Darfur on The Huffington Post

John Prendergast: George Mitchell's Lessons for Darfur

2009-12-01T10:33:49Z

I just listened to U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell's press conference on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the other day. Given the difficulties in his current Middle East peace portfolio, he reflected upon his earlier involvement in striking a deal to bring peace to Northern Ireland. He reminded the journalists in the room that during the actual negotiations that took place over a few years, there had been 700 days of conflict and one day of peace. In my own experience working on various African peace processes, protracted negotiations are required for breakthroughs; breakthroughs almost never precede protracted negotiations.

For the last couple of years, we at the Enough Project have been advocating that the U.S. needs to help marshal a set of protracted negotiations that will help break the deadlocks in Darfur. We should help produce a draft peace proposal that addresses the core issues which all Darfuris know so well.

Diplomatic niceties and blunders have prevented this from happening since the disastrous 2006 Darfur Peace Agreement, which did not enjoy the agreement of most Darfuris and therefore did not bring peace. It's time for President Obama and his team to talk with the African Union, the European Union, the U.N., China, and others with influence to step the process up a notch and to push toward implementation of the North-South peace deal.

The stakes grow daily. George Mitchell can share his experiences with the president's team. And the Sudanese themselves know better than anyone that protracted negotiations can produce real breakthroughs, as they did for the North-South deal.

Further delays will necessitate much bigger cemeteries. Mr. President, we need your leadership.

Layla Amjadi: Join Me for the National Canvass to Prevent Genocide this December

2009-11-30T18:59:58Z

From December 1-7, we have the chance to take part in something bigger than ourselves. During the first week of December, thousands of people are pledging to join the movement to prevent genocide. The key word here is prevention.

As citizens, we have the power to shift the U.S. government's mindset from solely reacting to ongoing crises like those in Sudan, Congo, and Eastern Burma, and focus on preventing situations that may escalate into genocide. Achieving this dual-focus goal will truly be a historic moment for U.S. foreign policy. There is so much that the United States can do to prevent genocide -- we only need to muster the political will to make it happen.

The National Canvass to Prevent Genocide, an initiative organized by the Genocide Intervention Network, gives us the opportunity to muster that political will. We will "canvass" our communities, campuses, and neighborhoods to talk to people about the importance of genocide prevention, as well as inform them of the role that they have in demanding action from our government.

We need to share the following message with our friends, family, classmates, and co-workers:

Individual actions matter. Improving how we prevent and respond to genocide begins when we join together and pledge to build a better future. Your pledge is your commitment to be a part of the grassroots movement for genocide prevention. More than 30,000 pledges have already been made as part of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's new exhibit, From Memory to Action: Meeting the Challenge of Genocide. Will you help us reach 40,000 pledges?

Join in on the action today and invite everyone you know to be part of the movement:

•Sign the pledge.

•Ask your friends to sign the pledge by tweeting I just joined the movement to prevent genocide. Will you? http://bit.ly/2F8rmY #pledge.

•Hold a canvass event on your campus and get as many people as you can to sign the pledge! Online you'll find pledge cards that people can print out and sign.

Unbelievably, there are many people who still don't know that genocide is a problem today or that their actions can contribute to the effort to prevent and end genocide. We are lucky enough to know what's going on. Therefore, it is our responsibility to spread the word and give others around us the chance to join the movement.

I know we all believe that all people have the right to live in a world without genocide. December 1-7 is our chance to help make that world a reality. Take the pledge today.

This post was originally published on Causecast.org

Jon Temin: Why Sudan Matters

2009-11-24T18:04:55Z

Foreign policy realists sometimes ask how much seemingly marginal states such as Sudan really matter. The answer is that Sudan matters for many reasons, none more important than the millions dead and displaced due to decades of unnecessary internal violence. Sudan matters now more than ever because two seminal events are quickly approaching -- elections in 2010 and a referendum on the unity of the country in 2011 -- and the international community is increasingly concerned that they will lead to new and renewed violence and displacement. With the recent release of its long-awaited Sudan policy, Sudan matters to the Obama Administration and its efforts to transform the president's popularity abroad into tangible achievements.

But Sudan also matters because what is happening right now in Sudan, and what will happen in the next two years, has important implications for Africa and efforts to address state fragility globally for at least three reasons.

First, Sudan may test the inviolability of Africa's borders. Many of Africa's current borders were drawn almost blindly by European rulers at a conference in Berlin in 1885. They tend to be arbitrary and often awkward, splitting kin groups across different countries while placing adversarial groups within the same borders. But with few exceptions (the carving of Eritrea out of Ethiopia being the most notable), Africa's borders have remained static. Until now, African leaders and citizens have accepted the geographic hand they were dealt.

But in 2011, southern Sudanese are scheduled to vote in a referendum on whether to remain part of Sudan or secede. The referendum is the culmination of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between Sudan's north and south that ended decades of civil war which cost roughly two million lives. Every indication is that southerners will vote for secession - the president of the Government of Southern Sudan recently predicted that remaining in a united Sudan would render southerners "second-class citizens." Secession would mean the division of Africa's physically largest country, with the south comprising approximately a quarter of Sudan's land. This could be deeply traumatic for Sudan, but may not affect Sudan alone.

If Africa's largest country can be divided through referendum, what does this imply for an unwieldy, arguably ungovernable country like the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Or Nigeria, which, not unlike Sudan, is deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines? How many of Africa's borders may be up for debate? Southern Sudan's right to self-determination should be unassailable, but the precedent set by secession would be felt well beyond Sudan -- something surely on the minds of leaders and disgruntled populations elsewhere.

Second, Sudan presents a stern test of the "African solutions to African problems" mantra. There are few durable African solutions to boast of, especially with Zimbabwe and Kenya backsliding. Particularly concerning Sudan's Darfur crisis, Africa is on the hook: the Darfur peacekeeping mission is a joint enterprise between the African Union and United Nations, includes troops only from Africa, and, until their recent departures, was led by a diplomat from Congo-Brazzaville and a general from Nigeria. The lead mediator for Darfur is from Burkina Faso. The African Union Panel on Darfur, which investigated issues of peace, justice and reconciliation, recently released its findings and was led by former South Africa President Thabo Mbeki. African Union gatherings have debated Darfur and passed resolutions -- including one condemning the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.

