The student-led movement to end mass atrocities.

Author Archives: Sonia Sen

LGBTI Refugees: The Added Struggle

Posted on by

This post was written by Natasha Kieval, STAND Programs Intern. It is a reflection on World Refugee Day and focuses on the extra difficulties that LGBTI refugees face.

Today is World Refugee Day, the 62nd anniversary of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, which defined the term “refugee” as well as the rights and the responsibilities of states to refugees. According to the UN, every minute 8 people leave their country to escape persecution or terror. At the end of 2011, an estimated 43 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced, and 46% of refugees were children.

As crises such as that in Syria continue, the issue of refugees is an aspect of conflict not to be forgotten. Currently, over 1.6 million Syrians are being hosted by foreign countries. The flow of refugees has wildly escalated in recent months, as over 1 million of these refugees have been displaced since January 2013. Over 75% of the Syrian refugees are women and children. To learn more about the refugee situation in Syria, visit the UNHCR website.

This refugee crisis is not unique to Syria. In the Jonglei state of South Sudan, 120,000 refugees are being denied aid by the authorities as the government says it is difficult to separate the civilians from the rebels. Over 250,000 Darfuris are still living in refugee camps in Chad.

All refugees face a difficult situation, but Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Intersex (LGBTI) refugees face added challenges. Many refugees who flee persecution go to countries where homosexuality is not generally accepted, such as Uganda. As of August 2012, Uganda holds over 190,000 refugees. This is the same nation that has threatened since 2009 to pass a law that makes a consenual hoomosexual relationship punishable with life in prison.

On Monday, the Organization for Refuge, Asylum and Migration (ORAM) held an event detailing the struggles of LGBTI refugees and asylum seekers. Victor Mukasa, a Ugandan human rights defender, told his powerful story of activism and his fight for safety. As a transgendered open lesbian, Mukasa has faced discrimination and harassment for many years. After becoming an LGBTI activist, Mukasa was threatened, but did not want to leave his home country of Uganda. Said Mukasa, “I felt like a prisoner in my own country.” After his house was raided by the government and his family was endangered due to his activism, he sought asylum in the United States. His family continues to be unsafe. Mukasa is angry about his experience as a refugee in the United States. While he waited for asylum approval, he could not afford to eat and was not allowed to work. Mukasa spoke of feeling a loss of his dignity – he lost everything when he became a refugee. “I am a human rights defender. That is my passion. Forced to leave Uganda – I feel useless to my people,” he says. Read more of Mukasa’s story here.

To be officially labeled as a refugee, a person must first go through “refugee status determination.” This includes being interviewed by a government employee or police officer and explaining why he/she should be considered a refugee. Many LGBTI refugees either have not accepted themselves as LGBTI or are afraid to share the truth with a foreign official. For this reason, many tell a fabricated story and then are denied refugee status. Others encounter unsympathetic officials.

Once accepted as a refugee, some LGBTI people face issues in refugee camps, such as hostile communities that don’t accept homosexuality. People are forced to become refugees because they are fleeing persecution or terror, and LGBTI refugees often have the added struggle of dealing with being LGBTI in an unwelcoming community. The majority of LGBTI asylum seekers seek temporary relocation – they do not wish to become refugees, but are fleeing threats to themselves or their families.

Neil Grungras of ORAM spoke of a spot of hope on this issue – the international dialogue has shifted, now acknowledging LGBTI issues as human rights issues, not only social issues. On World Refugee Day, it is important to remember its relevance not only in the context of current conflicts like Syria, but to remember the added struggle that LGBTI refugees face in their quest for safety.

#Syriasly: 93,000 Dead: How We Got Here

Posted on by

This post was written by Sean Langberg, our Education Coordinator, and Danny Hirschel-Burns, our Policy Coordinator. It is the first in our new blog series, #Syriasly, which presents a variety of perspectives on the Syrian conflict. This post provides an overview.   

On March 11, 2012, at least 45 women and children were stabbed and burned to death in Homs, a city in western Syria.  Hours prior, the United Nations special envoy to Syria, Kofi Annan, met with Bashar al-Assad in an effort to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict.  At least fifteen other massacres have taken place since then in the Syrian crisis, including one on June 13th during which Syrian opposition fighters killed 60 Shi’ites in Hatla, including a mix of women and children.  Civilian deaths only intensified as the conflict shifted from a series of peaceful protests to a brutal crackdown.

The conflict began in March 2011 as protests in Southwest Asia and North Africa came and went as part of the Arab Spring.  It started as a series of demonstrations against the Bashar al-Assad regime that has been in power since 2000, but his father, Hafez al-Assad, also led an authoritarian regime that resorted to violence as a means of social and political control.  Protests quickly spread across the country drawing a harsh and escalated police response.  The conflict gradually diverged from other uprisings such as the ones in Tunisia and Egypt and took on qualities of a violent multi-sided conflict as it became clear Assad was not going to negotiate with protesters.

