Make Some Noise: Activists Urge Action in Darfur

While working on his master's degree in educational leadership in 2001 , U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., grappled with how education about genocide had failed. History classes had, rightly, incorporated thorough study of the Holocaust, he said, but "we did such a good job of teaching it that students tended to take it as an anomaly out of history, in a bubble, and view it as something that was perpetrated by madmen and people that are insane."

Years earlier, as a high school teacher, Walz took on a "gratifying and terrifying" project with his five classes: using data about economic, ethnic and environmental contexts around the world, they tried to predict where the next genocide would occur in hopes of preventing it. Four out of five classes determined that Rwanda was the most likely site of another genocide. Three years later, in 1994, as ethnic Tutsis and their Hutu sympathizers were being executed -- more than 500,000 would eventually die -- his students called him up and asked, "Why didn’t anyone do anything? Why didn’t this government step in?"

On Sunday, Walz, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Keith Ellison and Dr. Michael Barnett gathered with more than 500 grassroots activists at Plymouth Congregational Church in Minneapolis to ask why a modern-day genocide continues in Sudan with little outrage — or action — by the international community. They also explored how to ensure that people in the future aren't wondering why the United States didn't put an end to a conflict that has killed 400,000 so far.

With little political will, the speakers concurred, only one thing will make a difference: widespread pressure exerted by a well-informed citizenry.

"Politicians see the light when they feel the heat," said Ellison.
The Minnesota Interfaith Darfur Coalition assembled a panel of well-versed experts: Walz, who has a master's degree in genocide studies, co-sponsored a bill recognizing the early 20th-century ethnic cleansing in Armenia as genocide. Ellison co-sponsored the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007, a measure that targets companies that invest directly or indirectly in Sudan ("If we starve the beast, it will change its behavior"). And Barnett, chair of the international studies department at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute, was a United Nations delegate in the 1990s and, in 1994, a desk officer for Rwanda. (According to event organizers, all 10 of Minnesota's federal lawmakers were invited but, due to scheduling conflicts, only Democrats Ellison, Klobuchar and Walz could attend.)

Barnett spoke first, recalling a mid-1990s conversation he had with Anthony Lake, a national security adviser during the Clinton administration. When asked how to get a passive international community to take action to prevent further violence ravaging Rwanda, Lake told him, "Make some noise."

"The reason why nothing was done [in Rwanda] is we had no machinery," he said later, referring to international organizations equipped to intervene. "We always say, 'Never again,' but then when the 'again' happens, we scramble around looking for the possible posse. That’s when politics get involved. My recommendation is not simply to push on Darfur, but also to urge your elected officials to support the United Nations and other mechanisms."

Klobuchar followed, offering a to-do list of actions she thought had potential for success:

• pressing China, Russia and Arab nations to urge Sudan to allow U.N. peacekeeping troops to enter the country, a move they've long resisted;

• getting the U.N. Security Council to enforce provisions of resolution 1591 by establishing a no-fly zone over Darfur to stop offensive attacks -- and to use U.N. or U.S. fighters to "direct punitive strikes against Sudanese planes" if necessary; and

• pressuring the White House to reveal its "Plan B," still-unspecified punitive actions against against Sudan promised by the Bush administration if that country continued to bar entry to peacekeepers. The administration named a Jan. 1, 2007, deadline for compliance; no action has been taken against Sudan.

Citing a passage from the biblical book Leviticus, Klobuchar said, "Justice is our duty, and we are called to recognize the image of the divine in every human life. We must renounce inaction in the face of such enormous tragedy. We are here today because we know it is our human responsibility to not stand idly by as the blood of our neighbors continues to be shed.”

Ellison suggested that a broader group of neighbors be invited into the discussion. "We have to look at our coalition and ask ourselves, is it made up of people who look pretty much like me and people who see the world as I see it? Can we expand the coalition?" he said. "I think we should reach out aggressively to mosques and the Muslim community."

The members of Congress broadened the discussion to include pointed critiques of the Bush administration. Ellison said that the United States has a "moral imperative" to act on behalf of Darfur's civilians, but at the same time, the U.S. must restore civil rights here at home. "We need to be able to say that people detained in America have a right to habeas corpus. We have to be able to say we’re going to work hard and stop profiling based on religion and race in our country. We are going to say that America doesn’t engage in torture," he said. "So that when we go to the world community and say, 'This is wrong,' we can say it without fear of being accused of hypocrisy."