Despite this depth of African engagement, there are few results to show. The scale of the killing has diminished, but millions remain displaced. UNAMID is intensely unpopular among many of the displaced and remains significantly short of its mandated capacity of 26,000 troops. There is no political solution in sight, with factionalized rebel groups struggling to unite and the most influential rebel leader, Abdel Wahid al-Nur, refusing to engage in negotiations. An African solution to this problem does not seem imminent. This is by no means solely Africa's fault, as the United States, China and others bring substantially greater leverage to the situation than any African state. But it does raise the question: if so much African engagement does not bring progress, can there be African solutions to Africa's most intractable problems?

Third, following in the footsteps of Afghanistan's highly flawed election, Sudan offers another test of whether elections in volatile environments are a good idea. The CPA called for nationwide elections mid-way through the six-year "interim period." Those elections have endured several delays, and are now scheduled for April 2010, with the CPA expiring in 2011. Preparations are underway, with voter registration commencing, in haphazard fashion, at the beginning of November. But substantial flaws in the process are already emerging: the Carter Center recently noted concerns including "slow implementation of electoral preparations...unresolved operational decisions related to voter registration activities...delays in the finalization of national, regional, and state geographic constituencies; and continued harassment of political party and civil society activity across Sudan." There are also real risks of elections triggering new or renewed violence, especially in the volatile areas of the country on both sides of the north-south border.

Many Sudanese, especially in the south, profess little interest in the elections. They are skeptical of the election process and those organizing it, and, in the south, are instead counting the days until the 2011 referendum on unity or secession. During the CPA negotiations neither the northerners nor southerners were especially keen to see elections be part of the deal; it was the international community, led by the United States, which insisted that elections come first, ostensibly to legitimize the referendum. But that insistence may be backfiring, with the international community pouring substantial funds into a process that could ultimately be perceived as illegitimate and may result in the confirmation of an unhappy and unstable status quo. If that is the outcome, little will have changed, except that precious time, effort and funds will have been devoted to elections rather than to meeting mounting humanitarian needs and preparing for the referendum and what comes after it. Should this be the result, valid questions will again be asked about elections in fragile states and whether they should be a priority. It is unlikely to be the last time such questions arise.

Jerry Fowler: Presidential Silence in Beijing

2009-11-18T10:56:41Z

Less than a month after his Administration proclaimed in its new strategy for Sudan that "American leadership is essential to a more effective multilateral approach," President Obama left China early this morning without any public reference to having brought up Sudan with his hosts. There were background statements to journalists that it was on a list of things discussed. Such low-key treatment was a huge missed opportunity to enlist the support for the new strategy from a crucial country. It also was a rejection of the recent, bipartisan plea by 44 Members of Congress:

As you prepare to visit China, we strongly urge you to make Sudan a priority in your bilateral discussions. As you are well aware, China is a major arms supplier and source of economic strength to the regime in Khartoum, and has a vital role to play in any ultimate resolution of the multiple crises in Sudan.

The Congressional letter echoed a petition signed by tens of thousands of citizen-activists who asked for President Obama to call on the Chinese to work with the U.S. and:

Use their economic and political influence with Sudan to support the Darfur peace process, full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and significant structural, political and judicial reforms to Sudan.

The President's public silence on Sudan in Beijing follows on a similar silence by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on her recent visit to Egypt - another country that is crucial to bringing peace to Sudan. Their failure to raise Sudan publicly in bilateral meetings with key countries sends an unfortunate message to the Sudanese government and other key actors: The United States is not leading for peace in Sudan.

Michael Gerson recently summed up the urgent need for leadership:

Only a president and his secretary of state can insist on boldness.

Absent that insistence, America's Sudan policy is in a holding pattern, waiting for the next crisis to refocus global attention. Meanwhile, women are raped, with impunity. Weapons are illegally imported, with impunity. Civilians are attacked, with impunity. And at some point, impunity becomes permission.

The "unstinting resolve" that Candidates Obama and Clinton pledged last year is needed now more than ever.

Jerry Fowler is the president of the Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations committed to raising public awareness about the genocide in Darfur.

Cross posted on Save Darfur's blog.

Jerry Fowler: China: Obama's Test

2009-11-17T00:06:07Z

As President Obama travels to China this week, he unquestionably has a full plate of priorities to discuss with the Chinese government. The economy, trade wars, nuclear proliferation, and security cooperation will all receive significant amounts of attention, as well they should. Some commentators are describing the president's trip to China as a test of his foreign policy prowess; it will also serve as a test of his dedication to resolving one of the thorniest problems currently plaguing the international community: Sudan.

On October 19th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and Special Envoy for Sudan Scott Gration unveiled the administration's long-awaited Sudan policy review. In it, the administration asserted that "sustained political will to address Sudan's tough challenges in the international community is sometimes lacking. American leadership is essential to a more effective multilateral approach."

President Obama can make good on that promise of American leadership in Beijing. China has a key role to play in bringing peace to Darfur and full implementation of the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). No nation holds more leverage over Sudan than does China. Sudan exports 70 percent of its oil (its main source of hard currency) to China, has an extensive military relationship with the Chinese government, and counts on China to veto tough multilateral sanctions at the United Nations on Sudan's behalf. Yet China has mostly played the role of Khartoum's "heat shield," protecting it from international pressures.

If President Obama is serious about his administration's dedication to building a multilateral coalition to address the crises in Darfur, he could do no better than by starting in Beijing and convincing his hosts that they need to play a more constructive role in building a stable, peaceful Sudan, instead of continuing to blindly stand by a regime headed by an indicted war criminal. But why should China listen? It has always craved greater international respect and an enhanced role for its leadership. Sudan provides an opportunity for China to act as a responsible world power.