Now, the conflict involves a complex mix of international and multinational actors that are seeking to influence the outcome of the conflict.  Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia have all, in one way or another, supported the Assad regime.  Iran, which shares a Shi’ite religious tradition with Assad’s Alawites, has provided substantial financial assistance and Revolutionary Guard troops to Syria’s government.  Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon, has similarly contributed troops to Assad.  Finally, Russia represents Syria’s most powerful ally on the international stage.  Russia’s final Mediterranean port lies on the Syrian coast, and a long line of Russian foreign policy thinking sees protests and repression as internal matters that do not merit international involvement.  Russia has provided the Assad regime with some weaponry, but more importantly, it, often along with China, has served as a spoiler to prevent UN action on Syria.  Its position as a permanent member of the Security Council means it has the power to block any potent, UN-sanctioned resolutions on Syria.

The Syrian opposition also has a diverse mix of international allies.  The United States and the European Union have been supportive of the opposition since early in the conflict, consistently engaging with both political and military resistance groups.  The United States, beginning last year, has supplied humanitarian assistance to refugees and “non-lethal” aid to Syrian rebels.  Then this past Thursday, the White House announced that it will begin to arm US-friendly opposition groups.  Additionally, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon have all, to varying degrees, assisted rebel forces.  Qatar and Saudi Arabia have aggressively and openly supported the opposition, and thus far, are the biggest sources of lethal aid.

Check here for a visual representation of important actors

Check here for a map of important actors (zoom out for full map)

Throughout the course of the conflict, governments and international organizations have largely been unable to respond effectively to the multilayered crisis.  Humanitarian aid has been slow to arrive, and when it has, it has often been too little.  This chronic shortage caused the UN to put out its largest call for donations ever to aid Syrian displaced persons and refugees.  Diplomatically, Syria has been a failure for the international community.  UN observer missions attempted to use their presence as a buffer to prevent violence against civilians, but eventually the severity of the conflict made their position untenable.  Lakhdar Brahimi, and Kofi Annan before him, has tried as the UN’s Special Envoy without success to bring the two opposing parties together on a negotiated solution to the conflict.  While Russia has made action in the UN Security Council (UNSC) impossible, peace talks are planned, if not scheduled, in Geneva in the near future.  Finally, some sort of military intervention has been on the table for over a year now, but the various proposals, from a no fly zone to airstrikes have not happened because of a combination of tactical concerns and a serious lack of international political will.  Full scale military intervention has been proposed by a few, but without a UNSC-sanctioned mission, there is not a single power or an international coalition willing to intervene.  The most recent move by the US, arming the Syrian Military Council, is in response to growing calls for US action, but most analysts do not believe these arms will do enough to significantly alter the trajectory of the conflict.

The death toll and refugee count are climbing and shows no sign of slowing down.  The first casualties occurred on March 18, 2011, during the first days of civilian-led protests.  Protests grew, spread, and eventually were subsumed in a violent conflict no longer led by civilians.  As a result, the death toll spiraled upward reaching 60,000 in January 2013 and eventually ~93,000 in April 2013 according to the United Nations.

(Based on data from the Syrian National Council)

Additionally, a second crisis is taking place outside of the country as millions of Syrians flee the violence.  Over 1.1 million refugees have spilled over into Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, and Armenia.  Also, as of September 2012, the number of internally displaced persons was approximately 2 million.

(Based on data as of March 2013)

In the coming weeks, our bloggers will offer several different perspectives about the atrocities in Syria, ranging from U.S. foreign policy to Syrian American students.

Ready for more interventions in Africa? Obama is

Posted on by

This piece, written by Peter Dörrie, originally appeared at Waging Nonviolence. 

While most of the coverage of the recent reshuffle of President Barack Obama’s foreign policy team has been focused on how it will (or won’t) change his administration’s approach to Syria, the continent most affected by it could turn out to be Africa. President Obama designated U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice as his new national security advisor — a post with influence on foreign policy potentially on par with the secretary of state — and nominated Samantha Power, a former journalist and longtime member of his administration, as Rice’s successor at the United Nations.

Both women have strong track records as liberal interventionists. Susan Rice was deeply involved in the Clinton administration’s decision to not intervene in the Rwandan Genocide, a role that she has castigated herself for repeatedly and publicly. Perhaps to make good on this lapse of judgment, she has since become a staunch supporter of U.S. interventions in the name of human rights, with the most prominent example being her role as U.N. ambassador ensuring the passage of the Security Council resolution permitting the international intervention that led to the overthrow of Col. Gaddafi in Libya.

Samantha Power, on the other hand, has been a champion of humanitarian interventions her whole career. She started out as a journalist covering the Yugoslav Wars and later worked as a scholar of mass atrocities and the apparent inability of the international community to effectively stop them. She joined the Obama administration in 2008 and later became head of the Atrocities Prevention Board. She won a Pulitzer Prize for her book “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide, a study of U.S. foreign policy responses to genocide.

