President’s Corner: Security Council Must Protect Humanitarian Programs in Darfur

The World Food Program’s warning that insecurity might force it to suspend food distributions in Darfur would be a tragedy for the people there—and for the credibility of the United Nations.

Yet the UN Security Council doesn’t seem ready to act in a way that would increase the chances that the WFP can continue food deliveries to three million people in Darfur or to send a message that attacks against UN agencies in Darfur are simply unacceptable.

In a weekend statement, the WFP said that “repeated and targeted attacks of food convoys are making it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for us to feed hungry people….Should these attacks continue, the situation will become intolerable—to the point that we will have to suspend operations in some areas of Darfur.” The WFP blamed the attacks on banditry, refusing to single out rebel groups or government forces for attacking food convoys.

Security of UN operations in Darfur is first and foremost the responsibility of the government of Sudan, which is supposed to have sovereignty over the area. However, the UN has accused government forces of attacking members of UNAMID, the UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. And government-backed attacks against villages throughout Darfur are responsible for displacing an estimated 2.5 million people and leading to the deaths of an estimated 400,000. Recently, government forces attacked a major camp for displaced people in North Darfur. In the midst of a civil war that the government has been unable to win and unwilling to settle, security has gone from bad to worse.

You would think that persistent and continuing attacks against UN agencies should be a matter of grave concern to the Security Council and that the Council would move to strengthen the UN’s hand in Darfur. One option would be for the Security Council to order UNAMID troops to protect convoys, but the peacekeeping force has been hobbled by shortages of troops and equipment.

Even as security conditions deteriorate further, the independent Security Council Report predicts in its September issue that the Security Council will adopt a “wait and see approach”, meaning that it will do nothing this month. A primary reason is that the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council—The U.S., China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom—can’t agree on what to do. China and Russia supply arms to Sudan, resent efforts to contain Khartoum’s sovereignty and resent charges by the International Criminal Court that the president of Sudan, Omer Hassan Al-Bashir, is guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur.

The U.S. is the largest provider of aid to Sudan and in the past has worked hard—although unsuccessfully—to produce a Darfur peace agreement. The UK and France also supply generous amounts of aid and have worked diplomatically to end the fighting.

Even an aggressive Security Council couldn’t do much, but it could certainly do more than “wait and see.” The Security Council Report suggests, for example, that the Council could increase pressure on all parties to the Darfur conflict by expanding the list of people, businesses and agencies subject to sanctions, such as travel bans, and enforcing the sanctions. It also suggests that the Council could convene an international conference to generate momentum for a ceasefire.

People ask me all the time: Why is the UN so weak in the face of evil and humanitarian suffering around the world? One reason is that the UN has no army or police force, so it can’t compel countries to act. Instead, it depends largely on persuasion, trust and reason to secure its goals, and these virtues are often in short supply. Another reason is that the structure of the Security Council makes forceful action difficult, particularly when members of the veto-wielding five permanent members of the Security Council conflict.

The UN is only as strong and effective as its members want it to be. Still, it’s hard to see how anybody’s interest is advanced by the Security Council’s refusal to do all it can to protect the UN’s humanitarian workers and peacekeepers.

--Ken Bacon

Sudan: Yet more suffering for people in Kalma camp

The latest news coming out of South Darfur is deeply disturbing. On the morning of August 25 around sixty Government of Sudan vehicles surrounded Kalma camp – a camp housing 90,000 internally displaced people -- in a supposed attempt to disarm it. Violence broke out, and according to United Nations security reports, 20 people were killed in the attack and over 70 people were injured.

This is not the first time that people who sought refuge in Kalma from the conflict in Darfur have suffered from violent attacks within the camp. In October, 2007, 15,000 people, mainly of the Zaghawa tribe, were driven out of the camp after conflict erupted between factions within the camp. I was in Khartoum a month later and discussed the issue of Kalma camp with many Sudanese people, some of whom had been living there. Many alleged that the Government of Sudan had manipulated this conflict and that the government had either armed one of the factions in the camp or had at least knowingly allowed them to bring arms into the camp.

In November 2007, the Government of Sudan announced that it intended to forcibly disarm Kalma camp, but they were dissuaded from doing so at the time. The Government of Sudan has also made many statements about the need for the people of Darfur to leave the camps or return to their home areas, despite the fact that the conflict in Darfur is clearly ongoing and people have very justified fears about being attacked again in their home areas. In October 2007, when people fled from Kalma camp into Otash, a nearby camp in South Darfur, Sudanese security forces entered Otash at night and forcibly relocated a number of people to unknown locations.

