Justice for all

The LRA - from the Enough Project

While the deadly Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) may have left Uganda for good, the notorious rebel army hasn’t stopped wreaking havoc in the region. Ugandan President Museveni recently said at a press conference in Kampala that Joseph Kony, leader of the LRA, may now be in southern Darfur. Kony has been fleeing ever since he refused to sign a peace deal with Kampala. About a month ago, after he was forced out of the DRC, he fled to the Central African Republic. And now, he’s in Darfur.

Part of the problem, certainly, is the ICC arrest warrant for Kony and other top LRA commanders. Many now believe that one of the reasons Kony hasn’t yet signed a peace treaty with Kampala is because he’s attempting to evade the ICC arrest warrant. Moreover, Kony is refusing to agree to a peace deal because he hopes the ICC will drop his warrant. However, there really is no evidence that the ICC is obstructing peace in the country, despite a strong debate over the issue. Kony has long avoided peace agreements - he is likely simply using the ICC as an excuse to continue doing what he originally intended to do. There is no evidence, really, that Kony wants peace.

Another complication is that the LRA may be receiving assistance and support from Khartoum; the LRA has received such support in the past, and the Sudanese government clearly has a track record of using militia groups to cause chaos and target civilian populations. It’s certainly possible, but there is no concrete evidence as of yet that this is taking place.

Now, it seems that both al-Bashir and Kony, who are both wanted by the ICC, have joined together. What could this mean? Quite simply: further chaos, instability, and perhaps even violence. Darfur doesn’t need any further instability, especially with the upcoming elections and referendum.

The Obama administration needs to devise a strong response to this negative development. The reality is that today in central Africa, all the conflicts are inextricably linked. This recent news is testament to the trend of the regionalization of conflict. Rwanda, Sudan, the DRC, and the CAR are all involved in the regional conflict today. When rebel leaders and perpetrators of mass atrocity in one region are allowed to go free, the problem burgeons into a regional conflict with more and more actors involved. Perpetrators will increasingly begin to band together in the face of common threats, resulting in continued insecurity throughout the region. That’s why institutions like the ICC are so important in stopping these deadly regional conflicts. But the ICC lacks any enforcement power, and so countries like the US have to step in to help the ICC enforce its arrest warrants.

If this increasingly interconnected regional conflict continues to be ignored, peace may not be a possibility for the Great Lakes region.

I ran across this interesting quote recently in this report:

Reverend Miguel d’Escoto Brockman of Nicaragua, President of the General Assembly, tried to frame the dialogue with a “concept paper” that argued that R2P was just colonialism in a new package. D’Escoto wrote that the correct way to eliminate genocide and other mass atrocities was to reform the world financial system, redistribute wealth, and reform the UN Security Council. He said in the UNGA dialogue, that “Recent and painful memories related to the legacy of colonialism, give developing countries strong reasons to fear that laudable motives can end up being misused, once more, to justify arbitrary and selective intervention against the weakest states. …We must take into account the prevailing lack of trust from most of the developing countries when it comes to the use of force for humanitarian reasons.”

And while his critique may represent one extreme, the controversy swirling around R2P has a number of countries concerned that R2P is merely a justification for interference by developed countries in the affairs of developing nations.

I find this comment extremely interesting — is the way we’re attempting to fight genocide today even an effective method of doing so? Though the Save Darfur movement has mobilized millions against genocide and created the first activist movement to do so, it hasn’t necessarily been effective in translating advocacy into action thus far. Perhaps the R2P concept must be part of a much larger process of reform and redistribution that might be more effective in the long run.

I don’t think that R2P will necessarily be misused by powerful countries to intervene in poorer countries. Indeed, countries like Sudan or other countries at risk for conflict/genocide are not necessarily countries the U.S. has an interest in. Despite the concept of R2P and the citizen movement, the U.S. hasn’t taken strong action on Darfur. The U.S. similarly may not have much interest in other at-risk countries.