The appointments will strengthen the interventionist faction in the Obama administration; if this results in a shift in actual policy, no continent will be more impacted by it than Africa.

There are currently a whole range of conflicts that could warrant military intervention: Most prominently, the civil wars in Darfur, Somalia, Eastern Congo and Mali — but also low-intensity or developing conflicts in South Sudan, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, the Katanga province of Congo and Zimbabwe. It is likely that Power and Rice will try to use their new positions (as they have used their old ones) to push for greater U.S. engagement in resolving these conflicts, by military means if necessary.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean U.S. boots on the ground. Recent interventions in Somalia, Mali and Eastern Congo are probably more of a prototype for future U.S. military interventions than Libya is: The United States supports African or international forces financially and logistically, with training and intelligence, but otherwise keeps out of the fray. This greatly limits political risks at home while promising to deliver more or less the same results.

The United States is still the 800 pound gorilla in international relations, and U.S. intervention — direct or indirect — can greatly influence the dynamics of a conflict. With the appointment of Power and Rice we are more likely than ever to see more of this, which raises the question of how atrocity-preventing interventions fit into the greater U.S. approach to Africa.

In short: The United States (like other countries) is pretty good at aiding and abetting situations that result in the need for humanitarian intervention in the first place.

The U.S. military has consistently expanded its footprint in Africa over the past decade. The most potent sign of this has been the creation of AFRICOM in 2008, a central command for all U.S. military activities in Africa, based in Stuttgart, Germany. Today the U.S. military runs a number of bases in Africa, some of them used for the deployment of armed and unarmed drones. The Pentagon has spent billions of dollars in Africa, most of it for military aid — that is, weapons — and training.

Most of the renewed interest in Africa comes from the War on Terror. Al Qaida and other guerrilla organizations have gained a foothold in a range of countries; the default response of U.S. foreign and military policy has been to support local authorities in suppressing violent dissent with violent means — even though corrupt local authorities are often causing the grievances underlying these conflicts. The result: Conflicts escalate to a level of violence that can’t be contained by local actors and makes outside intervention — in some form or another — necessary.

Probably the best example for this is Mali. Under the Trans-Saharan Counterterrorism Initiative, more than $500 million in military aid and training was invested in the region, with considerable sums going to the Malian military and government. Nevertheless, terrorist activities and drug trafficking flourished in Mali, while the corrupt political elite skimmed off large amounts of the money. Frustration with the Malian government first led to a Tuareg rebellion and then a military coup in early 2012. The coup leader was a captain of the Malian army, who in the past had visited the United States as part of a training mission.

The Tuareg rebellion was hijacked by fundamentalist groups that implemented a strict version of Islamic law in the regions they controlled. Their treatment of the civilian population — and threats of terrorist attacks abroad — ultimately resulted in a French-led and U.S.-supported intervention.

From Nigeria to Ethiopia, the rest of the continent is rife with examples of U.S. foreign policy functioning as part of the problem, or at least not part of the solution. Many of these conflicts will result in calls for international intervention to safeguard human rights and prevent genocide sooner or later. It remains to be seen whether Obama’s newly strengthened pro-interventionist advisers will start to craft a holistic approach to atrocity prevention, or if U.S. foreign policy will continue to try repairing the damage it has caused with military intervention. The backgrounds of Rice and Powers lead one to suspect the latter.

Turkey: A Country to Watch

Posted on by

This post, written by Natasha Kieval, STAND’s Programs Intern, is the first post in our “Countries to Watch” series that follows developing conflicts. Check back in the coming weeks! 

Turkey has been all over the news lately because of recent populist protests that were met with tear gas and a harsh government response. Environmental activists in Istanbul began protesting after plans were announced regarding Gezi Park. The government plans to remove trees and develop it into a shopping center and ceremonial military barracks. After peaceful protesters were evicted from the park, issues of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression emerged, and the protests have broadened into more general anti-government protests. Citizens have been protesting what they see as “creeping Islamisation” of the Recep Tayyip Erdogan regime, whose conservative AKP party (standing for Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, or the Justice and Development Party) has been in power for a decade. The government has been seen as becoming more conservative and authoritarian over the course of its rule. Recently, laws curbing the use of alcohol were passed. Additionally, there has been much opposition to the government’s stance on Syria. Erdogan has staunchly supported the Syrian opposition, polarizing Turkey. Many Turks believe this support will cause the Syrian government to retaliate and harm Turkey. These protests have called for Erdogan’s resignation.

Unlike previous anti-government protests in Turkey hosted by a singular ethnic group or ideology, these protests have shown a wide range of the civilian body. As Whit Mason of Foreign Policy stated, “Turkey has become a much more liberal society” over the past ten years. In that vein, it will be interesting to see how the next few months unfold, especially given Turkey’s 2014 elections.