The Government of Sudan must not be permitted to forcibly relocate or return people from the camps. Any relocations or returns must be voluntary. When I spoke with Darfuri civil society leaders in November 2007 they told me that the residents of Kalma camp did not want to move again to another location. There is no indication that this has changed. If the Government of Sudan manages to force people out of Kalma camp, this would set a very dangerous precedent. The international community must not allow this to happen.

Following the October 2007 violence in Kalma camp, the Government of Sudan refused to allow humanitarian food aid deliveries into Kalma for one month. Since then, humanitarian agencies have had ongoing difficulties in assisting Kalma’s residents. Travel permits are often refused and the Government of Sudan has restricted fuel to the camp since May.

The residents of Kalma camp were already dealing with the aftermath of recent flooding which had destroyed many already inadequate camp facilities and food supplies. Now they have to deal with the aftermath of yet more violence. The international community must insist that humanitarian agencies be permitted to access Kalma camp now, so that they can provide medical care to the injured and get assistance to people in the camp.

--Melanie Teff

A Look at the Darfur Olympics

Today marks the opening of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. China holds unrivaled influence with the regime in Sudan. Join us in urging China to use its leverage to persuade the Sudanese government to allow into Darfur the full protection force outlined by UN Resolution 1769. All of us should urge China to work with the United States, France and the United Kingdom to support UN and African Union initiatives in Darfur, Southern Sudan and Chad. This cooperative work on the peace process needs to be comprehensive. The problems of Darfur, Southern Sudan and Chad are intertwined, so unless peace is advanced on all of these fronts it will be unlikely to be achieved on any of these fronts.

Tonight and throughout the Games this month, we urge you to log on to: http://www.darfurolympics.org/.

You can watch an alternative opening ceremony that features a celebration of Darfurian children, daily webcasts of Mia Farrow from a refugee camp and an online concert featuring R.E.M., Carly Simon and others.

President’s Corner: ICC Case Against Bashir is Risky but Right

As the head of a humanitarian organization, I worry that Monday’s decision to seek charges of genocide against the president of Sudan will complicate efforts to achieve peace in Darfur and interrupt flows of lifesaving aid to millions of people. Despite these risks, I believe the effort to bring Sudan’s leader to justice is correct and necessary.

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court presented evidence that Omar Hassan Ahmad al Bashir, the president of Sudan, is guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the five-year civil war in the Darfur region of Western Sudan. President al Bashir has repeatedly denied the charges, which must now be reviewed by another ICC body called the Pre-Trial Chamber I. If this review concludes that there are reasonable grounds to believe the alleged crimes were committed, it can issue an arrest warrant or take other action to bring the accused to trial.

The United Nations has been struggling to deal with the human toll of a vicious civil war in Darfur since it began in February 2003. The war has been characterized by massive death and displacement; some 2.7 million people have been displaced and as many as 400,000 have died from war-related causes, according to some estimates.

In a summary of the case, the prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, said: “The evidence establishes reasonable grounds to believe that al Bashir intends to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups as such. Forces and agents controlled by al Bashir attacked civilians in towns and villages inhabited by the target groups, committing killings, rapes, torture and destroying means of livelihood.”

Throughout the conflict, which has been characterized as an attempt by an Arab dominated government to displace or destroy largely African tribes in Darfur, the government of Sudan has tried to interfere with aid organizations and UN food deliveries and the deployment of international peacekeepers. The risk of the announcement of the ICC’s case is that such harassment will increase to the point where the delivery of aid to millions of people will be impossible. This would be a tragedy.

Nevertheless, the announcement of evidence against President al Bashir is correct, because those responsible for the death and displacement in Darfur should be held accountable.

Every case of extreme violence or crimes against humanity is different. But in two previous cases where sitting presidents—Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia and Charles Taylor of Liberia—were charged by internationally mandated criminal courts, the indictments helped open the way to peace and reconciliation after years of brutal killing.

It is too early to tell if the ICC’s action will have a similar impact in Sudan. But the ICC action will have an immediate impact on President al Bashir. If evidence is sustained and the court issues a warrant for his arrest, he won’t be able to leave the country, for fear of being arrested and taken to the Hague for trial. The ICC action could complicate the outcome of elections schedule for next year—if the elections occur.

But most of all, the case announced by the ICC shows that when it comes to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, nobody is above the law.