Walz echoed the sentiment, referring to a new report by China that outlines rights violations by the U.S.: "When China is now lecturing us on human rights, and they’re correct on where they’re lecturing us, that is a sad day for our nation."

Perhaps the most scathing criticism came from Barnett. He said the growing public concern for Darfur has more to do with the moral fiber of the American people than real concern by the government, which -- like China and Russia -- has its eye on Sudan's rich oil supplies. "U.S. economic and strategic interests line up with [the Sudanese government in] Khartoum," he said. "Because to go through Khartoum means you get the oil. It means you're able to deal with the terrorist networks more effectively. The fact that we've gone against our national interests, which means coddling up to Khartoum, says something about the very important moral condition that's come together on this issue."

That moral stand is the antidote to genocide, Walz suggested. In discussing his grad school research on genocide education, he concluded that students, convinced that the Holocaust was an isolated act by lunatics, fail to see what philosopher Hannah Arendt called the "banality of evil" -- the potential for complicity in atrocities by average citizens -- "that sits among us in all societies."

His call to action seemed geared both at citizens and his colleagues across the aisle. "If there are people that are talking about their faith openly, that are talking about their goodness, then hold their feet to the fire and ask them what they're doing about Darfur," he said. "Where's their willingness to stand forward? Where's their willingness to get in front of their peers, where it matters -- on the House floor. That's how things reach that tipping point, and we're right on the edge."

Part 3 of my continuing series on Darfur for Minnesota Monitor: Part 1, Part 2. Note: this article has been updated; see here for details.

Mogadishu graffiti

Depicting the gun-mounted pickup trucks driven throughout Mogadishu by militias, this street-art shot accompanies Doctors Without Borders' list of the top ten under-reported humanitarian crises of 2006. Somalia makes the list for its constant upheaval, near-record-low life expectancy (47), recent flooding, and now US attacks. Definitely worth a read. Via WC.

First US attack in Somali since "Black Hawk Down"

US helicopter gunships havelaunched an air attack on sites said to be al-Qaida strongholds in Somalia, CBS News is reporting. Via AmericaBlog

Despite "despair," groups plan Darfur action for 2007

The situation in Darfur is grim.

Former U.S. Senator Rudy Boschwitz (MN) laments that just 7,000 African Union troops are confronting the monumental task of averting genocide in a region of Sudan "about the size of Iraq... or Texas." Meeting with the Minnestoa Interfaith Darfur Coalition last week, the current UN Human Rights ambassador said, "We despair at what can be done."

Politicians across the political spectrum--from Sen. Sam Brownback to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and even George W. Bush--have called the systematic killing, rapes, and destruction in Darfur "genocide," a crime under international law that United Nations members have sworn to prevent.

So why, almost four years into the current conflict and 400,000 deaths later, are attacks backed by Sudan's government continuing in Darfur? And what can be done to stop them?

A deeper understanding of Darfur's precarious postion shows a complicated confluence of interests and histories--and underscores how elusive hope for stability in the near future is. But as members of the interfaith committee meeting weekly at Minneapolis' Temple Israel or activists at global organizations like the Genocide Intervention Network are finding, there are firm steps that can be taken in 2007. Whether they, if enacted, will make a difference is another matter.

Darfur 101

Darfur, a region on the westernmost edge of the north African country of Sudan, is wedged between conflicting factions--racial, religious, economic. The government, based in the north central city of Khartoum, is controlled by Arabs, who comprise around 40 percent of the population. Southern Sudan, home to most of the country's oil fields, is 60 percent African. Ever since Sudan gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1956, the south has sought greater autonomy and control of its resources and has mounted nearly continuous rebellions against the wealthy Khartoum government of the north.

A civil war, ended through pressure by the U.S. and U.N. in 2005, raged for 25 years over allocation of these oil resources, not to mention the tensions arising from nomadic north Sudanese whose camel-grazing needs bumped up against the established farms of the southern part of the country. Further, northern Sudanese are largely Muslim, while southern residents are predominantly Christians and animists.