But President Obama has a strong argument to make to President Hu Jintao that even China's narrower self-interests should motivate it to work in concert with the U.S. in Sudan. The reason is clear: China has come to count on access to Sudan's oil, much of which is in South Sudan, and has invested billions. If the North-South conflict is reignited, as is all too plausible, China could lose access to those oil fields. Even if conflict does not reignite between the North and South, the South will hold a referendum on its independence in January 2011, at which point the world may be dealing with the new republic of South Sudan. It behooves China to have a seat at the table during the run-up to this process so that its oil concessions can be adequately protected during any process of state separation. In short, President Obama has set viable terms for engaging the Khartoum regime, and he should encourage his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao, to join the effort.

When the Chinese recognize that peace in Sudan serves their interests, there are ways in which China can begin to demonstrate to the Sudanese and the world that it is serious. For example, the president should encourage China to condition any debt write-off owed to it by the Government of Sudan or its proxies on concrete and lasting progress on the ground in Darfur and throughout Sudan. The Government of Sudan has accrued $36 billion in debt, owed mostly to multilateral, Western, Chinese, and Arab creditors. Securing debt-relief has become a major priority for the Sudanese government. Darfur activists inside and outside Sudan support debt cancellation as a long-term incentive for Khartoum's implementation of the CPA, respect for democracy and human rights, and an end to violence in Darfur. But to cancel this odious debt pre-emptively, before the regime has changed its behavior, would not only relinquish an important source of leverage over Khartoum, it would throw good money after bad. China should also refrain from granting any new loans to the Government of Sudan until it meets such conditions as fully cooperating with the peacekeeping force in Darfur (UNAMID), faithfully implementing the CPA, and cooperating with the International Criminal Court.

There is no substitute for President Obama's leadership if the situation in Sudan is to be successfully resolved. But, as the president's own policy outlines, it will take an international coalition to prod the Government of Sudan into taking the steps toward peace that the international community has called for, time and time again. If President Obama is serious about creating that coalition, he must start in Beijing, and he must start now. China's economic leverage in Sudan, used in the right way, is a necessary ingredient to creating a safe and secure Sudan. The afflicted people of Darfur and other disaffected Sudanese will be watching closely to see if President Obama backs his policy pronouncement with action and passes his test in Beijing.

Jerry Fowler is the president of the Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations committed to raising public awareness about the genocide in Darfur.

Cross posted on Save Darfur's blog.
Read more: Darfur, Darfur Genocide, Sudanese Elections, United Nations, President Obama, Icc, Southern Sudan, China Darfur, China, Barack Obama, Save Darfur, World News

John Prendergast: To Obama in China: Don't Shy Away From Sudan, Congo

2009-11-16T16:17:25Z
President Obama has a huge opportunity to advance two of the most important peace and human rights causes on the continent of Africa during his meetings with Chinese officials this week, and particularly in the follow-up to this potentially historic visit.

In both Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the two deadliest wars in the world, China has invested or struck trade deals worth billions of dollars and thus has a vested interest in peace and security in both of those troubled countries. President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao may not see eye to eye on human rights promotion, but at the end of the day their policy objectives are similar in that they both seek peace.

In Sudan, the Chinese stand to lose out mightily if the Comprehensive Peace Agreement collapses and full scale war erupts. As the largest investor by far in Sudan's oil sector, China has a very practical reason to work together with the U.S. and other world leaders to press for full implementation of the CPA -- before it unravels to the point of no return. Southern leaders have already started to warn that they will unilaterally declare independence if the referendum slated for just 14 months from now is threatened. And southern officials admit privately that if war does break out they will target oil installations.

As a key investor in Congo's mining sector and with millions dollars worth of infrastructure projects, Chinese investments are directly impacted by prolonged war and deeply rooted corruption. China would see a far greater long-term return on its investments with greater stability in Congo.

The urgency to implement the new U.S. policy in Sudan and forge a comprehensive solution to the crisis in Congo cannot be overstated. The effectiveness of U.S. efforts rests significantly with the ability to work multilaterally with key interlocutors like China.

President Obama should make it clear that the United States sees cooperation to resolve issues affecting the conflicts in Sudan and Congo as an important element of U.S.-Sino relations. By pushing the Chinese government to play a constructive role in resolving the Sudan and Congo conflicts, President Obama would kick U.S.-China engagement up a notch and empower his full-time point people on these issues -- Scott Gration in Sudan and Howard Wolpe in the Great Lakes region -- to use the president's personal commitment as leverage.

Developing a shared agenda of peace between our two countries will certainly be much harder work than just business as usual, but the payoff in the form of a coordinated peace policy in Sudan and Congo would be extraordinary. This is entirely consistent with the president's message that the U.S. and China don't have to be rivals, and that cooperation can yield significant benefits. The bottom line is that President Obama needs to publicly engage in the challenges threatening Sudan and Congo, and not doing so with key player China would be an opportunity missed.

Let President Obama know that you expect him to raise the alarm about the deadly conflicts in Sudan and Congo during his trip to China. Get in touch with the White House and your members of Congress at enoughproject.org/SudanNow.

For an overview of the conflicts in eastern Congo and in Sudan, check out this recent video clip of an interview on The Young Turks.

John Prendergast is Co-Founder of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Oil, Darfur, Investments, Sudan, Foreign Affairs, China, Barack Obama, World News

Michael Macher: To Give Is To Gain: Bobby Sager's Philosophy Of Philanthropy

2009-11-13T10:14:42Z
We've all heard the familiar criticism--that despite our relative wealth and high standard of living, modern life has left many of us feeling lonely, disconnected, and spiritually bankrupt.

At a time when so many of us are working ourselves to death, struggling to support ourselves and our loved ones, and seeking balance in our personal and professional lives, it seems that there is no time to step outside of our immediate experience and ask ourselves the deeper questions about
community, connection, and what it means to reach out and help another human being.

Given the break-neck pace of our own lives, at the end of the day there just doesn't seem to be enough left of ourselves to give--emotionally or financially.