The Turkish government has already made some political changes since the Arab Spring began in 2011. Mesut Özcan, Bulent Aras, and Saban Kardas of the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s Strategic Research Center spoke recently on the shift in Turkey’s foreign policy since the Arab Spring at the Wilson Center event “Turkey and the Arab Spring.” For Turkey, the Arab Spring forced a recalibration of foreign policy. Özcan spoke of a specific shift – pre-Arab Spring, Turkey attempted to develop good economic and political ties with all neighboring countries. With the Arab Spring came polarization of regional actors, he said, which has made it more difficult to maintain a fairly neutral regional position. This is especially implicated in the context of the Sunni and Shi’a blocs in the region. According to Özcan, Aras, and Kardas, it is no longer possible for Turkey to try to mediate between the two blocs. Instead, they are forced to pick a side. This is relevant in the context of Syria. Turkey and Syria both have a Sunni majority. However, relations between the two nations have long been strained due to Syria’s relationship with the PKK (a Kurdish party that supports an autonomous Kurdistan), water disputes, and Syria’s support for the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA). Relations have become even more tense since the Syrian conflict began, as refugees flood  into Turkey and as Assad has recently criticized the Erdogan government for his response to the protests.

It was announced on Friday that due to the proof of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons, the United States will be boosting its military support of the main opposition group, the SMC. Erdogan has previously called for multilateral intervention in Syria, and it will be interesting to see what his response is to the change in U.S. policy.

Turkey is a dynamic country that promises many changes in the coming months. On Friday, Erdogan adopted a more conciliatory tone for the protesters. However, as of this morning, Erdogan and the government have threatened to deploy the army to end the unrest. When speaking to a crowd of supporters over the weekend, he referred to the unrest as “nothing more than the minority’s attempt to dominate the majority.”  The results of these protests remain unclear, and are certainly something to follow. If you are interested in learning more about Turkey and its international relationships, Jadaliyya is a good spot to look. For more specifics on the protests, check out Crisis Group’s blog or Al Jazeera’s live blog here.

Get to Know Our Summer Interns!

Posted on by
 It’s summertime, and you know what that means- STAND has two brand new interns! We think they’re the two coolest interns around. Get to know them!
Haley Aubuchon
George Washington University, 2014
Development Intern
Q: Any cool stories about your involvement with STAND in the past?
A: One of my favorite events that I have ever participated in with STAND was GW STAND’s Peace for Congo Rally in November 2011. Rallying around the White House with so many people and listening to the speakers who joined us that day was such a powerful experience. I loved working with our amazing partner organizations, even when that included trying to find tour bus parking on GW’s campus. Also, getting to use the megaphone was a ton of fun.
Q: If you could invite three people, living or dead, over for a party, who would they be?
A: Vincent Van Gogh, Winston Churchill, and Truman Capote
Q: What’s your favorite quote?
A: “One word frees us of all the weight and pain of life; that word is love.” – Sophocles
Q: What’s your favorite place in the world?
A: St. Andrew’s, Scotland
Q: If you could have a theme song that plays every time you walk into a room, what would it be?
A: “Shake It Out” by Florence + The Machine
Q: What are a few of your goals for the future?
A: Travel and get a French bulldog and name him Winston.
Natasha Kieval
Tufts University, 2015
Programs Intern
Q: Any cool stories about your involvement with STAND in the past?
A: I have only been involved with STAND for 2 days, but I already was lucky enough to attend a panel on women’s roles in the conflict in Syria – I’m excited to be able to attend more events like this one!
Q: If you could invite three people, living or dead, over for a party, who would they be?
A: Beyonce, John Kerry, and Ernest Hemingway
Q: What’s your favorite quote?
A: “Once there is seeing, there must be acting. Otherwise what’s the use of seeing?” – Thich Nhat Hanh
Q: What’s your favorite place in the world?
A: My family goes to Fripp Island, South Carolina, every year. It’s my favorite place to relax, unwind, and spend time with my family.
Q: If you could have a theme song that plays every time you walk into a room, what would it be?
A: “Run the World (Girls)” by Beyonce
Q: What are a few of your goals for the future?
A: Travel as much as I can! And have a job that allows me to make a tangible difference in the world.

Top 10 Things You Should Know This Week

Posted on by

10. Bernard-Henri Levy, British philosopher, debates Western intervention in Syria with Mehdi Hasan on Al-Jazeera’s Head to Head. Says Levy, “We cannot let the blood bath go on like this!” Read more here: http://aje.me/16X0Qnz

9. A Syrian opposition group has asked all foreign fighters to leave the country. Read more here: http://aje.me/1bpjdOD

8. Syrian government forces are preparing for an assault on rebel-controlled parts of Aleppo. Read more here: http://bbc.in/16WiJ5Q

7. Rockets fired from Northern Syria hit the Lebanese town of Hermel, a Hezbollah mainstay. Read more here: http://aje.me/19lmQsf