To complicate matters further, says Dr. Ellen Kennedy, a sociologist and founder of the University of St. Thomas' chapter of the Genocide Intervention Network, an anticipated secession by the south in 2011 puts the Khartoum government on edge. “The north is trying to get as much money out of those oil wells when the getting-out of those oil wells is good,” she said.

As part of this bid for autonomy, rebel forces have launched attacks on government entities, and Khartoum forcibly rebuked them using government-backed militias called the Janjaweed (while its etymology is disputed, the word likely derives from the Persian term for "warrior": jangawee). Made up of nomadic camel-herders from the north, these militias, in helicopters and on horseback, have burned villages to the ground, raped women, and terrorized Darfur.
According to survivors' testimony, says Kennedy, "the Janjaweed are actually saying to the people as they are killing them or as they are raping the women over and over again: ‘You are African, you are African, and we are killing all the Africans.’ Ethnic cleansing is involved as well. There’s a lot of raping of the women. In this culture, to rape a woman is to stigmatize her for life: she will never get married, she will be an outcast from the community, and, of course, the child that she bears, then, will no longer be viewed as being an African child. This child, too, will be socially cast out from the community.”

And this is where genocide comes in. The term is defined by the U.N. as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

Outside influences

While a comprehensive peace agreement, signed in 2005 but not yet fully implemented, came about through the dogged efforts of the U.S. and European Union, the most dominant influences in Sudan are not American: China and many Arab states are there for the oil; Russia is doing a booming arms business.

Earlier this month, The Economist reported on Africa's largest commercial construction site, a 1500-acre, $4 billion development in Alsunut, being built as a campus for Sudan's oil interests, which are predominantly Chinese and Middle Eastern. The first structure going up is a dazzling sail-shaped building that will house the Greater Nile Petroleum Operating Company headquarters. China's insatiable economy requires more oil to grow it, and it takes advantage of weak infrastructures and less-than-ethical governments across Africa (see the New York Times recent coverage of China's development "adventure" in Angola) to secure this important resource. As a result, Sudan is prospering because of this demand: this year, the International Monetary Fund expects the country's Gross Domestic Product to grow by 13 percent. And the north is the largest beneficiary of this growth.

"Russia has all these weapons for sale since the end of the cold war," says Kennedy, and Sudan is a willing buyer. In 2004, Russia announced it was selling 12 MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter jets to Sudan, as well as Kalishnikov assault rifles and Antonov transport aircrafts. China, like Iran, have been selling arms to Khartoum as well. Amnesty International reports that since the 1990s China's sales to Sudan have included more than 40 Shenyang J-6 and J-7 jet fighters, F-7 supersonic fighters, a Russian MiG-21 Fishbed, 50 Z-6 helicopters; additionally Chinese companies have been contracted to repair Mi-8 helicopters for Sudan.

Witnesses to a raid in the northern Darfur village of Kornoy named these very crafts when they described what they saw:

Two Antonov airplanes, five helicopters and two MIGs attacked our village at around 6am. Five tanks came into town. The attack lasted until 7pm. The inhabitants fled from their homes but our brother-in-law was killed when running away. Eighteen men and two children from our family were killed when fleeing.

Given the extent of these sales, no wonder Russia, which has veto power as holder of one of five permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council (another is China), isn't prone to intervening in Darfur.

Finally, the United States' own relationship with Sudan makes intervention unlikely. Kennedy explains:

We need Sudanese help, presumably, in the "war on terror." For a number of years, the Sudanese government had been harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. To alieniate the Sudanese government gets rid of sources of information for us regarding the "war on terror."

Complications of Intervention

So where are the most promising prospects for improving the situation for Darfur's civilians? There aren't many, according to Dr. Stephen Feinstein, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. Because there's little political will to intervene militarily in Darfur and that the U.N. has no military force of its own, he says there's "no possiblity of intervention":

Stopping genocide only becomes possible when it is in the national interest of the country identifying an event as genocide and having the will to intervene. Since the U.S. has a volunteer army that is overextended in Iraq, I don't see any way for the U.S to get involved--hence, one must suggest that a lot of people have been snookered into the belief that something can happen.

That said, he says getting medical and food aid to refugees is key, although it's difficult since "refugees are constantly on the move" and the conflict has become so unstable the U.N.'s World Food Program recently pulled its people from Darfur.