However, there is one activist--entrepreneur-turned philanthropist Bobby Sager--who is on a mission to change our understanding of what it means to give. His life and work do not teach an ethics of guilt, but instead how we might use charity as a creative strategy for leading a fuller, more engaged life. Rather than view philanthropy as an infringement on our already hectic schedules, Sager offers the giving life as a model for transforming the way we live.

Sager's mission began ten years ago when he quit his work as an entrepreneur to dedicate his life to philanthropy full-time. It was then that he took his children out of school, packed his bags, and set out in search of a better way of life. Since that time he has travelled to some of the world's most desperate locations, documenting his experience through the lens of his camera.

I met with Sager at Donna Karan's Urban Zen Studio during an October 27th release party for his latest project--The Power of the Invisible Sun--a collection of photographs taken of children throughout the developing world. The Power of the Invisible Sun is the culmination of nearly a decade of philanthropic expeditions in places such as Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Nepal, ranging from the weeks following September 11th, 2001 until 2009.

Sager has been an outspoken critic of "feel good" philanthropy, wherein one engages in charitable acts in order to induce a passing feeling of self-satisfaction, only to quickly retreat to the isolation of everyday life. A self-proclaimed "doer" rather than a "do-gooder," Sager's own philanthropic orientation is not one of condescension and pity toward those he helps, but of a hope that is both transformative and, as he likes to say, "strategic."

"I don't do this for redemption," said Sager, "I do this because I'm selfish. I always say to people: be selfish, help somebody."

Through his own brand of "eyeball-to-eyeball philanthropy," which emphasizes the importance of direct face-to-face contact, Sager offers up a new way in which to view our relationship toward the giving life--a relationship that is less about giving things up and more about what we stand to gain from engaging in a life of service. "I don't want you to feel guilty for these kids," Sager warns, "I want you to take strength from their strength." Rather than seeing the children in his book solely as objects of his charity, Sager emphasizes how his own face-to-face relationships taught him to live a deeper, more connected life.

Sager's philosophy of giving inverts our narrow conception of philanthropy as merely aiding those less fortunate than ourselves. In his case, it was he--the philanthropist--who gained the most from the strength of those children--from the hope and power that emanated from their eyes. This is precisely what is meant by the Power of the Invisible Sun: "Eyeball-to-eyeball philanthropy is about living a full life--it's about looking people in the eye and discovering a shared humanity."

This search for "shared humanity" is deeply reflected in Sager's photographic process.
"The last one percent of my process is taking the photograph. Before that, it's all about stripping away filters and establishing a human-to-human connection."

Sager has not had to venture on this journey alone. In addition to his family, he was joined by long-time friend, travel companion, and internationally-renowned singer and songwriter Sting, whose song "Invisible Sun"--originally written about the tensions in Northern Ireland--served as the inspiration for Sager's book. Like Sager, Sting's inspiration for philanthropic work stemmed from a sense of personal urgency and fulfillment, saying, "I didn't have any road to Damascus kind of moment, I just do what feels right in the moment, instinctively."

Hosting the event was fellow philanthropist and fashion designer Donna Karan--head of DKNY and noted patient advocate. Karan's longstanding involvement with cross-cultural philanthropy and the preservation of endangered cultures was a motivating factor for supporting The Power of the Invisible Sun.

"We must work to preserve these cultures and the knowledge they contain," said Karan of her involvement with Sager, as well as her own work at the Urban Zen Center. "It is about protecting this knowledge that cannot be obliterated." Karan emphasized the need to create a "center of consciousness" that will utilize indigenous knowledge to combat the apathy and isolation characteristic of our culture. Her Urban Zen Center has been an attempt to create such a place.

Flipping through the pages, readers will notice that The Power of the Invisible Sun is a physically impressive book, and the young faces that grace the pages stare back with full-scale human intensity. For Sager, the book's massive size is a self-conscious strategy that reflects his mission to replicate his own experiences--a way of allowing us to see those children as he saw them. But in the end, the choice is ours whether the promise of their gaze elicits our guilt and condescension, or inspires our strength and hope.

Most of us are not as lucky as Bobby Sager. After all, he has been afforded the opportunity to dedicate his entire life to doing something he loves--that enriches his sense of being. Yet every one of us is capable, in our own way, of reaching out and discovering the joy of a better life--a giving life.
Read more: Darfur, Sting, Philanthropy, Afganistan, Charity, Developing Countries, The Power of the Invisible Sun, Children, The Giving Life, War, Donna Karan, Bobby Sager, Travel, Development, Rwanfa, Triumph, Living News

Stephen Schlesinger: Obama Gets Good Grades at the United Nations

2009-11-03T16:10:18Z
Barack Obama promised throughout his presidential campaign to reengage with the United Nations. And he has. He's compiled an extraordinary list of accomplishments already at the UN building. Let's begin with his decision to appoint a new ambassador, Susan Rice, who actually believes in the UN and has made her commitment clear. Next, his early meeting with Ban Ki Moon at the White House in his seventh week of his presidency, which demonstrated in a public way Obama's determination to link America up again with the UN.

Then his early decision to pay up our annual dues and peacekeeping arrears, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and to switch our payment schedules to coincide with the UN's own budgetary calendar rather than our Congressional one; his choice to increase American military and civilian support to UN peacekeeping missions; his willingness to rejoin the Human Rights Council; his public declaration to recommit the US to ending climate change; his renewal of US funding support for family planning programs and reproductive health services at the UN's Population Fund; his desire to strengthen American backing of UNICEF and UNESCO; his endorsement of such UN inspired treaties as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; his backing of the UN General Assembly statement opposing violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation; his public citing of the ICC and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women; his push for a pact to end the production of fissile nuclear materials and his pledge for a vigorous US participation in the 2010 UN review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; his support of the UN's Millennium Development goals; his desire to reform the UN Security Council, including possibly adding more countries to its roster; and his support to complete the UN's internal reforms, the Peacebuilding Commission, the Democracy Fund, management changes and the new Responsibility to Protect provision (in the Security Council). All of this represents a 180 degree change of course from the George W. Bush years.

