However, the real human impact goes far beyond statistics. Every day, another Indigenous woman goes missing. Families and communities are torn apart when they lose someone they care about. It is devastating to lose a friend, relative, or community member. Countless Native women across generations have grown up with the fear that they could be assaulted, kidnapped, or murdered simply for being an Indigenous woman. Even young girls are aware of the danger they are in. For them, MMIWG2S is impossible to ignore, yet much of the rest of the country pays little attention to it.

Canada has recognized the crisis of MMIWG2S as a genocide, but the US government has yet to do so. Systemic state violence and the legacies of colonialism and gendered colonial oppression all work to perpetuate this crisis. Institutions that claim to protect the people, such as the police, the legal system, and the entire federal government, fail to do so, and often are active perpetrators of violence. Proportionately, Native people are killed by police more than any other group. They face racist, discriminatory courts when trying to get legal justice for their relatives and community-members, and MMIWG2S are given little media attention.

MMIWG2S is a continuaion of the initial genocide and settler colonialism that founded the United States centuries ago. Since the late 15th century, Indigenous people have been attacked, killed, enslaved, stripped of their lands, forcibly sterilized, sent to reservations and residential schools, and forced to abandon their culture. Today, the legacies of this injustice are ongoing. Voting rights restrictions, the building of environmentally-destructive pipelines in sacred lands, and attempts to overturn policies like the Indian Child Welfare Act all serve as extensions of colonial violence. MMIWG2S exemplifies this along multiple axes of oppression. Colonial racism and gender-based violence intersect to create this crisis. It is not simply violence against women or Native people, but specific violence targeting Native women at the intersections of these identities, along with queer, nonbinary, and Two-Spirit people who also face gender-based oppression. 

It is clear that action is needed. Here at STAND, we stand in solidarity with the Indigenous communities working to protect themselves from systemic racist violence and honor the memory of all MMIWG2S. This list of resources provides hotlines for Indigenous women and all people experiencing violence, relevant government reports and scholarly articles, and a list of organizations currently taking action. You can also attend one of the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center’s virtual events today to learn more or take action to support Indigenous women here. If you want to learn more about the work that STAND does to address atrocities against Indigenous communities, you can sign up for our United States Action Committee here.

~

Grace Harris is a second-year International Development Studies major at UCLA who serves as the United States Action Committee Lead for STAND. She is also an Education and Outreach Co-Lead. This is her third year on STAND’s Managing Committee.

This post is written by Danny Hirschel-Burns, STAND Policy Coordinator. It is the first post in a series on Burma, which we are featuring as part of our Burma: Preventing the Next Mass Atrocity campaign. This post provides an overview of United States-Burma relations, while others will delve more in-depth into issues affecting Burma today.

Myanmar and the United States have not always had the friendliest bilateral relations, but just in the last two years, that is beginning to change.  Following ongoing, partial democratic reforms that began in 2011, the United States has gradually moved toward restoring a functioning relationship, sometimes called normalizing relations.  However, the United States should be cautious in its approach: there are still serious issues that the democratic reforms have not addressed.

The current cycle of relations between the United States and Myanmar (Myanmar commonly refers to the government, and Burma to the country) began in 1988, when the recently-installed military government brutally cracked down on the nascent pro-democracy movement.  Two years later, Myanmar refused to honor the victory of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy in national elections, placing her under house arrest instead.  In protest of the coup and the fraudulent elections, the United States removed its ambassador to the country.  The crackdown on the 2007 Saffron Revolution led to the further deterioration of relations.

In 2011, Prime Minister Thein Sein was elected as President of Myanmar.  Though he had previously served in the military and his political party has connections to the military, he is the first civilian president in forty-nine years. His administration has slightly rolled back military control of government, freed some political prisoners, and opened up Burma’s commercial and media sectors.  In response to these changes, Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State, visited Burma in 2011, and in early 2012, announced that a United States ambassador would return to Burma.  The United States has also cancelled some economic sanctions on the country, allowing for US dollars to enter the country.  The prospect ofresuming military collaboration has been discussed, but so far there hasn’t been any concrete action.