6. After Sudanese President Bashir orders the shutdown of a pipeline bringing oil to South Sudan, South Sudanese President Kiir has vowed not to return to war. Read more here:http://aje.me/1boYU3L

5. An attack by pro-government troops on camp Nertiti North for displaced people in central Darfur killed a doctor and left 15 injured. Read more here: http://bit.ly/15Rul5w

4. DRC’s M23 rebels are willing to resume talks with the Kinshasa regime after meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. Read more here: http://bit.ly/11iBSal

3. After talks between government forces and Tuareg groups, the UN will deploy peacekeeping forces to Mali. Read more here: http://aje.me/11SqtfW 

2. Cambodian opposition politician denies Khmer Rouge crimes at Tuol Sleng prison. Read more here: http://aje.me/119elbM

1. Reports of at least 60 Shia Muslims killed by rebels in Syria near Deir al-Zour. Read more here: http://aje.me/1a3nrNM

 

#Syriasly: Women’s Roles in the Syrian Conflict and the Global Peace Index

Posted on by

By Natasha Kieval, STAND Programs Intern, and Haley Aubuchon, STAND Development Intern

Yesterday morning we attended IREX and ICAN’s event More than Victims: Women’s Roles in the Syrian Conflict. The panelists, Sanam Naraghi Anderlini of the International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN), Caroline Ayoub of Souriali Radio, Rafif Jouejati of the Local Coordination Committees (LCC), and Sarah Taylor of the NGO Working Group on Women, Peace, and Security, spoke about the importance of adding women’s voices to the peacebuilding process. Women are often portrayed solely as victims of sexal gender-based violence, and their activism on the ground is often overlooked. While this violence against women is certainly important to recognize and discuss, portraying women solely as victims marginalizes and excludes them from pertinent conversation and decision-making. Ms. Anderlini pointed to the fact that women’s exclusion from the peace process is universal, not cultural, and spoke of the need for conversation on responsibility sharing, not power sharing.

Later in the afternoon, we attended the release of the 2013 Global Peace Index by the Center of Strategic and International Studies. Syria is ranked the third least peaceful nation in the world, and had the largest decrease in peace between 2012 and 2013. Since the beginning of the GPI in 2006, one of the major trends has been an increase in internal conflict as compared to the levels of inter-state conflict. Syria is a clear example of this trend and illustrates a lack of many of the “Pillars of Peace” that GPI has pinpointed as correlates to a peaceful nation. For example, countries with strong institutions tend to be more peaceful. Syria’s infrastructure is 80% destroyed due to the violence. This then becomes a classic chicken and egg question – do you stop the violence before rebuilding institutions? Or is there a way to achieve both simultaneously? The aftermath of destruction caused by violence is extremely expensive – in the year 2013 alone, violence containment cost the world $9.46 trillion, or $25 billion every day. This breaks down to $1300 per person, per year. However, the GPI also points out that there is no correlation between positive peace (the strength of attitudes, institutions, and structures) and Official Development Assistance (ODA). This harkens back to a point made earlier at the IREX event by Ms. Taylor about speaking directly with the people, especially the women, on the ground about what kind of intervention or assistance they would like to see in an area of conflict.

Michelle Breslauer of the GPI commented that we should be pursuing peace and its economic and social benefits instead of looking at it as a utopian ideal, which sparked much discussion at the STAND office.

If you are interested in learning more about IREX and ICAN, visit www.irex.org andwww.icanpeacenetwork.org. If you want to learn more about the Global Peace Index, visitwww.visionofhumanity.org.

The Summer Roundup: Sudan, South Sudan, & DRC

Posted on by

This News Brief details the changes that conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have undergone in the past year. Thanks so muchto STAND’s wonderful Education Team for bringing us Weekly News Briefs this year!  Don’t forget to check back on the STAND blog this summer and follow AllAfrica, Al Jazeera,Think Africa Press, Pambazuka, and Congo Siasa for breaking news and analysis on our conflict zones and more.

Sudan and South Sudan

So far in 2013, violence in Darfur escalated as the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the genocide in Darfur passed, new diplomatic gains were made between Sudan and South Sudan, and inter-ethnic conflict revealed a weak South Sudanese government in Juba.

Just last week, the leader of JEM-Sudan (formerly known as JEM-Bashar) was killed in a battle between Darfuri rebels and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). A JEM splinter group had recently signed a peace deal with Khartoum and integrated into the SAF. Violence in Darfur also took the form of SAF air raids, pro-government militia terrorism, inter-tribal conflict leading to massive displacement, as well as an increase in rebel attacks on the soldiers and bases of the SAF, moving as far east as Northern Kordofan as part of a “SRF” offensive. In addition, refugee and IDP camps continue to suffer from a lack of funding and resources, making the lives of those who live in them increasingly threatened. To address these issues, the “International Conference on Reconstruction and Development of Darfur” was held in Qatar in April, raising $3.6 billion. Unfortunately, the amount fell short of the $7 billion goal, although it was deemed enough for the most urgent projects. SAF air raids this year also targeted SPLM-N rebels in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan, leading to significant counter offenses. As Chadian forces join the SAF and other pro-government militia in Sudan, and rebel forces of the SRF unite to topple the current regime, violence in Sudan will likely continue to expand in the near future.