And then when Obama visited the UN for the first time in September, he made a number of remarkable moves. First, he addressed a special UN Security Council summit on climate change; then he hosted a luncheon for 43 sub-Saharan African heads of state; he arranged meeting with a dozen nations who are the top troop contributors to UN peacekeeping operations; and he chaired a special UN Security Council meeting on non-proliferation and disarmament -- something no American president has ever done. And then he dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the end of September to lead a UN meeting to press for the implementation of a previous UN resolution condemning sexual violence against women.

In his formal address to the UN during that visit, Obama uttered these key sentences:

Cooperative effort of the whole world - those words ring even more true today. ... No one nation can or should try to dominate other nations. No world order that elevates one nation or group over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold... We can be remembered as a generation that ... comes together to serve the common interests of human beings and finally gives meaning to the promise embedded in the name given to the institution, the United Nations.

Now, as you know, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month. The Nobel committee spokesman, Thorbjorn Jagland, later said that one of the main reasons the committee gave Obama the award was Obama's emphasis on the primacy of the United Nations.

Indeed the changes in atmospherics are really astounding. I spoke with one member of the US Mission to the UN earlier this week. He told me that in his area of expertise -- peacekeeping -- the ways that Obama has already altered the US approach -- e.g., paying up our arrears, meeting with peacekeeping contributors, emphasizing the importance of these UN endeavors -- have left many delegates almost dumb-founded. They really don't know how to deal with a US that says "yes" rather than "no" or says it will listen rather than lecture.

Now, of course, Obama is not prefect at the UN. He has not been out in front on some UN issues. He ducked out of the Durban conference on racism, he has not submitted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the Senate, he has not yet joined the International Criminal Court, he has so far low-keyed the Darfur crisis and recently pushed off consideration of the Goldstone report on Gaza. Nor does he talk enough about the UN in his speeches. But I call his first year a great success from the point of view of international engagement and a robust commitment to multilateralism. His is an example of a dynamic presidency, not a passive one, and of a progressive vision, not a retrograde or neglectful one.

Read more: Darfur, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, Unesco, Goldstone Report, Ban Ki-Moon, United Nations, Obama One Year Later, Unicef, UN Security Council, World News

Jerry Fowler: Now We Need Presidential Leadership

2009-10-29T16:31:43Z
Now that the dust is settling from the release of the Obama administration's Sudan strategy we can begin to assess the landscape. The greatest virtues of the strategy are that it lays out the path the administration intends to follow and provides a basis for the advocacy community to hold the administration accountable. At the same time, it makes clear that the U.S. policy can take different paths depending on the actions of the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) and other actors. Although it provides principles for deciding what path to take, the decisions themselves have yet to be made. Our advocacy role will be to push President Obama and the administration to make the right decisions.

The basic guidelines for deciding which path to take seem right. In U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's words, the focus will be on "concrete and tangible progress" before any incentives are provided. Moreover, the new U.S. policy provides clarity that not only will there be no rewards for the status quo, there will be consequences if it does not change for the better.

A huge open question is how engaged the President will be in implementing this new policy. His absence from the public roll-out was not encouraging. It sent a message to Khartoum and key heads of state around the world that he has delegated Sudan to others and that he does not plan to personally lead the effort to end the crisis in Darfur and promote peace in all of Sudan. A critical test of his commitment will be whether he makes Sudan a priority when he meets with Chinese President Hu Jintao in a few weeks. I for one will be watching closely, and calling him out if he doesn't.

As for the new strategy, one thing we should be clear about is that the issue has never been engagement or non-engagement with the NCP. Rather, it has been the terms of engagement, which for nine months have been totally unclear, even worrisome. Now the terms are clearer on paper; we will have to see in practice.

Another misunderstood issue has been the role of Special Envoy Scott Gration. Before release of the strategy, there was an understandable tendency to try to infer the terms of engagement from his public statements. Because many of those statements expressed optimism about Khartoum's responsiveness to incentives, the public was left to wonder if the Obama administration was focused only on incentives without requiring real change on the ground. We now know the store will not be given away unilaterally; the U.S. will "verify, then trust."

Although General Gration will play a leading role in implementing this strategy, it is clear that he does not have carte blanche. The strategy is a product of the interagency process and reflects the policy views of a range of officials. Going forward, progress on the ground (or lack thereof) and decisions on incentives and disincentives will be reviewed quarterly at a senior level.

Within that context, General Gration should be given the chance to implement this policy. Having heard him explain his views in greater detail than is conveyed in the media, I believe he has the potential to succeed in what is an enormously difficult mission. That is not to suggest that we always see eye-to-eye - we definitely do not. But he is clear-eyed about the dangerous characters he is dealing with. And he is committed to pursuing the policy set by the President.

Some have called for General Gration to be fired. The reality is that if he were suddenly dismissed, it could be months before a new special envoy took his place. A void in the special envoy position would hobble any implementation of U.S. policy, and Sudan would hurtle toward the scheduled elections and the southern referendum with little diplomatic involvement or influence from the United States.

While the new administration policy has many of the right elements, there are concerns, many of which were recently raised on the Save Darfur blog. The biggest strategic level concern is that those elements of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) focused on opening up political space in Sudan not be traded away for conflict resolution in Darfur or conflict prevention in southern Sudan.

The most important long-term need facing Sudan is the creation of a political space in which Sudanese can resolve the country's issues without the use of extreme violence. The CPA presents a framework for creating that space, but the CPA elements crucial to that framework are the ones whose implementation is most seriously lacking. Now, elections are six months away and there have been no meaningful steps toward permitting freedom of the press, freedom of association, and freedom of movement or curbing the arbitrary powers of the security services. Judging from the travesty of the census, the ruling NCP does not intend to fulfill its CPA obligation to open up political space. This is a status quo that must be changed if peace is to be promoted.