While there has been some thawing of recent relations, some impediments to normalization remain in place.  American businesses are allowed to invest in the state oil company, but this is contingent on notifying the State Department.  Similar restrictions apply to businesses with large investments in the country.  President Obama has also issued an executive order that has strengthened sanctions against individuals that work to prevent democratic reform.  Finally, the United States still does not provide Myanmar with military aid due to the presence of child soldiers within the Myanmar army.  Unlike Yemen and the DRC, it has not received a waiver to continue aid on the basis of American national security.

The United States should be wary of further normalization because of three main problems that remain in Burma.  First, the democratic reforms that began two years ago are largelysuperficial.  The military has a mandated 25% of seats in Parliament, Aung San Suu Kyi is barred from running for President because of an obscure constitutional clause designed specifically to target her, and the government continues to imprison prisoners of conscience.  Second, the military continues to violate ceasefires with ethnic minority groups and commit human rights abuses in those areas.  These grievances were highlighted in a recent open lettersigned by 133 ethnic minority organizations.  Third, the government has failed to stop violence against Muslim (primarily Rohingya) residents of Burma, and in many cases the government is complicit in the attacks.

Last week I attended an event at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC. The speakers at this event included Igor Ivanov, Former Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Lord George Robertson, Former Secretary General of NATO, and Frederic Hof, Senior Fellow of Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. This event detailed the current situation in Syria and whether a political solution is possible. I was amazed at the low number of questions directed toward Russia’s support of the Assad regime. The event focused primarily on current diplomatic issues and secondarily on how the humanitarian crisis is continuing unabated.

Multiple times during the event former Russian Foreign Minister (1999-2004) Igor Ivanov labeled the lack of trust between the United States and Russia as detrimental to current diplomatic proceedings. Indeed, he stated that this lack of trust and cooperation has severely limited the development of new mechanisms for tackling diplomatic problems and preventing mass atrocities. However, Ivanov’s comments about the situation reflect neither the complexity of the situation in Syria nor Russia’s reasons behind their recent diplomatic initiatives. Furthermore, Russian policies aiding and supplying weapons to the Assad regimedirectly support the use of conventional weapons that has killed more than 115,000 people since the conflict began.

Throughout the discussion at the Atlantic Council, Ivanov addressed neither the issue of violence against civilians nor Russia’s supplying of weapons to Assad’s regime. Ultimately, the lack of emphasis on civilian protection in Russia’s recent diplomatic proposals risks having a negative effect on efforts to lessen the violence in Syria, and ultimately might impede further progress into creating effective international early warning mechanisms for preventing mass atrocities.

Frederic C. Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and George Robertson, NATO Secretary General (1999-2004), criticized the explicit targeting of civilians by Assad’s government and Russia’s reluctance to put pressure on the Assad regime to stop it. To be fair, many other countries are neglecting the needs of Syrian civilians as well. Indeed, near the end of the discussion Robertson raised an important point about the faltering mass atrocities response initiative, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. Robertson noted that overwhelming international “inaction (to halt the violence) in Syria undermines the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, and it would serve the international community well to revisit the lessons from Bosnia, where the United States, the European Union, and Russia collaborated to resolve a similarly horrific sectarian conflict.” The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was first formulated during the 2005 UN World Summit and states that “sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people.” The three main pillars of this doctrine as developed since the 2005 UN World Summit are:

1. The State carries the primary responsibility for protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and their incitement;
2. The international community has a responsibility to encourage and assist States in fulfilling this responsibility;
3. The international community has a responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Ultimately, the third pillar’s emphasis on collective action through the Charter of the United Nations is dependent on the will and decisions of the Security Council. However, Russia holds veto power as one of the five permanent members of the council and has consistently opposed sanctions and actions explicitly targeting Assad’s regime. Indeed, Russia’s veto power has prolonged the inaction prevalent in the UN Security Council before the recent resolution to dispose of Syria’s chemical weapons.