Sudanese citizens are very discontented with the government for the poor economy and increasing violence with the rebels, causing many to emigrate.  At the same time the Sudanese government has shown some small signs of improvement. President Omar Al-Bashir has recently announced that he will step down in 2015, and although his party voted this month to extend his term, this could signal a shift in Sudanese politics within the regime. Bashir also announced this year that he would release all political prisoners (so far 24 were released) in what appears to be an effort to appeal to the international community and the rebel forces.

Sudan-South Sudan relations have gotten better.  Negotiations between the two governments have yielded agreements leading to a withdrawal of forces from the border and a resumption of the flow of oil.  At the same time, meetings concerning the status of Abyei and other border regions have been unsuccessful.  There has been a small amount of violence along the border including the recent death of a Ngok Dinka Abyei Chief.

Lastly, in South Sudan there was an outbreak of conflict over the past few months in the Jonglei and Lakes states. David Yau Yau and his rebel forces committed major violence especially in Pibor County, Jonglei. Many civilians remain displaced as Yau Yau’s forces recently announced that they laid seige of a town in the region. Many civilians in the state feel intimidated by the SPLA in addition to Yau Yau’s forces. This is largely due to the SPLA’s unsuccessful disarmament campaign, and the violence attributed to the campaign’s methods of seizures. The South Sudan government has shown its willingness to detain without arrest warrants, target journalists, and otherwise hurt its own people in an effort to maintain control. On a more positive note, one rebel group, the SSLM, surrendered to the SPLA last month, hopefully signaling the growth of a more unified South Sudanese citizenry in other regions of the young country. Furthermore, South Sudan made some major shifts in the government including the dismissal of dozens of former SPLA generals in an effort to make the government more efficient and civilian-led. Unfortunately, the national constitutional convention was delayed (now scheduled for June), and the national reconciliation conference has also encountered setbacks, such as the dismissal of the vice president Riek Machar as the head of the process.

It is also likely that the violence between the SPLA and the rebel forces in the country will continue to plague South Sudan for the near future, but with government revenues from oil and improving relations with Sudan along the border, it may soon be easier for the SPLA to bolster its efforts to maintain peace. We will soon discover whether the constitutional convention is an inclusive process, and much of South Sudan’s prospects for future success will hinge on the still fragile process of negotiations with Sudan concerning Abyei and the demilitarized border.  A quick reversal of the gains made could immensely threaten the stability of both states.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo

For the past few months, eastern DRC and the southern Katanga province have seen renewed violence. November saw the rise of the M23 rebel group in the east, with a takeover of Goma on November 20, and months of negotiations in Kampala, Uganda. Rwanda and Uganda have both been tied to the M23, but have denied all such charges. In March, the M23 split into two factions. Soon thereafter, former M23 president Jean-Marie Runiga, arrived in Rwanda with over 200 other Congolese refugees. A regional peace agreement was signed by Angola, Burundi, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, DRC, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia on February 24 that many hope will lay the groundwork for regional cooperation.

On March 18, wanted war criminal Bosco Ntaganda turned himself over to the US Embassy in Rwanda in order to be turned over to the International Criminal Court. Arrest warrants for Ntagandawere issued in 2006 and 2012 for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape and sexual slavery, recruitment and use of child soldiers, and pillaging during the Ituri conflict in northeastern Congo in 2002-2003.

On March 28, the UN authorized its first-ever offensive combat force in order to “neutralize and disarm” rebel and foreign armed forces in the DRC. The brigade will be led by a Tanzanian general and will consist of 3,069 troops from Tanzania, Malawi, and South Africa. Many have expressed skepticism that an additional force will be able to solve the underlying issues any better than previous forces. With such a small number of troops, it is unlikely that the intervention brigade will be able to confront the multiple armed groups that have formed in the DRC. In order for the brigade to be successful, argues Think Africa Press’ Christoph Vogel, it will need flexible rules of engagement, material assets and equipment, and political support at various levels. Many human rights leaders and activists have also expressed concern that the intervention brigade will only further escalate violence against women and girls in the region.

In Katanga province, various rebel groups (referred to as Mai-Mai) have been wreaking havoc, many of them fighting over mineral wealth and against the central government. In March, Lubumbashi, Katanga’s capital, was taken over by 440 Mai-Mai Bakata Katanga rebels with little resistance from state security forces. Katanga has historically been a site of resistance against the central government, and have been fighting for secession since the DRC became independent in 1960. Katanga is the DRC’s richest province, but receives little support from the central government.

