|
Home
>>
Analysis
>>
Blog
A bi-weekly audio series and podcast service, hosted by Committee on Conscience Project Director Bridget Conley-Zilkic, that brings you the voices of human rights defenders, experts, advocates, and government officials. Vital voices addressing one of humanity's most vital issues. The opinions expressed in these interviews do not necessarily represent those of the Museum.
Page 23 of 26 pages « First < 21 22 23 24 25 > Last »
5/16/06
|
An early test of whether the International Criminal Court can be effective is whether those countries that support it -- especially European countries -- will provide the wherewithal to enforce the ICC's first arrest warrants. Those warrants were unsealed last October and named leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army, a vicious insurgency that kidnaps children in northern Uganda and turns them into child soldiers or sex slaves.
But don't hold your breath. The Council of the European Union, Europe's ministerial level legislative body, addressed the issue on Monday. The indicted commanders, it said, "must be apprehended and brought to face justice as a matter of urgency." Note the passive voice. Who, you might ask, should do this apprehending and this bringing to face justice? "The Council calls on the Government of Uganda and neighbouring countries to work together to effect the arrest warrants." (Emphasis added.) Of course, if the Government of Uganda could arrest the LRA leaders, it would have done so without calling in the ICC in the first place. And as for neighboring countries, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo simply doesn't control the territory in the east where the LRA sometimes lurks, and the government of Sudan . . . well, let's just say that it's not part of the solution.
Is the ICC an "international" criminal court? If so, what "international" efforts will the European Union lead to arrest the indictees and bring them to justice?
|
|
|
5/16/06
|
The AU yesterday urged Sudan to drop its objections to a UN force for Darfur and agreed to transfer its responsibilities to the UN by the end of September. Kofi Annan, writing in the Financial Times, urged that the AU force (AMIS) "must be transformed into a larger and more mobile UN operation, better equipped and with a stronger mandate." A short while ago in New York, the Security Council adopted a US-sponsored resolution to move that process forward. Meanwhile, Eric Reeves asks where the troops for a larger and more mobile force will come from, asserting that "if we listen at all attentively, comments coming from NATO headquarters in Brussels, from Washington, and from officials at the UN in New York are far from encouraging."
Update: Here's the text of Security Council Resolution 1679.
|
|
|
5/14/06
|
Never underestimate the ability of the UN Security Council to take a half step when a full step is desperately needed. A draft resolution circulated by the US early last week would have authorized a UN force for Darfur (extending the mission of the already-authorized UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), charged with policing the North-South peace agreement). By week's end, the draft merely called for further assessment of a future transition from the AU Mission in Darfur to a UN one. Who's to blame? -- ineffective US diplomacy? European fecklessness? Chinese and Russian opposition? AU sensitivities? Discuss among yourselves.
|
|
|
5/14/06
|
Simple math allows one to calculate the portion of the Voices on Genocide Prevention audience that hasn't yet joined the Million Voices for Darfur campaign -- that is, (VoGP audience minus 930,000). That's right: 930,000 Americans have raised their voices on Darfur -- and it's reflected in the increasing focus on Darfur by President Bush and other national leaders. Don't hesitate. You can act now.
|
|
|
5/14/06
|
Senator John McCain gave his much anticipated address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University yesterday. Near the top of his remarks -- Darfur: We have so much more that unites us than divides us. We need only to look to the enemy who now confronts us, and the benighted ideals to which Islamic extremists pledge allegiance -- their disdain for the rights of Man, their contempt for innocent human life -- to appreciate how much unites us.
Take, for example, the awful human catastrophe under way in the Darfur region of the Sudan. If the United States and the West can be criticized for our role in this catastrophe it is because we have waited too long to intervene to protect the multitudes who are suffering, dying because of it.
Twelve years ago, we turned a blind eye to another genocide, in Rwanda. And when that reign of terror finally, mercifully exhausted itself, with over 800,000 Rwandans slaughtered, Americans, our government, and decent people everywhere in the world were shocked and ashamed of our silence and inaction, for ignoring our values, and the demands of our conscience. In shame and renewed allegiance to our ideals, we swore, not for the first time, “never again.” But never lasted only until the tragedy of Darfur.