Tactically, the biggest concern is how much of a priority Sudan is for President Obama. He said all the right things while he was in the Senate and during the campaign, including pledging to bring "unstinting resolve" to Sudan policy if elected.

For the new policy to work, General Gration can't go it alone. The President must lead in creating a real coalition of key heads of state to support the strategy laid out last week and push for concrete and lasting change in Sudan. Now is the time for him to show the resolve he promised.

Jerry Fowler is the president of the Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations committed to raising public awareness about the genocide in Darfur.

Cross posted from Save Darfur's blog.
Read more: Leadership, Sudan, Barack Obama, Darfur, Genocide, Foreign Policy, World News

John Norris: Sudan's Interlocking Crises (VIDEO)

2009-10-24T13:14:29Z
Days after the release of the Obama administration's new Sudan policy, I appeared on Aljazeera yesterday afternoon with Tahir el-Faky of the Darfuri rebel group Justice and Equality Movement and Mahmood Mamdani, director of Columbia University's Institute of African Studies. We discussed the new "carrots and sticks" policy, the use of the word genocide, and the arrest warrant for Sudanese President Bashir issued by International Criminal Court for crimes in Darfur. Here's Part I:

Part II is here, in which we take questions from viewers.

John Norris is Executive Director of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Darfur, Aljazeera English, Omar Al-Bashir, Sudan, Barack Obama, Mahmood-Mamdani, Genocide, World News

John Norris: Sudan Score Card

2009-10-22T17:04:30Z
This piece originally appeared on Foreign Policy.

Over the last nine months, the Sudan policy review has taken on something of a mythical air. Activists and others lost count of the number of times they were told the review would be completed "in weeks, not months" -- even as months stretched on. Tales of sharp-elbowed infighting between the U.S. special envoy for Sudan, retired Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, dominated the narrative. So did a series of high-profile gaffes, ranging from the absurd -- with the special envoy talking of handing out "cookies" and "gold stars" to Sudan's ruling National Congress Party -- to the just plain bizarre, as former National Security Advisor Bud McFarlane was found to be lobbying the administration to normalize relations with Sudan, after receiving $1.3 million from Khartoum passed through Qatar.

The Obama administration was clearly eager to use the policy review as a chance to hit the much-needed reset button. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was joined by Rice and Gration in a carefully choreographed show of internal unity at Monday's rollout event, and everyone dutifully sang from the same song sheet. The public version of the policy is a modest five pages in length and says many of the right things. But it also reflects the bipolar views of an administration that, after nearly a year in office, still seems divided on Sudan.

Kicking off to a good start, the policy calls for a comprehensive approach to Sudan's interlinked crises and notes the genuine risk of a return to wholesale warfare in the run-up to a 2011 independence referendum for South Sudan.

The document also goes to some lengths to dispel the notion that U.S. policy toward Khartoum has become too accommodating. It insists that incentives be offered not for gestures of goodwill, such as "the signing of a MOU [memorandum of understanding] or the issuance of a set of visas," but "rather based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground." The policy review also institutes a quarterly, senior interagency review of "indicators of progress or of deepening crisis" as a means to calibrate incentives and pressures, with an admonition that "[f]ailure to improve conditions will trigger increased pressure on recalcitrant actors." The administration also offers an overdue acknowledgment that "accountability for genocide and atrocities is necessary for reconciliation and lasting peace."

Yet in many ways, the policy feels like an uncomfortable compromise between feuding internal approaches, producing something that is neither fish nor foul.

To continue reading, click here.

John Norris is Executive Director of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Darfur, J. Scott Gration Special Envoy, Sudan, Barack Obama, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, World News

Gauthier Lefevre, French Aid Worker, Kidnapped In Darfur

2009-10-22T13:14:02Z

Read more: Gauthier Lefevre Kidnapped, Darfur, French Aid Worker, Lefevre, Gauthier Lefevre, Foreign Affairs, Sudan, World News

John Prendergast: Will Obama Finally Pay Attention to Sudan?

2009-10-22T09:13:23Z
For the past seven months, U.S. diplomacy toward Sudan has veered dangerously in the direction of appeasing Sudan's ruling National Congress Party (NCP). Since taking power in a 1989 coup, the NCP has engaged in a systematic assault on the Sudanese people. The use of starvation as a weapon in Southern Sudan and the genocide in Darfur have killed nearly two and a half million people. Omar al-Bashir, the country's president, is the first sitting head of state indicted by the International Criminal Court. Under his rule, the body count continues to climb.

Some of the Obama administration's recent lowlights have included public and private rhetoric favoring incentives over pressure, talk of lifting longstanding sanctions without demanding anything in return, and a disconcerting lack of emphasis on the need to hold this heinous regime accountable for what this and the previous U.S. administration have declared genocide. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden talked tough when they were presidential candidates, but this administration's day-to-day diplomacy on Sudan has been troubling.

This has emboldened the ruling NCP to harden its positions at the negotiating table, continue military operations in Darfur, crack down on independent voices throughout the country, stir trouble in the South, and shut down efforts by international entities to independently monitor key developments on the ground. Engagement by the Obama administration with Robert McFarlane and others lobbying on Sudan's behalf only furthered the impression that Khartoum was on a fast track to normalization.

Finally, a ray of hope emerged on Monday. After months of delay due to internal disagreements, the administration unfurled its new Sudan policy. On paper, the new approach seems to have an appropriate balance of carrots and sticks that would only take effect, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, based on "verifiable changes on the ground."

This opinion piece originally appeared in this morning's Wall Street Journal.

Click here to continue reading.

John Prendergast is Co-Founder of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Darfur, Sudan, Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama, Genocide, Khartoum, National-Congress-Party, World News

John Norris: Testing Obama's Sudan Policy

2009-10-21T12:23:52Z
This piece originally appeared in the Guardian.

After a lengthy internal battle, the Obama administration has formally rolled out its new Sudan policy. The policy spells out some ambitious goals: a definitive end to conflict and genocide in Darfur, implementation of the 2005 North-South peace deal and peaceful moves toward a 2011 referendum that will likely result in South Sudan becoming independent.