Moreover, the recent call for immediate access to humanitarian aid in Syria by the UN Security Council still does not adequately address stopping the violence. Unfortunately, George Robertson’s concerns about inaction in the international community are valid and further raise important questions, such as:

• Has the international community regressed in its ability to cooperate and act when faced with a humanitarian crisis?
• Will the international community’s inaction harm future efforts in responding to or preventing mass atrocities?

Nevertheless, the international community will have to work together alongside Syrians on the ground to solve the situation in Syria. The planned Geneva II Middle East peace conference aims to  end the civil war and organize the peaceful transition of the country postwar. However, many feel that it is too little and too late. Furthermore, we can only hope that no member of the Security Council undermines prospects for peace by supporting a regime that systematically targets its own civilians.

On September 15th, John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov agreed on a framework for the removal and decommission of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile.  Fortunately, the deal prevented US airstrikes against Syria, which STAND advocated against based on their potential negative consequences for civilians.  While the deal offers some diplomatic progress, there are still many questions surrounding the actual effects of the deal on the course of the conflict.

The chemical weapons agreement, while representing a positive instance of multilateral cooperation, will do little to end the broader conflict.  It only focuses on chemical weapons, which have killed a small percentage of civilians.  Its implementation will happen over the course of a year and there is no guarantee that plan will be effective.  Assad may renege on the agreement or his government may be unable to release all the chemical weapons stockpiles to international monitors due to the intense nature of the conflict.  Finally, the chemical weapons deal could distract crucial diplomatic energy from a broader deal.  This deal is tenuous as is, and if Russia and the United States lose the desire to negotiate an end to the conflict, it may have few practical consequences for Syrian civilians.

While the deal could have negative consequences, there are also plenty of reasons to be hopeful.  First, the deal opens new diplomatic channels between Russia, the US, and Syria.  This warming of relations could potentially lead to a negotiated solution, the best possible endgame for Syrian civilians.  Second, days after the agreement, the Syrian deputy prime minister indicated that the regime would be open to a ceasefire, marking the first time the Assad government has openly signaled its willingness to pursue a negotiated solution.  Finally, in a speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Obama pledged an additional $339 million for humanitarian aid.  It will still not meet the total need of the enormous humanitarian crisis, but it is a big step forward.

There are still numerous challenges ahead for diplomatic progress in Syria.  Islamic extremists are unlikely to accept any deal, and their influence has grown with a recent merger of multiple groups.  Similarly, other opposition groups have made it clear that negotiations that involve Assad staying in power will not be feasible.  Despite the numerous barriers to an inclusive, diplomatic solution, STAND continues to support a negotiated solution, increased humanitarian aid, and a complete arms embargo.

The United States and Russia reached an agreement on Saturday calling for the destruction or removal of Syria’s chemical weapons by mid 2014. Under the agreement, Syria must provide an inventory of its chemical arsenal to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) by the end of the week. On Monday, President Obama signed an order allowing the US to freely send protective equipment and training against chemical weapons attacks to the OPCW as well as approved rebel groups and nongovernmental organizations working within Syria.

While the agreement explicitly refers to a plan for a United Nations Security Council resolution under chapter 7 of the UN charter, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov called reports that the deal included a threat of military force “distorted”. US officials have stated that a unilateral American attack remains a possibility should diplomacy fail. The deal also included an agreement for the US and Russia to renew efforts to convene a peace conference between the Assad regime and rebel forces that has thus far proved elusive.

Inspectors reported to the United Nations Security Council on Monday that they found “clear and convincing evidence” that a large chemical attack was carried out in Syria last month. Although the report itself does not state who is responsible for the attack, the United States and its Western allies cited parts of the report as evidence of the Assad regime’s guilt.

Following the Russian-American deal on removing or destroying the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons, United Nations Security Council negotiations began on Tuesday. Anonymous diplomats have said that disagreements arose over the draft put forward by the United States, Britain, and France over the threat of military force to enforce the agreement, whether or not to condemn the Assad regime for the chemical weapons attack, and whether or not to refer the suspected perpetrators of the attack to the International Criminal Court.