--Ken Bacon

Chad: Before the Rainy Season

“The music has played again as is the case almost every year before the rainy season starts in eastern Chad.” This was a metaphor used by a Chadian in eastern Chad last month to describe the recent attacks by rebel groups against the government’s forces. The latest attack is one of many that has contributed -- together with ethnic tensions and the spill over of Sudan’s Darfur crisis -- to destabilizing eastern Chad in the last five years.

I recently visited Habile, a site for internally displaced people (IDPs) situated near the border between Chad and Darfur. Almost 29,000 Chadians have taken refuge there. In addition, more than 20,000 Sudanese refugees forced to flee violence and human rights abuses in Darfur, are currently hosted in Goz Amer camp, a mere eight kilometers away. They will not be able to return home to Darfur anytime soon, given the persistent insecurity in their villages.

However, in Habile, people are starting to consider returning home, especially those whose villages are located in relatively secure areas. Ahead of the rainy season, some people have returned to cultivate their land and start re-building their homes. One woman told me that if the security situation in her village continued to improve, her husband and their 4 children would return permanently.

This glimmer of hope is not shared by the majority of IDPs in Habile. People whose villages are located close to the border with Sudan are not planning to return soon. They are still afraid of attacks, killings and the loss of their property. The root causes of the violence that has forced people to flee their villages have not yet been properly addressed. In some border areas, there are no local authorities or government security forces, leaving these villages vulnerable to attack by armed rebels coming from Sudan.

The latest rebel attacks in the region have made things worse. In the past, Chadian rebel incursions have been followed by armed men on horseback from Sudan who profit from the chaos. They attack and kill civilians, and loot people’s property. These incursions have also generated tensions between communities, breaking the social fabric and weakening the traditional mechanisms for conflict prevention and management.

The UN Refugee Agency has been facilitating a dialogue between the leaders of the displaced communities and those from their home villages. Such initiatives have to be revitalised and understood as an integral part of a broader reconciliation process that will bring trust back among the different communities. This will set the stage so that when people return home to cultivate their land before the next rainy season, they can re-enter their communities and rebuild their lives.

-Mpako Foaleng

World Refugee Day: Reflections from Chad

This Friday, June 20, is World Refugee Day. It is a day to recognize the struggle of some 12 million refugees worldwide who have been forced out of their homes and homelands by fear, conflict, and persecution. It is also an opportunity for many of us to try to appreciate just what it means to have a safe place to go home to, and to remember that no conflict happens in isolation. Insecurity anywhere threatens peace everywhere.

Consider this; there are almost 3 million refugees in Africa, many of whom have escaped one dangerous place, only to find themselves in the heart of another conflict.

Today, I am writing from Chad, a country rocked by its own protracted civil war, internal ethnic tensions, and widespread banditry. Still, it hosts roughly 243,000 Sudanese refugees fleeing indiscriminate attacks, summary executions, bombings, and the destruction of whole villages in neighboring Darfur. My colleague and I met a woman who had fled Darfur just 3 months ago with her four children. She told us how she crossed the border and lived under a tree with seven other families for six weeks before being moved to a refugee camp in eastern Chad. Days before I met this woman, Chadian rebels launched a new offensive in eastern Chad.

The two conflicts are interrelated, and the human fallout can be seen in both countries. Still – inexplicably -- the massive popular and political interest in Darfur stops at the Sudan/Chad border, and the international community has proven itself to be unwilling to take a regional approach to the resolution of these interlinked crises.

The world has chosen to care about Sudan, and yet the ongoing crisis in Chad has been all but ignored by international policy makers.

In contrast to this game of pick-and-choose that the international community has been content to play in they case of Chad and Sudan, the laws that protect refugees -- the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the Geneva Conventions – are built on the premise of common humanity, and the equal value of every human life. Similarly, the UN was built on the recognition that violent instability in any country represents a threat to international peace and security.

The world is small. Violence and suffering anywhere will have consequences for us everywhere.

While we recognize the tremendous challenges faced and overcome by refugees in the world today, also take a moment to remember that the modern history of conflict and refugee movements shows us just how interlinked our lives are. Conflict all too quickly reaches out and crosses the lines we have drawn to separate ourselves from our neighbors.

--Erin Weir

Honor World Refugee Day with a gift to Refugees International. Two generous donors have promised to match every online gift this week, dollar for dollar, in support of our work for refugees in Chad and around the world. Double your impact and give today.