The Minnesota Interfaith Darfur Coalition invited Sen. Boschwitz, the U.S. ambassador to the UN's Human Rights committee, to brainstorm ways American legislators can be persuaded to help in Darfur. Some of the committee's suggestions were problematic. The U.N. can't send in peacekeeping forces without Sudan's permission, and Khartoum says it won't comply. Thanks to Iraq, the U.S. has little appetite for foreign incursions, and even if they did, American troops on the ground would be perceived by Sudan and the Arab world as colonialist aggression. An investigation into war-crimes prosecution against Sudan's chief perpetrators of genocide launched by the International Criminal Court won't likely get any U.S. support, says Boschwitz, since "we're afraid our people will be hauled in front of it" for alleged crimes committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

One area of promise might be enforcing a no-fly zone over Sudan, a tactic supported by George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The tactic was used in northern Iraq to protect the Kurds, Boschwitz recalled, and since the Janjaweed "inflict considerable damage using helicopters," it could prevent considerable bloodshed. The problem: the U.S. has no airbases in the area.

When pressed by the Darfur coalition, Boschwitz agreed that allies like France and the U.K. might agree to allow U.S. planes to refuel at their bases in Africa. While expressing little fondness for the French--"They're recalcitrant and difficult, but they're still a civilized nation"--Boschwitz conceded, "They may be our best option."

Other than that, a glimmer of hope rests in whether legislators, like newly elected Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Keith Ellison, along with longtime Darfur advocate Sen. Norm Coleman, could be convinced to create a Darfur caucus that could raise awareness in Congress about the genocide and encourage economic pressure on Sudan. Says Boschwitz, "Pressure does work. The Sudanese will need us for one thing or another at some point."

The other pressure point is China. While it is currently illegal for American companies to invest in Sudanese businesses, a movement is underway to expand divestment to firms investing in China. But given China's increasing dependence on Sudan's oil, little will dissuade them from continued involvement.

"The Chinese get eight percent of oil energy from the Sudanese," Boschwitz says. "They stepped in when we sanctioned the Sudanese. But short of going in with forces saying 'Stop this,' the options go downhill from there."

The Genocide Intervention Network's legislative agenda is far more concrete. Since Congress has little influence over mandating a no-fly zone or issuing war crimes indictments, its focus for 2007 will be in "hitting the Sudanese where it hurts: petroleum," says advocacy director Sam Bell. Its top priorities:

• Denying port entry for oil tankers docked in the port of Sudan (currently, this is a non-binding provision of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act)
• Pursuing capital market sanctions against PetroChina, which, Bell says "means they would be delisted from the New York Stock Exchange")
• Authorizing state divestment from companies funding the genocide
• Pushing to make US support for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing contingent on China's cooperation on Darfur.
  

Further, getting more money to the African Union Mission in Darfur is key, so, Bell says, "it can be the backbone of an effective UN force."

In the new year, I will ask legislators to weigh in on these provisions, their ranking in the Darfur Scorecards, and ideas for, as Dr. Kennedy says, making sure that, when it comes to genocide in Darfur, "'never again' means 'never.'"

Part 1: "With Darfur in 'freefall,' can Congress transcend partisanship?"

[Map courtesy of PBS. Photos by Linsey Addario]

A white wall for Darfur.

Via networked_performance, here's a nice way to remember those killed in Darfur--and help those still alive: The Darfur Wall has forty panels bearing gray numbers from 1 to 400,000, representing each of the people killed since 2003 in northern Sudan. Spend a dollar (or more) to turn each number from gray to bright white, and eventually, a dismal gray wall will be illuminated. Every penny of funds raised will go to these four organizations:

• Doctors Without Borders
• Save the Children
• Save Darfur
• Sudan Aid Fund / Eric Reeves

The Darfur Foundation, creator of the piece, writes: "As we light the wall, we acknowledge the importance of each life lost, we cast light upon a tragedy too many have ignored, and we overcome one barrier to peace."

Earlier: "The Darfur Meme" and "With Darfur in 'free fall,' can Congress transcend partisanship?"