A car bomb on the Syrian-Turkish border was reported to have killed 7 and wounded at least 20 people. The bombing took place at a roadblock held by Islamist brigades at the entrance of a rebel-held crossing on Tuesday. The day before the explosion, Turkey shot down a Syrian helicopter in Turkish airspace.

Opposition activists reported Tuesday that rebel groups have intensified their blockade of many government-held areas of northern Aleppo to include a highway previously left open to civilians. This has caused a rapid increase in food scarcity and prices in government-held areas, and many activists have condemned the tactic.

The humanitarian crisis in Syria continues to intensify. A group of 55 doctors and medical professionals wrote in an open letter to one of the world’s most respected medical journals, the Lancet, warning that the Syrian healthcare system is “at breaking point”. The letter, set to be published Friday, states that the impending medical crisis is due to hospital staff being attacked, forced to flee, or imprisoned, as well as attacks on hospitals, and humanitarian organizations being denied access to patients.

Talks between the Congolese government and M23 rebels, which stalled earlier this year, resumed last week under the mediation of Ugandan Defense Minister Crispus Kiyonga. This round of talks is set to last two weeks, and Kiyonga announced after the first day that the groups had reached a draft of a peace agreement. Late last week, the Ugandan government announced that it was encouraged by the progress in the talks and by the commitment shown by both sides.

The Congolese government has announced that it is willing to grant amnesty to most, though not all, M23 rebels. Regional heads of state have called for M23, as well as other rebel groups such as the Rwandan FDLR, to disband.

Representatives from the Kachin Independence Organisation (KIO) and the Myanmar government met earlier this week to discuss the possibility of a ceasefire in October as well as other issues relating to internally displaced persons. The KIO is the last remaining major rebel group to have yet sign a ceasefire agreement with the Myanmar government, which hopes to have nationwide peace with all ethnic nationalities for the month of October. The Kachin Independence Army, the armed wing of the KIO, consists of about 10,000 fighters and has been fighting the Myanmar government since June 2011. It is thought that fighting has displaced more than 100,000 people.

Aung San Suu Kyi and the Dalai Lama met in Prague, Czech Republic to attend the 17th Forum 2000 Conference on Societies in Transition. Suu Kyi, a Burmese democracy icon and MP, has expressed her intention to run for president in 2015.

The U.S. Presidential Special Envoy to Sudan and South Sudan Donald Booth met with Al-Khair al-Fahim, the head of the Sudanese envoy to the Abyei Joint Oversight Committee (AJOC) to discuss the ongoing dispute between the north and the south regarding the oil rich region. The two countries continue to squabble for influence and oil rights as the North continually threatens to cut off southern oil exports to ports in the north. Booth later flew to Juba to further encourage progress on the issue.

A Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) soldier maintains his post in Jonglei State. Over the past year reports have continued to surface showing evidence of SPLA soldiers attacking civilian communities in the region as they battle against rebel factions primarily led by David Yau Yau. SPLA spokespersons uphold that they are simply combating rebel groups while several NGOs and other news outlets claims civilian targeting especially against the Murle community continue to take place.

On Monday in the Sinai Peninsula, a bomb exploded on the road near the Gaza Strip. The bomb was allegedly targeting a bus of police recruits, and nine were wounded as a result.  The bombings follow a recent large-scale military offensive to combat growing violence in the region. Just in the past few weeks, Sinai has seen 20,000 new  military combatants enter the region. As allegations continue of Islamist involvement in bombings like this one, demonstrators of the Muslim Brotherhood continue to protest against the interim government.

Shown above is a “Rabaa” sign, recently utilized by pro-Morsi supporters. The sign, refers to the Rabaa al-Adawiya mosque, the site of a violent confrontation between Morsi’s followers and the Egyptian army in which hundreds or perhaps thousands of people were killed. This shift, according to several Egypt experts, signals a shift from the Brotherhood seeking international legitimacy to seeking internal legitimacy.