United Nations: Security Council's Trip to Africa Highlights Needs

Since 2000, Security Council members have taken a trip each year to Africa—to visit UN peacekeeping missions, to meet with heads of state, and to otherwise get a “real picture” of what is happening on the ground. Members will often visit camps to talk to refugees, internally displaced people and members of aid agencies who are providing services.

The United Nations is central to global efforts to solve problems that challenge humanity and promote international peace and security. However, more of China’s allies have rotated onto the Security Council this year, making the historical divisions within the Security Council more pronounced than ever before and weakening its authority. This makes it more difficult for the UN to take concrete action, and there are few expectations that this year’s mission to Sudan, Chad, Nairobi and Djibouti (for Somalia issues), the DR Congo and Ivory Coast will lead to anything concrete.

Expectations are particularly low in the case of Sudan, as the Security Council has been impotent when it comes to Sudan for quite some time now. The Sudanese government continues to put bureaucratic impediments to the deployment of UNAMID, the joint UN-AU peacekeeping force in Darfur and refuses to fulfill its previous agreements. Some Council members had indicated that the mission would be an opportunity to reinvigorate the Security Council’s response to Sudan and reverse the Sudanese government’s blatant disregard for their authority. But after many discussions before their mission, it appears that the Security Council is headed to Sudan without a clear plan or strategy.

With the Security Council unable to act, it becomes all the more essential that individual governments increase their financial support for UNAMID and for NGOs and UN agencies providing assistance on the ground. It is also necessary to continue pressuring Sudan to fulfill its agreements, and to urge Sudan’s allies to increase pressure on Sudan.

Some Security Council members were determined to travel to Mogadishu, but because of insecurity, particularly in light of the recent attempt on President Yusef’s life, they will go to Nairobi and Djibouti to discuss Somalia. As Refugees International wrote in a letter to Council members, there are no easy answers for Somalia, but the status quo is unacceptable. The humanitarian crisis in Somalia is catastrophic. Somalis are routinely subject to massive human rights violations by all parties. Because of insecurity, very few agencies are providing assistance, so Somalis are left to fend for themselves. The insecurity in Somalia is a threat to international peace and security, but the Security Council has yet to come up with a response that is commensurate with the severity of the crisis. Still, Refugees International urges the Council to approach the use of an external military or peacekeeping force with extreme caution and to deliver humanitarian assistance in an impartial manner.

DRC is another area of concern for Refugees International. While there has been some progress since elections, largely due to the good work of MONUC, there is still a risk that all of this progress will be quickly reversed. There are still 1.1 million people displaced by violence throughout the east, and there are still armed groups attacking civilians. The Congolese national army is still one of the largest perpetrators of human rights violations. Rwanda is still deeply involved in the conflict in the east. Despite these threats, MONUC, one of the largest and most expensive peacekeeping operations in the world, will be under pressure to downsize. RI is hopeful that the Security Council will see the necessity to renew MONUC at its current size and with its current mandate in order to preserve the gains that have been made.

--Michelle Brown

President’s Corner: Mia and Ronan Farrow Speak Out to Save Lives

Later this week Refugees International will honor Mia and Ronan Farrow for their successful efforts to increase pressure on Sudan to end the killing in Darfur.

The mother-son team has written scores of op-eds calling attention to China’s economic and political support for Sudan and leading an international movement to dub this summer’s Olympics in Beijing the “genocide Olypmics.” While they have not asked athletes to skip the Olympics, Mia and Ronan have recommended that athletes and world leaders boycott the opening ceremonies to express opposition to the support Sudan gets from China. China, the leading purchaser of Sudanese oil, also sells arms to Sudan. I have personally seen rocket casings with Chinese markings on them in a north Darfur village that was bombed by Sudanese aircraft

The Farrows have attacked such American icons as investor Warren Buffett and film-maker Steven Spielberg. Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, once owned 11% of PetroChina’s publicly traded shares but sold them all last year. Buffett, who opposed divestment as way to pressure China on Sudan, said he sold the shares to realize a large profit. Spielberg decided not to advise China on staging the Olympics after Mia and Ronan called him a “key collaborator” in the “genocide Olympics.” After failing to engage Chinese officials on their complicity in the violence in Darfur, Spielberg said that “my conscience will not allow me to continue with business as usual.”

Since 2003, when Sudan mobilized and armed local militias to suppress a rebellion over the economic and political marginalization of Darfur, thousands of villages have been destroyed, about 2.5 million Darfuris have been displaced and an estimated 400,000 have died of war related causes.