Now, belatedly, we have recovered our moral sense of duty, and are prepared, I hope, to put an end to this genocide. Osama bin Laden and his followers, ready, as always, to sacrifice anything and anyone to their hatred of the West and our ideals, have called on Muslims to rise up against any Westerner who dares intervene to stop the genocide, even though Muslims, hundreds of thousands of Muslims, are its victims. Now that, my friends, is a difference, a cause, worth taking up arms against. In what the Washington Post described as "one of the handful of applause lines in the speech," McCain said, "We're insisting that all people have a right to be free and that right is not subject to the whims and interests and authority of another person, government or culture."
|
|
|
5/12/06
|
So I spoke at the UN today, then happened upon an exhibition of prize winning news photographs. This Sven Torfinn photo from Congo pierced my heart. The girl's name was Varin Vamuliya. She was five and she died of dysentery in March in an Internally Displaced Persons camp in Tche, northeastern Congo. You probably can't tell on-line, but her burial dress has a white-on-white pattern with little hearts. Sven's website is here.
|
|
|
5/12/06
|
Every time our cell phones ring, there may be a connection between us and the catastrophe in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where millions have perished in the past 8 years. How's that? Cell phones -- as well as laptop computers and play stations -- contain a mineral called coltan (or columbite-tantalite), of which DRC has 80% of the world's reserves. As Johann Hari details in this stunning report, the quest for coltan has played a devastating role in the Congo conflict. And this dispatch from Sarah Coleman provides more details. Money quote: By the time you finish reading this article, another 10 people will have died in the DRC's chaos. And yet most people in the West are unaware of the magnitude of this crisis, how it happened, or what could be done about it. (Hat tip: Andrew.) You can learn more about Congo from my interview with Rick Brennan of the International Rescue Committee and Jason Stearns of the International Crisis Group, as well as our web feature, Ripples of Genocide: Journey Through Eastern Congo.
|
|
|
5/12/06
5/11/06
|
Interview:
Scott Straus, a Political Science professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison has recently published Intimate Enemy: Images and Voices of the Rwandan Genocide and is about to release a new book, The Order of Genocide: Race, Power and War in Rwanda. In this interview, he provides a brief overview of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, unravels the complicated notions behind the two ethnic groups, Hutus and Tutsis, and explains the implications that these categories had in terms of the genocide. Mr. Straus also tackles the difficult notions behind the intertwined relationships of perpetrators, rescuers and bystanders during the genocide in Rwanda.
 Subscribe |
Listen now |
Transcript
|
|
|
5/08/06
|
You might have seen Nick Kristof's piece on Sunday about "Heroes of Darfur" (though if you didn't, you have to pay to read it on-line). He highlights the truly heroic work of Eric Reeves, who's fighting for his life against leukemia and also fighting for the Darfurians. Eric is the one who first alerted me to Darfur in late 2003, and is a principal reason that we started speaking out in January 2004.
Then I started thinking about all the heroes I've met in the past two years, and I realized the list is a lot longer than I guess Nick could manage in the little amount of space that the Gray Lady gives him. My limitation is not so much space as my feeble memory and fear of leaving someone out. There's Ruth Messinger, of American Jewish World Service, and Gloria White-Hammond, chair of the Million Voices for Darfur campaign, both of whom have poured their souls into this struggle and in so doing given it soul. David Rubenstein, who really got the Save Darfur Coalition going and on the map. Brian Steidle. John Prendergast. Nesse Godin. Salih Booker and the other folks at Africa Action. Rich Cizik. Sarah Margon. Bridget Moix. Sebastian Mallaby. Omer Ismail, Suleiman Giddo and Darfur Peace and Development. Samantha Power. Annie Sparrow. Jennifer Leaning. Sally Chin. Fidele Lumeya. Emily Wax. Hilary Anderson. Gayle Smith. Tim Nonn. Becky O'Brien. Janice Resnick. Gabi Bell. Avi Posner. Sam Brownback, Jon Corzine, Donald Payne and Frank Wolf. Students too numerous to mention on hundreds of campuses across the country, including Sara and Sasha and Chaki and Rebecca and Chad and Martha and Julia and Jason and Nate and Stephanie and Mark and Andrew and Patrick and Jackie and Erin and Ori and Micaela and Lisabeth and Anna and Elisa and Nikki and Megan and Emily and on and on and on.
That's more than 50, and it merely scratches the surface. And then only of activism in the U.S. It doesn't begin to name the heroes on the ground in Darfur and eastern Chad who have worked directly to save lives.
|
|
|
5/05/06
|
I just talked to Chris Padilla, Deputy Secretary Zoellick's Chief of Staff, from Abuja. He provided some details about the peace agreement, as well as the intense negotiations that led to the final version. He acknowledged that strengthening the AU mission and getting a robust UN force authorized are more important than ever if the agreement is to work. Here are some key aspects of the agreement:
Security. The agreement requires complete and verifiable disarmament of the Janjaweed by this October, to be supervised by the AU. Janjaweed disarmament has to be verified before the rebels are required to disarm. A specified number of rebel forces will be integrated into the Sudanese army and police, while others will be enlisted in reconstruction efforts. Buffer zones will be established around camps where Internally Displaced Persons are located and humanitarian corridors. These buffer zones will be off limits to rebels and the Sudanese military.