Like many such policy reviews, this one looks good enough on paper. But how will we know if this policy is actually working? These are the practical measures by which Obama's new policy will ultimately be judged a success or a failure.

Returns

In Darfur, there is probably no better barometer for the relative success or failure of the international community than the almost 3 million people who remain displaced or refugees after having been forced to flee from their homes by the government-backed janjaweed militias.

Refugees and the displaced vote with their feet. They are almost universally desperate to return to their former homes, but will only do so if security is sufficient for them to do so. To date, the UN force on the ground in Darfur has been largely ineffective, there has been no credible effort to disarm the janjaweed militias that caused such havoc and peace talks for Darfur have moved forward fitfully. Refugees and displaced persons know full well that their lands and villages are still occupied by armed thugs responsible for some of this century's most horrific war crimes.

Under such conditions it would be madness for these families who have already suffered so much to return home. The answer: a far more effective and robust peacekeeping force on the ground (with Khartoum's de facto veto power over UN operations taken away), practical steps to disarm the janjaweed and a solid peace agreement between the government and rebel forces brokered with international oversight and guarantees.

The White House policy review places a lot of emphasis on a peace deal in Darfur. However, there have been few signs Washington or European capitals are willing to tackle the tough choices required to improve security on the ground, and officials have often been overly eager to portray a recent lull in fighting in Darfur as a sign that the fundamentals are improving.

Click here to continue reading about the other fronts on which Obama's Sudan policy will be tested.

John Norris is Executive Director of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Sudan, Human Rights, Foreign Affairs, Barack Obama, Darfur, World News

Obama Sudan Policy Focuses On North-South Conflict, Not Just Darfur

2009-10-20T10:13:47Z
The Obama administration's new policy toward Sudan, formally announced Monday, turns the spotlight back on where the troubled nation's problems first began: the split between the Islamic north and the largely animist and Christian south.
Read more: Darfur, US Sudan, Obama Sudan, Sudan, Obama, Sudan US, Foreign Affairs, Obama Sudan Policy, World News

John Prendergast: The Fierce Urgency of Implementation: Obama's New Sudan Policy

2009-10-19T14:13:38Z
The ideals spelled out in the Obama administration's new paper on U.S. policy to Sudan are worthy of considerable support. The policy review represents a great deal of work inside the administration to learn lessons from past policy, to correct missteps of the administration over the past seven months, and to find a balanced approach that integrates peace, protection and accountability.

Recent public statements by administration officials have created justifiable concerns among members of Congress, activists, and a range of experts that the policy might rely on providing incentives as the primary means for encouraging behavioral change on the ground in Sudan. Instead, the policy as articulated today demands accountability and verifiable progress on a wide range of issues before incentives would be deployed -- although these benchmarks are not spelled out in detail.

As difficult as the process has been to achieve a potentially effective policy on paper, the hard part is now only beginning. Implementing this policy will require clear-headed assessment and courageous action. At key junctures, success will require the direct involvement of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice, all of whom have important and valuable history on dealing with the multiple challenges of Sudan policy. The U.S. must lead internationally in developing a coalition of countries that can help the people of Sudan find a just and sustainable peace, and the administration will be rightly evaluated by whether it meets the goals and terms it has set for its own diplomatic efforts.

Click here to continue reading.

John Prendergast is Co-Founder of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Darfur, Susan Rice, Foreign Affairs, United Nations, Sudan, J. Scott Gration Special Envoy, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, World News

Obama Administration To Unveil New Sudan Policy

2009-10-16T23:46:39Z
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration plans to roll out a new policy toward Sudan with an eye toward engaging the government in Khartoum but also warning that continued violence in Darfur will result in penalties, U.S. officials said Friday.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, and the administration's special Sudan envoy, Scott Gration, are to unveil the policy Monday at a news conference at the State Department, the officials said.
Read more: Obama Administration, Sudan, Hillary Clinton, Khartoum, Darfur, State Department, World News

Lora Somoza: Dumb Luck and a Call to Action

2009-10-14T18:24:26Z
It's just dumb luck really.

A roll of the dice, a hand that I'm dealt, a flip of a coin.

Heads, I'm lounging in my bed with overstuffed pillows, mango sorbet and the latest on HBO.

Tails, I'm in Darfur, with my own government destroying my village and killing my entire family.

Heads, I'm cruising around with the top down, getting Starbucks in the morning and sushi at night. I count laugh lines in the mirror and drool over Barney's shoe department.

Tails, and I am raped not once, not twice, but ten, fifteen times by the Janjaweed, an Arab militia. I count the scars from machetes on my body and dream of food in my belly.

Heads, I live in America.
Tails, I'm dying in Darfur.

But me, I am fortunate. The coin has landed my way. I thrive here with a roof over my head, plastic in my wallet, and Trader Joe's in the refrigerator. I don't wake in fear that I may not live to see the sun set and I don't go to sleep on an empty stomach. The mere fact that I was born here makes my life about a thousand times easier than the mass majority of people in the world.

While those who got tails? They are dying. Stuffed in refugee camps, all three million of them, some for almost six years. Most are lacking food, proper medicine and any sort of future, any form of hope.

Sudanese officials say 10,000 people have died since the conflict broke out in 2003. The UN says over 300,000 have died. 4.7 million people in Darfur still rely on humanitarian assistance, including nearly three million who are living in displacement camps.

From 2003 to 2005, when the conflict was at its height, aid agencies labeled the situation in Darfur as the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

And it continues today.

It's just dumb luck. If you can even call it that. I just happened to be under this part of the sky, as the people of Darfur just happened to be under theirs. That's the only difference. Luck and location.

BUT WE CAN CHANGE THIS.

We can help their luck change. By taking a few simple steps today, we can help give the people of Darfur a better tomorrow. Sometimes, all it takes is one person taking that first step.