As of this week, M23 attacks have continued. Attacks by the M23 and other rebel groups in eastern DRC and Katanga province are likely to continue unless the central government begins vital security sector reform measures, DDRRR (Disarmament, Demobilization, Repatriation, Reintegration and Resettlement) programs, and political reform. Rwandan troops allegedly continue to aid the M23 in eastern DRC, and are likely to continue, exacerbating the conflict. Keep watching for the UN intervention brigade, discussions of drone usage, and regional peace talks.

The Summer Roundup: Syria and Burma

Posted on by

This News Brief details the changes that conflicts in Syria and Burma have undergone in the past year. Thanks so much to STAND’s wonderful Education Team for putting it together!

Syria

The Syrian conflict has seen major developments over the past year. There have been three separate accusations of chemical weapons. While President Obama has declared that any use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would constitute a “red line” for US involvement in Syria, he has since stated that the international community must agree that chemical weapons were involved before any military intervention. While Turkey has asserted that the Assad regime did indeed use chemical weapons, American and British intelligence officials have stated that evidence from previous potential chemical weapons attacks is too degraded to make a definitive statement.

Most Western nations have yet to come to a consensus on arming Syrian rebels. The European Union just lifted its arms embargo on arming Syrian rebels on May 28. After the most recent alleged use of chemical weapons, the Obama administration indicated that it is considering arming the rebels. The Arab League endorsed arming rebel groups in late March.

Tensions also rose within Syria’s main opposition group in March. After the election of Ghassan Hito to prime minister of a newly created interim government, the former leader of the Syrian National Coalition, Moaz al-Khatib, resigned. The main armed rebel group in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, did not endorse Ghassan Hito’s election. Regional tensions have also been growing as Israel has launched two airstrikes in Syrian territory, in January,and early May. Both strikes allegedly targeted shipments of weapons heading for the Lebanese pro-Assad group, Hezbollah. The latest strike was condemned by Turkey as well asIran and the Assad regime.

Several important diplomatic developments have recently taken place or are scheduled for the coming months. On May 16, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and President Obama met to discuss resolving the Syrian crisis. On May 15, the UN passed a resolution condemning Assad’s forces and praising the opposition. However, the resolution did not see as much support as it had previously due to concerns over the growing armed Islamist presence among the rebels. The US and Russia have pledged to meet at a conference in coming months to discuss resolving the crisis. However, Russia is insisting that Iran attend, causing tension with its Western counterparts.

Meanwhile, the crisis continues to worsen. The president of the UN general assembly announced Wednesday that the death toll has now risen above 80,000, 20,000 of which have occurred this year. The number of Syrian refugees is now over 1.5 million according to the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR.

Burma

The past year has seen the prospect of a free and peaceful Burma tarnished by sectarian violence, particularly against minority Muslims. Three major episodes of violence plagued the country this past year: in June 2012, October 2012, and April 2013. The violence during 2012 predominantly saw Buddhists targeting the stateless and primarily Muslim Rohingya in western Burma. Over 100 people, both Buddhist and Muslim, were killed and 125,000 displaced from the ensuing violence. In 2013, growing animosity towards Muslims in general in Burma was affirmed by additional violence in the center of the country that has to date killed at least 40 and displaced 13,000. This year, minor incidences, like an argument at a gold shop and a girl crashing her bicycle, spiralled out of control to become wider interfaith clashes between Buddhists and Muslims.

However, not all news emanating from Burma is negative. Peace talks are underway between the Myanmar military and Kachin Independence Organization to re-establish a ceasefire agreement that broke down in June 2011. Over 850 political prisoners have been released under the Presidency of Thein Sein, despite 160 political prisoners remaining behind bars. In addition, following US President Obama’s landmark visit to Burma in November last year where he became the first sitting US President to visit the country, Myanmar President Thein Sein is set to become the first Burmese head-of-state to visit the White House in 47 years. The US, EU, and others have eased economic sanctions against Burma for the country’s democratic process and engagement, yet most military sanctions against Burma remain in place.

After such an eventful year, there is no doubt there is much to come during the coming months. Here are the key issues that will most likely garner additional media attention in Burma this summer:

  • Aung San Suu Kyi, MP and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, has recently confirmed she will seek to amend the country’s constitution to decrease the power of the military.
  • The causes of this past year’s previous clashes remain largely unresolved, so further sectarian violence between Buddhists as Muslims will not come as a surprise.
  • The international community has largely condemned the 1972 Citizenship Law that denies many basic human rights to the Rohingya, yet it is not clear whether the government will seek to address it.
  • The nationalist Buddhist, anti-Muslim group known as the 969 Movement has substantially grown in popularity following the year’s violent clashes between Buddhists and Muslims. Many believe that this organization helped fuel the violence of the past year.