A week ago in the Central African Republic, Muslim residents of Bouca were attacked. The attack occurred at 5 am, at the time of morning prayers, leaving at least 40 people dead. Survivors from the attack indicated that the aggressors were also residents of Bouca

According to Michel Djotodia, the president of CAR, the Seleka rebel group no longer exists. Last Friday, President Michel Djotodia announced that the Seleka rebel group, who helped him gain presidency, has been dissolved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/world/middleeast/united-nations-panel-cites-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-syria.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

2. In his address to the nation on Tuesday, President Obama stated his intention to pursue a new diplomatic plan laid out by Russia to remove the Assad administration’s chemical weapons and place them under international control, while retaining the threat of military action should the plan fall through. The plan relies on a presidential statement, and calls on the United Nations Secretary General and the organization that oversees the Chemical Weapons convention to enforce it. Secretary of State John Kerry has been pushing for more force in the final Security Council resolution, and is currently in the process of negotiating with Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lagrov.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/syrian-chemical-arsenal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

3. France put forward a draft UN Security Council resolution on Tuesday that warned of “serious consequences” should the Assad administration fail to comply. Paris also stated that a military strike was still possible. Russia has said it cannot support the current resolution, calling it a “trap” meant to lead to military intervention.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/11/us-syria-crisis-france-idUSBRE98A0CR20130911

4. Before France put forward the UN Security Council resolution, Syria stated its willingness to unveil and cease the production of chemical weapons, although it fell short of a verbal commitment to give up its chemical arsenal. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem came out with this statement a day after “welcoming” the Russian plan to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/09/10/Syria-ready-to-unveil-not-surrender-its-chemical-weapons.html

5. Last Sunday, Iraq spoke out against potential US strikes on Syria during the visit of the Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javed Zarif. Iraqi Foreign Minster Hoshyar Zebari stated that “Iraq will not be a base for any attack, nor will it facilitate any such attack on Syria”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraq-joins-iran-in-opposing-us-led-military-strike-in-syria/2013/09/08/9187c1f6-18b8-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

6. The Sentinel Project, a Canadian-based genocide watchdog group, released a study on Tuesday that graphically portrays the ongoing persecution of the stateless and predominantly Muslim Rohingya people in Burma. What makes the study particularly alarming is that it shows the widening geographic scope of the violence that began as clashes in Burma’s far western Rakhine (Arakan) State but has since spread east to the country’s two largest cities (Mandalay in central Burma and Yangon on the coast) as well as other areas. The most recent incident cited by the new study is the death of five Rohingya men on Tuesday, allegedly killed by a group of Rakhine.

http://threatwiki.thesentinelproject.org/burmavisualization

7. The past week in Sudan and South Sudan has been categorized by ongoing conflict in border states as well as positive signs for the future. While the wet season begins flooding has already began in Warrap State sparking an emergency response by NGO’s and UN agencies. Several tonnes of extra food supplies, medicine, as well as doctors have been dispatched to the effected areas. This flooding is also effecting the Jonglei, Upper Nile, and other states. Another story coming out of Khartoum is the trial of Amira Osman Hamed who potentially faces flogging as a punishment for refusing to wear the hijab in public. This week also consisted of further protests in Abyei in support of a one sided referendum, the first flights from Juba to Khartoum by a Southern Sudanese Airline, and a Chinese proposal at the UN to take on a stronger role in peace building in the region.

http://storify.com/baylencampbell/sudan-south-sudan-1

8. In Egypt this week, concern grew after an assassination attempt on the Interior Minister Mohammed Ibrahim. The assassination attempt aroused fears that more violence and acts of “terrorism” may soon unfold in the nation rigged with explosive instability.Wednesday, as two suicide bombers rammed into an army checkpoint, new twists were added to the crisis in Egypt. The potential for continued violence is extremely high and has caused the military to suppress 55,000 mosque preachers for fear of spreading a radical message of Islam. The hope is that through this ban the interim government will be able to maintain a moderate message of Islam.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/11/suicide-bombs-egypt-military/2801453/