The violence in Darfur has not ended since Mia and Ronan started speaking out. In fact, it has gotten worse. But China has paid attention. It has appointed a special envoy to deal with Darfur issues and it has supported the deployment of a combined UN-African Union peacekeeping force to Darfur. It has also hired public relations firms to help it counter the Farrows and other critics, so far without success.

Refugees International and other human rights organizations have been reporting on the death and displacement in Darfur for years. Many people have spoken out against the violence in Darfur—New York Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof, Smith College Professor Eric Reeves, U.S. activist John Prendergast, British author Alex de Waal, President George Bush, who despite accusing the Sudanese government of genocide in Darfur, plans to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. They and many others have helped create a nationwide movement against genocide.

As long as Mia and Ronan Farrow are speaking out, stopping the genocide in Darfur will remain a challenge facing the world at large.

Ken Bacon

President’s Corner: Off the Headlines, Death and Displacement Continues in Darfur

“I am extremely disappointed at the lack of progress on all fronts in the efforts to address the situation in Darfur,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki moon said last week in his quarterly report to the Security Council on the deployment of the UN-African Union peacekeeping force (UNAMID).

“The parties appear determined to pursue a military solution; the political process [is] stalled; the deployment of UNAMID is progressing very slowly and continues to face many challenges; and the humanitarian situation is not improving.” In fact, the report notes that 60,000 additional people were displaced in the first three months of the year. It also details continuing rapes of women and girls and difficulty in getting humanitarian aid to large parts of Western Darfur.

The Darfur crisis, where an estimated 400,000 people have been killed and more than 2.5 million displaced, is now more than five years old. Despite efforts by President Bush, two heads of the UN, and a number of other world leaders, the crisis is no closer to resolution now than when it started. Indeed, what began as a fight between rebel groups in Darfur and Sudanese army and the deadly militias it arms to destroy villages, has now become a regional dispute, with increased fighting across the border between Chad and Sudan, Mr. Ban notes in his report.

Although ending the war in Darfur will never be easy, there are several moves the U.S. and other countries can take right now.

First, UNAMID continues to plea for helicopters and other necessary equipment. The U.S. should convene a Protect the People of Darfur conference and lead the world in producing the support the Darfur peacekeeping force needs. Second, that conference should take two other steps necessary to pressure both the government of Sudan and the fractious rebel groups to get to the peace table. The U.S. and its European and Middle Eastern allies should impose strict travel sanction on Sudanese government and rebel leaders until they reach a peace agreement. In addition, arms embargos on both the government and rebel groups should be closely enforced.

These two steps would help protect the people of Darfur, who are suffering while the world worries about what to do next.

--Ken Bacon

Sudan: The importance of being counted

Where will you be the night of April 14, 2008?

This question has taken on great significance for millions of Sudanese people. On a recent mission to south Sudan, I became aware of how important it is to ensure that people’s votes will be counted in the long-awaited Sudanese population census, which is expected to take place April 15 - 30.

When my colleague and I asked why so many people were rushing back to their home areas now after many years in exile during the north-south Sudan war, we were repeatedly told that people want to be back in time to be counted in the census. When wearing our Refugees International jackets, we were stopped by people asking us when the Sudanese refugees living in other countries are coming home, so that they can be counted too.

So why is this census so important? Over two decades of a horrific war between north and south Sudan ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. This agreement set up wealth and power-sharing arrangements based on estimates of the populations of north and south Sudan, a national election in 2009 and a referendum on self-determination for the south in 2011. One requirement of the CPA is a population census. The CPA states that once citizens are counted, power-sharing between north and south Sudan will reflect the actual population in these regions. This will provide vital information for the planning of the election.

The northern government in Khartoum -- focused on its own survival and trying to de-rail planning for the elections and referendum – has done all it can to delay the census. The census was supposed to have been conducted by the end of 2007, but has been postponed multiple times. The Khartoum government has been slow to provide the funds for the census, and they have prolonged disputes over questions to be included.

If the census does go ahead next week, millions of Sudanese will still not be counted. By continuing the violence in Darfur, the northern government has ensured that it will be practically impossible to conduct the census in Darfur. Some Darfuri leaders refuse to take part in a census when over two million Darfuris have been forced from their homes, 250,000 of whom are living in Chad. Many thousands of refugees from the north-south war also still live in exile, yet no arrangements are being made to count Sudanese people currently outside the country.