South Sudan: The Long Road Ahead

Posted on by

By Tasha Bell, George Washington University STAND

On April 24th 2013, I was fortunate to attend an event titled “A Crisis of Governance in South Sudan” at the Wilson Center.  Even if you weren’t as lucky as me, you can still hear from the experts, Dr. Lual A. Deng, Kate Almquist Knompf and Brian D’Silva by checking out thewebcast which is available to watch on the Wilson Center website.  This discussion lead me to a greater understanding of the arduous task of nation building, and how many obstacles must be conquered before we will see a stable South Sudan.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will South Sudan.  Establishing a democracy is a tedious and slow process.  Furthermore, creating a centralized government where there has never been one before is no piece of cake either.  This is what South Sudan is facing.  In the fast paced world that we live in today, the expectation of the pace of transformations is inflated.  Our reality seems to be changing daily, so processes that take more time can be exceedingly frustrating.  However, if we approach a situation with an understanding that it might take a while, we can better plan to appropriate our efforts for the long haul.  South Sudanese people and supporters of South Sudan must maintain hope and vision of a bright future throughout the years ahead.

The tasks ahead of South Sudan are numerous and demanding.  Dr. Deng lays out the key drivers of the crisis of governance in South Sudan as weak institutions, pervasive corruption, poor economic management, absence of cohesive national identity and insecurity.  Each of these “drivers” that Dr. Deng presents are multifaceted and deep-rooted.  Every single one of these categories contains many individual issues that will be difficult and complex to develop.  The way that Dr. Deng broke down each of these categories into individual tasks makes it alarmingly clear how complex each of these challenges will be to overcome.

Corruption

  • Visionary leadership
  • Human capital development
  • Participatory governance
  • Institutional transformation

Pervasive Corruption

  • Rule of law
  • Changing the culture of impunity
  • Nurturing civic duty
  • Restoring positive societal norms and values

Poor Economic Management

  • Coherent economic policy and analysis and management
  • Effective use of scarce knowledge
  • Infrastructure development
  • Economic diversification
  • Conducive investment environment

Absence of cohesive national identity

  • Fostering a sense of common identity
  • De-politicization of language and ethnicity
  • Effective utilization of the diaspora community in promoting national identify
  • Enhancing state legitimacy

Insecurity

  • Security sector reform
  • Improving social service delivery
  • Enhancing food security
  • Implementing a wealth of dividend policy

In front of South Sudan is the task of creating a society that looks different than anything it has previously experienced.  Additionally, its people are still recovering from the damage of a 22-year war that ended when they won their independence.  They have never governed themselves before, so they don’t have government infrastructure off of which to build.  In order to adjust to the impact of a newly autonomous state, cultural change must occur- and of course, cultural changes take a lot of time.  While the international community stands with South Sudan through this long process, the country also needs to be granted the space to come together and create its own future for itself.

Fortunately, South Sudan does feel the support of the world community.  South Sudan will receive $395 million in European aid over the next two years.  Additionally, the US budget this year calls for $244 million in aid to this new nation.  Extensive aid packages from the US and Europe will surely be beneficial in the nation building that must occur in South Sudan.  International aid can only take a country far enough that they can stand on their own feet.  Fortunately, South Sudan possesses the resources to keep them up once they’re standing.

Despite the plethora of obstacles ahead of this young nation, its lands possess riches to finance this transition into the world community and economy.  This poor country has the potential to bring in outside capital to strengthen its economy.  South Sudan has the potential for great oil wealth- if only it can get the oil flowing through the pipes that run through Sudan.  Peace talks between Sudan and South Sudan over the pipelines have yet to be successful.  The dialogue between these two nations continues to project hopeful messages that oil will soon flow, with the latest agreement signed March 2013.

Additionally, South Sudan possesses the treasure of beautiful terrain.  If South Sudan can develop infrastructure, it has the potential to be a tourist attraction.  South Sudan contains some of the most untouched land in Africa containing a variety of natural features from vast grasslands to beautiful waterworks including a huge waterfall.  South Sudan can also boast the second biggest migration in the world.  Patrick Symmes spent time in South Sudan and wrote a piece for Outside magazine titled “A Wild Country Grows in South Sudan” in which he paints a picture of the current condition of South Sudan, acknowledging both the great potential of South Sudan as a tourist location and also the obstacles that must first be overcome before visitors will enjoy the beauty of its nature.

In his presentation at the Wilson Center, Dr. Deng spoke extensively about the prominent Sudanese leader, Dr. John Garang.  Dr. John Garang had a vision for the future of South Sudan.  He was a visionary with an understanding of the historical and cultural circumstances that South Sudan has faced.  The beauty of visionaries is that they can see the light at the end of a dark and messy tunnel.  Their visions can keep people marching toward a seemingly unreachable end.  Dr. Garang is deceased, but his vision can live on.  An understanding of the intense difficulties that lie in front of South Sudan shows that a vision of a bright future will be essential to keep them on track.  With an honest understanding of both the bumpy road ahead and the value of the end for which they strive, the South Sudanese can forge a successful path for themselves.  It will not be easy, but valuable things take hard work.

With an understanding of the long road ahead, South Sudan will find that its future is as beautiful as its grasslands.