9. In the past week, at least 60 people have been killed as a result of clashes between Seleka rebel forces and local militia loyal to the ousted president, Francois Bozize. According to government spokesman Simplice Kodegue, the clashes took place in Bozize’s hometown, a town northwest of Bossangua. UN officials stated that two aid workers were killed in the clashes. In a recent statement by Amy Martin, the head of the UN humanitarian office in CAR, Seleka rebel forces have been destructive in identifying militiamen by burning down villages and killing civilians. Leader of the Seleka rebel forces, Michel Djotodia, who was sworn in as president of CAR earlier this month, states that he will renounce his position after the 2016 elections. As stated by UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos, about a third of the country’s population is in need of food, water, shelter and or healthcare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24021425

http://www.voanews.com/content/fighting-leaves-60-dead-in-central-african-republic/1746097.html

10. Bertrand Bisimwa, president of the M23 rebel group, announced on Sunday that M23 was ready to disarm, on two conditions: that Congolese refugees living in neighboring Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi return to their homes, and that another rebel group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), made up primarily of Rwandan Hutus, disarms first. This announcement followed an emergency summit held last week in Uganda among countries of the Great Lakes Region to discuss the ongoing conflict in the eastern DRC. Those in attendance at the talks included Congolese president Joseph Kabila, Rwandan president Paul Kagame, and UN Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region Mary Robinson, as well as the presidents of Uganda, Tanzania and South Sudan. At the ends of the talks, the regional leaders issued a declaration that peace talks between the Congolese government and M23 leaders, which had stalled earlier this year, should resume within three days and conclude within 14 days.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/congos-m23-rebels-say-theyre-ready-to-disband-set-conditions-including-return-of-refugees/2013/09/08/da5d7270-18a6-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html

This post, written by Natasha Kieval, Programs Intern, describes the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect in light of the recent report “The United States and R2P: From Words to Action.” 

In 2005, at the UN World Summit, governments adopted the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. This doctrine was created out of the inability of the international community to adequately prevent and respond to heinous mass atrocities in numerous countries, including Cambodia, East Timor, Haiti, Burundi, DRC, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone. The concept of R2P rests on three pillars: the state’s responsibility to protect its population, international assistance for states to fulfill their responsibilities, and timely and decisive collective action when a state is failing to protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity.

In practice, R2P is rarely formally invoked, most notably during the conflict in Libya. Concerns about the invocation of R2P include the possibility that it undermines national sovereignty and the idea that R2P necessarily means military intervention.

The US continues to be “fatigued” from its involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan and is hesitant to invoke R2P (which is often assumed, albeit incorrectly, to mean military intervention) and to become involved in other conflict areas. This hesitancy seems inconsistent with President Obama’s remarks in 2012 that “preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States,” and his additional creation of the Atrocities Prevention Board.

Several prominent US officials have encouraged the US to translate the idea of R2P into a reality – most notably former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former envoy to Sudan Rich Williamson, who together co-chaired a working group and published a report entitled “The United States and R2P: From Words to Action.” This report includes several recommendations to strengthen R2P: “articulating a clear vision of U.S. support for all pillars of R2P, diplomatically engaging key like-minded states, pursuing a policy of positive engagement with the International Criminal Court (ICC), continuing to institutionalize steps to prevent atrocities, and developing additional uses for modern technologies to advance R2P objectives.” The intent of these recommendations is to allow the US to become a more credible global leader for R2P and to move the international community forward on embracing R2P.

On Tuesday, Albright and Williamson spoke about this report at the US Holocaust Museum. They spoke of the report as a way to make R2P part of an emerging norm for an international response to crimes against humanity.

Issues with R2P still exist. In the wake of these heinous crimes, there is a struggle between the issue of individual guilt (the guilt of the perpetrators) and collective guilt (the guilt of the bystanders). Some have said that R2P increases collective guilt while not addressing individual guilt enough. Albright spoke of addressing this issue on a case by case basis, and remarked that it is always awkward for her to speak about the International Criminal Court, as the US has still not become a member. Williamson also addressed the possible “moral hazard problem” that arises from R2P – the possibility that a country could begin a conflict that it is sure it cannot finish, knowing that the international community will step in. Albright referred to R2P as a double-edged sword: it allows monitoring of conflicts and greater knowledge of international crimes, but with this knowledge comes a greater need to act.