Another way to help: This afternoon I interviewed Dr. Ellen Kennedy, a sociology and anthropology professor who oversees the University of St. Thomas' Genocide Intervention Network chapter (more on her interview soon). She told me of the "Ten-for-Ten" program: instead of receiving Christmas gifts this year, students are asking ten relatives to give $10 each to the national GI-Net office. If you'd like to give the "gift of safety" to civilians in Darfur, send your (tax deductible) gift to:

Genocide Intervention Network
"Ten for Ten" Campaign
1333 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20005,

Quoting Kofi

Annan's speech yesterday:

[A]s Truman said, “If we should pay merely lip service to inspiring ideals, and later do violence to simple justice, we would draw down upon us the bitter wrath of generations yet unborn.” And when I look at the murder, rape and starvation to which the people of Darfur are being subjected, I fear that we have not got far beyond “lip service.” The lesson here is that high-sounding doctrines like the “responsibility to protect” will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively — by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle — are prepared to take the lead.

And: as the UN Human Rights Councils holds a special session on Darfur today, the US General Accounting Office reveals that six of the State Department's Darfur death toll estimates had "methodological strengths and shortcomings" but "none appeared very accurate."

Darfur: The Meme.

Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, has used the G-word in describing the situation in Darfur, Sudan. So has Colin Powell, George Clooney, the US House of Representatives, Madeleine Albright, George W. Bush, and millions of demostrators worldwide.

So why, for the third year running, does genocide continue in Darfur?

It's complicated, doubtless, but if we claim to be a "never again" nation--a "culture of life" that won't stand for another Rwanda, another Holocaust--why isn't preventing the rape, murder, and displacement of millions an urgent priority? If we're moral people, how can this continue?

Pressure has been exerted on all fronts--in state houses and the UN General Assembly, on streets by protesters and by tireless media figures like Nicholas Kristof. As a meme that stands in for massive human suffering, "Darfur" has to take off and permeate all aspects of our world, so the willfully ignorant or the otherwise distracted can be that way no longer. Both as recognition and a call-to-action for demonstrators, legislators, graffitists, artists, bloggers, interventionists, benefactors, gamers, and others, here's a run-down of innovative ways of passing Darfur-awareness memes. Can art and protest, graffiti and YouTube change the world? Probably not, but as part of a relentless and multi-faceted effort to change minds, maybe it can help.

Pass it on...

YouTube: We saw it used, to great effect, in the midterm elections, and activists are using it for Darfur. This one features bits of rally speeches by Tom Lantos (the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress), Barack Obama, George Clooney, and others before offering the testimony of The Lost Boys of Sudan, who at ages 6 and 7, saw their parents murdered in front of them. Below that, a homemade YouTube Darfur plea.

Last month, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum projected wall-sized images of the genocide on the side of their building. A partnership with the traveling exhibition Darfur Darfur, the project--headlined "Our Walls Bear Witness"--serves the dual roles of educating and challenging us that "not on our watch" can this continue. That an institution focused on the world's most horrifying genocide is doing it links the suffering in Sudan to the murder of millions of Jewish people, making clear: a Holocaust is what we'll have if we don't act.


Flickr pools pass the meme, including this street stencil, a tiny reminder on the pavement in Edgewater.

Darfur is Dying is a video game that illustrates life in northern Sudan. The free online game created by MTV has two parts. In the first, you can pick one of eight characters--from 10-year-old Deng to 30-year-old Rahman--to forage for water. Hiding from Janjaweed militias can be tough, and if you're caught--and, likely, raped and killed--that character disappears next time you play. The second part simulates life in a refugee camp, putting yourself in the place of those struggling a world away. Naturally, it includes background on the crisis, action steps, and an email-a-friend function.

Finally, this isn't a meme, but it could be. Searching for a map of Sudan, I stumbled upon this image showing the tiny town of Darfur in Minnesota. What if Darfur was in the US? Would we wait this long to ensure the safety of millions of people?
Of course, there are dozens of sites selling merchandise with proceeds going to Darfur awareness initiatives and humanitarian relief in Sudan. Become a walking billboard with t-shirts, the Save Darfur Yarmulke, wristbands, etc. And bloggers, consider putting up an anti-genocide link bug to the Genocide Intervention Network on your site. (Also, from GI-Net, "ten things you can do right now.")