Power sharing. The rebels get the fourth highest position in the national government, as well as control of a Transitional Darfur Regional Authority, seats in the National Assembly and various posts in the national, state and local governments. The agreement also calls for elections at every level of government by 2009, and a referendum by 2010 on whether Darfur should be one state instead of the current three (a key rebel demand). A Darfur-Darfur reconciliation process will be set up under AU auspices to promote reconciliation among the many Darfur communities (recognizing that neither the rebels nor the government have any strong claim to representing the population).
Wealth sharing. The agreement commits the national government to contributing $700 million over the next three years to Darfur reconstruction and provides for a donors conference to facilitate international contributions to reconstruction.
All in all, a necessary step, and for that reason important. But Khartoum has often proved the old maxim "'twixt cup and lip, many a slip." The ultimate value of this agreement will be directly proportional to the amount of follow-through by the international community.
Update: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is pressing Khartoum to allow an assessment team into Darfur to further planning for a UN peacekeeping force. This is a good test of Khartoum's intentions as well as the international community's resolve.
|
|
|
5/05/06
|
No, it's not fair to invoke the infamous words of Neville Chamberlain from 1938 when talking about the agreement that may be emerging from the talks in Abuja. But that little bit of history does illustrate that agreeing to peace is not the same as achieving peace. The Khartoum government and the leader of one rebel faction, Minii Minnawi, have agreed to the terms on offer. Although other rebel leaders are holding out, the general feeling is that Minnawi is the most important in terms of his influence on the ground in Darfur.
The larger issue is that Khartoum has a long history of making agreements with its fingers crossed, and Minnawi himself is something of an unknown, as is his ability to bring other rebels along with him. But an Abuja agreement is a necessary step toward approval, creation and deployment of a UN force with broad capabilities and a broad mission to protect civilians. Actually getting that force on the ground, however, will still require a giant leap and more international political will than has so far been forthcoming. The UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations has started planning for a force, but has been hampered by, among other things, Khartoum's refusal to let the planners go to Darfur to assess the situation. The greatest danger is that Abuja will cause the international community to let up (one of Khartoum's strategic goals in signing, no doubt), when in fact the urgency of the situation has not diminished one whit.
|
|
|
5/04/06
|
Noted Darfur expert Alex de Waal has been advising the African Union mediators in Abuja. Early today, he circulated his personal views of the negotiations, which as of now appear still to be grinding on even though the most recent deadline has passed. Alex's key points: 1) The rebels came in with a maximalist position and have not budged much from it; 2) Khartoum's Plan B if negotiatons fail is "a large scale military offensive"; 3) though the AU draft does not give the rebels what they want, it creates conditions under which they can gain political power in Darfur and substantial influence in Khartoum; 4) a proposed Darfur-Darfur peace process will contribute to reconciliation on the ground; and 5) the security arrangements were worked out with AU, UN and US military experts and provide a workable plan for disarming the Janjaweed. He sympathises with the rebels' concerns over guarantees, given Khartoum's long history of reneging on agreements. For reassurance, he invokes the Security Council's resolutions calling for the disarmament of Janjaweed. That does appear to beg the question somewhat: Of course the Security Council would support the letter of the agreement. But will they act to enforce it?
|
|
|
5/04/06
5/02/06
|
The Sudanese government said that it would sign a Darfur peace deal proposed by the African Union, but the rebels balked as an AU-set deadline loomed. The rebels, who are a little unclear as to exactly what they want anyway, were probably spooked that Khartoum seemed so willing to sign: "the way [the government] welcomed the peace project is very dubious," they said in a statement. If Khartoum thinks this is a good deal, the rebels reason, it must be bad for us. The AU has extended the deadline to keep prospects for an agreement alive, and a host of African heads of state are en route to Abuja to push for a resolution. But the top Sudanese negotiator, Vice-President Ali Osman Taha, bolted back to Khartoum (though, it is said, he is available by phone). President Bush sent Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick to Abuja and called Sudanese President Bashir to ask him to send Taha back to the talks (and reiterate the need for a UN force). Hard to follow, I know. What does it all mean? It's difficult to imagine that an agreement would have immediate effect on the ground; previous agreements have not. Khartoum in particular is accomplished at signing and ignoring, while the rebels are still practicing. But an agreement could be a step toward deployment of a UN force to protect civilians. And collapse of the Abuja talks would leave diplomatic efforts pretty much, well, collapsed.
Update: Deputy Secretary Zoellick and the UK's International Development Minister, Hilary Benn, are working to gain agreement on a revised peace treaty. The deadline for ending the talks has been extended to midnight Thursday. Meanwhile, I talked today to UN humanitarian chief Jan Egeland and we'll post that interview tomorrow. It's very disturbing -- increasing violence, funding shortfalls and new government obstruction threaten the aid that more than 3 million conflict-affected people depend upon to survive. He told me that we could very well see 30,000 deaths per month if the aid operation falls apart. Listen -- tomorrow -- right here.
|
|
|
Page 23 of 26 pages « First < 21 22 23 24 25 > Last »
|
|