But I would question, ultimately, whether the idea of R2P is even what is most necessary. As alluded to in the quote, we have to somehow be working towards prevention of genocide, towards a more just and equitable world order in which genocide would never be possible in the first place. Currently, we are so focused towards intervention that the larger piece of the puzzle - prevention - has almost been forgotten. Of course, the roots of genocide are in discrimination, inequality, and poverty. Working to eradicate these strands of hatred through development efforts might be a part of the prevention process. Rather than simply depending on individual countries to step in and play the savior, we need to simultaneously develop a longer-term vision and international framework for ensuring that genocide does not become possible anywhere in the future. While advocacy and R2P is necessary for Darfur, these tools may not be sufficient to prevent the emergence of genocide elsewhere in the future, and a more holistic strategy for prevention must be developed.

**Please forgive me for interrupting the Be the Change series — back to your regularly scheduled programming soon!

I’m taking an absolutely amazing class right now about Sudan, human rights, and US foreign policy. It has been so illuminating and challenging - it’s actually taught by the former Special Envoy, which is pretty amazing (sometimes I love Northwestern!). We’re reading amazing books, like Emma’s War which really traces the history of the Sudanese civil war beforehand, as well as talks about the moral difficulties encountered with humanitarian aid. I also am reading Darfur: A new history of a long war by the experts Julie Flint and Alex de Waal. We also have books by Paul Rusesabagina and Halima Bashir scheduled. Any activist needs to get ahold of these books. This is the kind of class that makes college worth it.

Truth be told, I barely understood the intricacies and nuances of what was going on in the region before I took the class (not that I understand it completely now, since I’m no expert on the topic, but I do have a much better sense). I mostly knew what was spewed out by Western media and by NGOs like Save Darfur – which is not really that illuminating, to be honest. I think it really speaks to how problematic Save Darfur and other advocacy groups like the Enough Project have been. If you think about it, Darfur is so well known that the conflict is now practically a household name in the US (not in a good way, of course), but how many of you can really tell me about the history of Darfur, and what’s happening there? The advocacy movement has been so successful at getting people to have a basic awareness of the issue — but that’s it. It stops there. It’s a basic understanding, not a deep one. I feel the issues in the region are so complex (and reading all these books has really drilled that into my mind - how Sudan is a place of so many divisions not simply based on ethnicity and religion, but also on economic development, presence of natural resources, culture, tribe and clan, and so much more.)  that it’s hard for any advocacy group to actually get people to understand that.

What worries me more, though, after thinking about is whether the movement for Darfur has done any good. What’s come out of it? Sure, the Obama administration has issued it’s new Sudan policy, but it seems like Obama thus far is doing even less than Bush had done (um, makes me wonder about the whole ‘Peace Prize’ thing)! The Bush administration actually had successful Darfur foreign policy - they played a primary role in negotiating the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the North and the South. I am doubtful about what’s going to happen with the Obama administration, but thus far Obama hasn’t proven foreign policy to be his strong point. Basically, it’s extremely difficult to change policy. I am also concerned because this is a movement for Sudan from America…not Sudan. Do we, as Americans, understand the best solutions to this conflict? Are we consulting with Sudanese people or at least, African people who know about the issue? So much money and effort and time has been generated for this cause. Has it been an effective movement? If not, what can be done better?

I’m also concerned about the 2011 referendum that’s coming up, where the South can vote to secede from Sudan altogether. Uh, considering the current government in Khartoum, I’m pretty sure the South’s going to want to secede. But it’s not all fun and games from here on out. The truth is, the South is pretty brutally divided amongst various groups as well. The SPLA often doesn’t have the full support of the South, and there have been horrific divisions and conflicts between various Southern tribes  (Nuer, Dinka, etc). Moreover, Khartoum definitely won’t be giving up the regions - many of them in the South or around the North/South border - because of significant oil in those areas. I was really happy to see, that in Obama’s Sudan policy there has been increased focus on mending the North-South divide. I really think that at all costs, civil war has to be prevented in the area — otherwise the referendum could incite horrific violence again. Read this good quote, from the awesome, new War and Peace blog on Change.org:

“The central regions located between the north and south including Abyei, Southern Kordofan, and the Blue Nile are still unstable while resting on disputed oil fields. And the minority tribes allegedly allied to the north who live in the south still tend to hold vendettas against their southern-allied neighbors, this is within Malakal, Jonglei, and elsewhere. So if, hypothetically, the south becomes independent, the defining of the border and oil field divisions will be an extremely delicate, if not bloody decades-long process. “

These are just a few of my rambling thoughts on the issue. Ultimately, I’m just wondering whether the activist movement has been effective at all. It’s difficult for me to wrap my head around activism and lobbying — it totally scares me that despite SO much popular mobilization, the result might not be effective. But ultimately what the U.S. does IS going to be extremely significant. Our stance on foreign policy towards Darfur can definitely solve the crisis.

The question is: what’s our stance? And how can the activist movement be more effective in getting the U.S. to take the best possible stance and actions to deal with the conflict? No doubt, it’s a hard question, but it’s one we have to think critically about if change is going to occur.

Oh, and just for laughs, check this out. Al-Bashir himself has gotten social media savvy and set up his own website: Albashir.sd. What’s next, a blog?!

Today, President Obama spoke to Africans in his speech to the Ghanaian Parliament. Before reading, I was kept in anticipation, exciting to hear the new vision of our President with regards to Africa. I was excited, especially, after the revelations in his Cairo speech - and I hoped that he would bring a fresh perspective to America’s foreign policy to Africa in his remarks.

Certainly, I was inspired. But, I have to agree with Texas in Africa, who states:

The speech was not surprising and not particularly interesting in that it contained nothing new beyond the reflections of an American president who has a Kenyan father. Obama’s speech presented the same line that American leaders have been delivering to African states since the end of the Cold War: be democratic, stop being corrupt, embrace market capitalism, stop fighting with one another, and we’ll help you deal with disease.

Unfortunately, this is true. Obama spoke about things we all know by now about Africa; he focused on democracy, economic growth, public health, and conflict. But here’s the thing: most people know the challenges facing Africa right now. The media tells the American people over and over again about the HIV/AIDS epidemic, about the genocide in Darfur, about the lack of economic growth and business opportunities in Africa, about poverty, and about dictatorship. He talks about Zimbabwe, pirates in Somalia, Kenya and post-election violence, and South Africa. We’ve heard of these conflicts and problems a million times. What about countries he didn’t mention? There is the conflict in northern Uganda and DRC and CAR, the intervention of the ICC in various countries, and countless other countries with their own stories to tell. But, he doesn’t mention these. Perhaps it’s too much to mention in one speech, but I still think there is more to be said.

Obama didn’t do much to go beyond these common conceptions of Africa. There was nothing new in terms of US relations with African countries, and nothing much said about the new way forward. What is America going to do, other than provide foreign aid? Obama does allude to these facts - that the West is not wholly responsible for the problems in Africa although often blamed for drawing inappropriate colonial boundaries - that Africans must step up and take charge of their continent’s future - and that we will support innovation and technology for African farmers. This is good, but I wish there was a greater redefinition of America’s attitude towards African countries. There was not enough said about what we can do to help.

One thing I did like was his focus on corruption. Corruption, certainly, is a serious problem and I feel that Obama is right in acknowledging this. Corruption is an enormous problem that often isn’t emphasized by the international community. But the reality is this: according to the World Bank - a conservative estimate of bribes paid worldwide (including developed and developing countries) - the “cost of corruption” is essentially 1 trillion US dollars. Not a measly sum by any measures.

As a result, one of my favorite parts of the speech was when he emphasized good governance and rule of law - and the need to end corruption - from state heads and CEOs to the everyday police officer:

This is about more than just holding elections. It’s also about what happens between elections. Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end.

