, Russia is an important country to watch. To learn more about Russia’s human rights violations, check out Amnesty International’s timeline.