Current conflicts were brought up during this event, specifically Syria, which is on everyone’s minds. It remains unclear whether R2P will be invoked in Syria, and how (or if) this report will affect US policy. The New York Times covered this with an article on Monday.

Each day the Syrian conflict appears to become more complicated, with increasing numbers of actors and new groups forming. One of these complications is the issue of religious minorities. Syria has a majority of Sunni Muslims, which make up 75% of the population. However, many minorities exist: Alawites consist 12% of the population, 10% are Christian, 4% are Druze, and non-Alawite Shi’a Muslims and Jews make up less than 1% of the population each.

Before the civil war, under Assad’s Ba’athist regime, these minorities enjoyed relative religious freedom. The Assad family is Alawaite, and therefore part of the non-Sunni religious minority. To maintain power, Assad implemented laws and policies to protect minorities. The Ba’ath party opposed religious influence on state matters and emphasized a secular Syrian nationalism. As such, as the violence broke out minorities were assumed to be supporters of the regime, and have been under extreme pressure to choose sides. Minorities struggle between fear of a new regime that could potentially be less accepting of religious differences and anger at the Assad regime for its human rights abuses.

During the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing a few weeks ago, Chairman Smith of New Jersey spoke of the implications of this conflict for Syria’s religious minorities. In hisopening remarks, Rep. Smith spoke of his concerns for the targeting of religious minorities, citing the fact that 1 in 5 refugees is Christian though Christians are only 1 in 10 Syrians.

Thomas Melia of the Department of State spoke of the Assad regime’s attempt to drive a wedge between Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority and religious minorities. The regime commits 80-90% of “human rights atrocities” in the conflict. Therefore, minorities are increasingly obliged to take up arms against the regime. Melia confirmed that there is targeting of minorities in Syria. Massacres of Shi’a citizens are occurring, over 1,000 mosques have been destroyed, and Christians are driven from their homes. Sunnis who want democracy are seen by the opposition as “unbelievers” who deserve to be punished. This puts minorities in the middle of this conflict as they are targeted from both sides.

Zuhdi Jasser of the US Center on International Religious Freedom added to Melia’s comments, mentioning the regime’s characterization of the opposition forces as “Sunni extremists” who will create an Islamist state that will not allow religious minorities. Jasser added further that the regime’s claim that the Syrian conflict is a sectarian battle is untrue. The regime is capitalizing on minorities to further its aims. Additionally, sectarian violence is spilling over into neighboring countries like Lebanon.

The issue of religious minorities being trapped in the middle is not a new one – Al-Jazeera featured this op-ed in 2011. Increased targeting of minorities, however, is a concern, and is yet another complication in this horrific conflict.

Barack Obama’s appointment of Samantha Power to lead the United States Mission to the United Nations pleased atrocity prevention advocates across the country, including those of us at STAND.  Power brings new energy to the post and her history as a lifelong champion of civilian protection likely bodes well for Western advocates.  While her appointment is a step forward for the atrocity prevention movement, we must remain more vigilant than ever as violence rages on in Syria, Sudan, Burma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and elsewhere.  It’s important to remember that Samantha Power represents us and we must hold her accountable.

To welcome her, we gathered and sent pictures of students from across the country holding some of her most salient words.  Even though school’s out for summer, dozens of students replied to our call because they care about the 100,000 people slaughtered in Syria, Rohingya targeted in Burma, and civilians killed everyday in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

We invite you to join us as we being a new year of mass atrocity prevention.  Look out for our exciting Fall campaigns and be sure to follow our ongoing #Syriasly blog series.  If you’d like to learn more about #AccountablePower or how you can get involved, please email info@standnow.org.

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.