This, I have to say, was truly inspring. Perhaps it’s especially because this summer, I’m working for an organization working to end torture and corruption by prison officials and police through appropriate training. It’s inspiring to me to see one component of our work - which I believe to be so important - to be pointed out by Obama. Along with just mentioning the cost of corruption, I hope Obama implements policies and supports initiatives working to stop this.

At the very least, I hope his speech touched thousands of Ghanaians and inspired people around the world. I hope it educated those who know less about the problems facing Africa. Though I’m not one to criticize, I do at the same time hope that our President will take more prompt action to change things and implement more concrete initatives to benefit the continent. What are your thoughts?

As I’m currently on Easter Break, I’ve been constantly traveling. Right now, I’m at Northwestern University, visiting friends, studying for final exams, as well as catching up on meetings and activities. It’s been an exciting time, but since I’ve been so busy I haven’t had much time to update and write here. Forgive me for being M.I.A. — but in the meantime, check out some of these links for the latest and greatest in human rights news and blogs:

1. To Africa, From New York: “No, I said I’d only waterboard if I HAD to, and then only for 20 minutes….”
   The Obama Administration released some previously top secret documents about tactics used by the CIA today, at the same time that he promised those who implemented these tactics immunity from prosecution
2. Change.org Humanitarian Relief blog: When Aid Becomes Morally Indefensible
   So do you ask for the food, know that most of it will be used to further the insidious aims of the regime that has driven the country into the ground, but hoping that at least a few hungry people will benefit - or do you ask for the aid to be withheld, hoping to cutoff one of the regime’s own lifelines, even if more people will go hungry?
3. Internet and Democracy blog: Connecting India: Why Elections Need The Web
   Despite India’s bewildering diversity of languages, customs and religions, technology is building a bridge to more robust civil society. I am heartened by the cacophanous and lively blogospheric debates about the elections, which now compete with the Indian MSM and party propaganda machines for attention…
4. UN Dispatch: Death and Destruction in Sri Lanka While Few Pay Attention
   For the past three months the Sri Lankan government has engaged in a military campaign against the Tamil separatists, believing that this offensive can deliver the once and final blow to the Tamil Tigers 25 year violent insurgency…According to a document leaked to the AP, the United Nations puts the civilian death toll at around 4,500 with 12,000 civilians wounded.  Five children a day are dying from starvation and diarrhea.
5. Change.org Humanitarian Relief Blog: Challenging the Western approach to advocacy
   If we genuinely want to get governments to respect the rights of citizens, then we need to inspire them to do so, rather than shaming them when they don’t.
6. On the Ground by Nicholas Kristof: Free Roxana
   Today Roxana Saberi, an Iranian-American from North Dakota working as a journalist in Iran, was sentenced to eight years in prison by the Iranian government. My heart aches for her and her family.
7. DPH: Vijay Mahajan speaks about new economics and micro-finance
   For the longest time there was only one bottom line and it was money. Then there was talk of a double bottom line, which meant monetary and social accountability. But now most leading corporations are trying to perform on a triple bottom line, namely profits, people and planet.
8. Mashable: How to use social media to champion international causes
   Essentially, your social networking profile makes you a public figure, and like Brangelina, you too can champion an international cause…If you’re a social media guru with an interest in international projects, below are a few ways you can contribute to humanitarian organizations.
9. Change.org Social Entrepreneurship blog: Plato and Brancusi on Branding and Responsible Media
   I wonder how much irresponsible media is actually symptomatic of an irresponsible worldview and irresponsible action which starts from the division of the world into the philanthropists and those to be helped? I wonder if the photos of fly-bitten, distended-bellied children are effect, not cause?
10. WSJ: Obama Can Make a Difference in Darfur
    The U.S. needs to lead the international community in presenting Sudanese regime officials with a choice. If they allow access to aid organizations, sideline their indicted president, and secure peace for Darfur and the South, then they will be offered a clear path toward normal relations with the U.S. and other coalition partners.