In times of such despair, I am inspired by the story of Mother Teresa. Here was a just a simple young girl really who became a nun after making it her mission to help the poor. She was teaching geography and Catechism in Calcutta in the 1940s when she contracted tuberculosis. She went to the town of Darjeeling to recover. It was there where she heard her calling: to serve the poorest of the poor. Those who could not help themselves.

She returned to Calcutta after receiving medical training and began helping those dying on the street, sometimes by simply giving them water or holding their heads. It may seem like such a simple thing. But what an act of grace, a glimpse of human dignity in the darkest moment.

News of her actions spread. Who was this woman who cared for those that no one else cared for? The small, unassuming sister became known as "Mother Theresa."

Soon, inspired by her actions, others came to help. In 1950, she founded a small community called the Missionaries of Charity. And what began with a mere 12 members has now grown to over 4000 nuns running AIDS hospices, orphanages and other charity centers all around the world. All this because one person held out their hand to help.

Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not yet come. We only have today. Let us begin. - Mother Teresa

We can begin to make that change today.

In mere minutes, you can e-mail your senator or congressperson. You can write a letter to President Obama, requesting him to help fund a multi-national peacekeeping force in Darfur.

You could join Amnesty International's Global Write-A-Thon December 5-13, 2009, where they use the proven power of writing letters and pressure authorities to help stop the torture and abuse of others around the world.

Or maybe you could take a few moments to think of a cause near and dear to YOUR heart. An injustice. A piece of dumb luck for which you are grateful and find a way to take action, however small, to share your good fortune with someone less fortunate.

We live in a country of 305 million people. Just think. If each of us volunteered one hour a week or wrote one letter, sent one check, or led by example for one other person, we could move mountains, one pebble at a time.

Little things are indeed little, but to be faithful in little things is a great thing. - Mother Teresa

Simple things really. Small things. But these small things add up. Lend your voice. Reach out your hand. Your voice could be the voice that inspires many. Your hand could be the hand that saves a life.
Read more: Darfur, Amnesty International, Darfur Genocide, Obama Darfur, Mother Teresa, Charities, Impact News

U.S. Firm Looking To Lobby For Sudan's Government

2009-10-14T10:26:29Z
Robert B. Crowe, a prominent Democratic fundraiser, is trying to secure a lobbying contract with the pariah regime in Sudan, reports the Washington Post.

Crowe, a partner at the Atlanta-based law firm Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, has met with special U.S. envoy J. Scott Gration and several Democratic lawmakers to garner U.S. support for the deal. The contract would give the Sudanese government, which is trying to deflect genocide and war crime allegations, its first U.S. representative in nearly four years.
Read more: Darfur, Lobbyblog, Lobbying, Sudan, Foreign Policy, Lobbying for Sudan, Robert B. Crowe, Sudan Lobbyist, Robert Crowe, Home News

John Prendergast: Nobel Hope and Reality in Africa

2009-10-09T12:41:54Z
It is enormously encouraging that the Nobel Committee chose its Peace Prize winner on the basis of the hope he instills and inspires around the world. With the added luster of such an award, peace activists hope that President Obama will wade more deeply into resolving the deadliest conflicts in the world in the last half century: Sudan and Congo.

The Nobel Peace Prize will provide new momentum and a new point of positive leverage on behalf of America's peacemaking efforts around the world. As the president himself remarked this morning:

[T]hroughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

Nowhere else is such engagement more pressing from a humanitarian and human rights standpoint than in Congo and Sudan, two of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman or a girl due to the prevalence of sexual violence.

The United States has appointed special envoys for both conflicts, but could do much more to move from conflict management to conflict resolution. With the president's help, more united international action could prevent a return to deadly war in southern Sudan, where over two million lives were lost before a 2005 peace deal, and could catalyze a peace deal in Darfur, which everyone supports but no one is pushing forward strategically. In Congo, the new Nobel Laureate could help catalyze efforts to end the trade in conflict minerals, helping to lay the foundation for peace in much the same way ending the blood diamonds trade helped end the wars in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Angola.

Throughout Africa and the rest of the world, the selection of Barack Obama is generating further hope for real action in support of peace. It is hard to conceive of a more propitious time to act on that hope than now, and difficult to imagine two places that need it more than Congo and Sudan.

John Prendergast is Co-Founder of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Darfur, Sexual Violence, Nobel Peace Prize, Conflict Minerals, Congo, Sudan, Barack Obama, Africa, World News

John Prendergast: The War in Darfur Is Not Over

2009-10-07T13:06:35Z
The latest news out of Darfur of a government offensive launched against civilians in North Darfur demonstrates how shamefully self-serving the recent comments are from top U.N., A.U., and U.S. diplomats. They've claimed: "no war as of now," "it is over," and that Darfur is plagued by a mere "law enforcement issue." Of course the war is not over in Darfur. Yes, there are ebbs and flows to conflict in Sudan, just as there were in the 20 year war in the South and transitional areas. But the suffering of Darfur's civilian population continues, and any assessment that distorts the reality of Darfur's continuing strife does a disservice to the ongoing efforts to keep this issue burning brightly for the policymakers and diplomats who have so far failed to help end the crisis.

Despite the distortion of the Sudan advocacy movement that some analysts continue to perpetuate, the answer we activists continue to propose is a more credible peace process in Darfur that lays down a serious peace proposal which addresses the root causes of Darfur's conflict and builds internal and international support for the proposal. Carrots and sticks would be deployed in the service of resolving the conflict in Darfur, along with the equally important effort to fully implement the Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended the 20-year war with southern-based rebels.

There is an answer to Sudan's agony. It is effective diplomacy in support of a just peace throughout the country. The biggest key to unlocking this outcome is held by the Obama administration. Let us keep demanding that it deploy that key properly and use its influence to help bring peace to all of Sudan.

John Prendergast is Co-Founder of Enough, the anti-genocide project at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.
Read more: Darfur, US Foreign Policy, J. Scott Gration Special Envoy, Activism, Sudan, President Obama, Genocide, War in Darfur, Save Darfur, Cival War in Darfur, World News