Huge logistical challenges must be overcome, but the Government of Southern Sudan still says that it is planning to go ahead with the census in the south next week. If the Khartoum government fails to do so in the north, or creates more delays, it will be further evidence of their lack of commitment to the CPA. Despite flaws in the process, the census must move forward in those parts of Sudan where it can be carried out to lay the foundations for 2009 elections. The states which brokered the CPA – particularly the US Government - must not allow CPA milestones like the census to slip by without international attention and condemnation of those who breach the agreement.

International Women's Day: The Women of Darfur

In honor of International Women's Day on March 8th, Refugees International is taking this week on our blog to focus on the stories of refugee women from around the world.

It’s amazing how quickly the situation can change in Darfur. When my colleague, Melanie Teff, and I were in Sudan at the end of last year, the majority of international organizations providing humanitarian aid in West Darfur were able to reach people in need. While all aid groups in Darfur struggle with constant access and security constraints, at the time the humanitarian organizations operating in West Darfur seemed to have fewer hassles than those working in South or North Darfur.

Now, the situation in West Darfur is dramatically different. Last month, civilian areas north of Geneina were hit by repeated aerial bombings carried out by the Government of Sudan, which claimed it was targeting rebel groups in the area. Villages were also burnt , civilians were attacked and women were raped by janjaweed militia. The bombings and militia attacks have forced tens of thousands of civilians in West Darfur to flee their homes, many crossing into neighboring Chad.

Those most affected by the continuing insecurity in Darfur are of course the most vulnerable. Two refugee women and two children who fled into Chad died on the border in late February from the cold temperatures while waiting for international assistance to reach them. Women have long borne the brunt of the conflict in Darfur, and as these images of the aftermath of the bombings in West Darfur illustrate, they continue to be deeply affected by the arbitrary acts of violence carried out against them and their families by both sides of the conflict.

Analysts say that the recent violence in West Darfur echoes the early, worst days of the Darfur conflict which began in 2003 and has displaced more than 2.5 million people. They also warn it may be a sign of more terror to come. Yet Chad, which already hosts around 240,000 refugees from the Darfur conflict, is no longer such a welcoming place for the newly displaced, the majority of whom are women and children. Chadian rebels are now also fighting against their government inside Chad. In February, the Government of Chad issued a public statement saying that any new refugees would be pushed back to Darfur. And when the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) tried to relocate the newly displaced further inside Chad so that they could be given protection and assistance, they were blocked by armed groups.

The crisis in Chad and the insecurity along the border with Darfur over the past month has had a serious impact on the humanitarian response in the eastern part of Sudan. Many international aid organizations were forced to suspend their assistance programs for refugees and internally displaced Chadians in the east, and UNHCR had to pull out their staff at one point because of the air strikes along the Darfur border. The latest update is that UNHCR will begin transferring some of the 13,000 new refugees from Darfur to a safer location in Chad this week.

All of this news reminds us that Darfur is not just an isolated conflict. It is connected to Chad, to skirmishes in the Central African Republic, and to south Sudan as it rebuilds from a fledgling peace. Ending the conflict in Darfur will require a comprehensive strategy by the United States and other governments that addresses insecurity in the region as a whole. As we’ve written many times before this approach must include holding the Government of Sudan accountable for its actions, enforcing an arms embargo on the Government of Sudan and Chadian and Sudanese rebels, and supporting the UN and European peacekeeping forces sent to the region.

--Camilla Olson

President’s Corner: Bush’s Africa Trip Calls for Action on Darfur

Last week Refugees International sent a letter to President Bush suggesting actions he could take in Liberia and Rwanda, two of the five countries he is visiting in Africa, to promote regional stability. But the biggest security challenges in Africa today are occurring in a country that Mr. Bush is not visiting—Sudan.

The news from Sudan is unremittingly bad. In Darfur, where President Bush has accused the Sudanese government of committing genocide, the killing and displacement continue. In a report this week, the Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre in Geneva said: “In a new wave of violence and destruction in Darfur, the government of Sudan and its allied Janjaweed militia, supported by heavy military equipment including Antonov bombers and helicopter gunships, attacked and destroyed a vast area in West Dafur State.”

A new joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force, called UNAMID, is deploying to Darfur, but Sudan’s government in Khartoum has repeatedly slowed and obstructed the new force. Worse, government forces attacked a UNAMID convoy last month.

In a briefing to the White House press corps on the President’s trip yesterday (Feb. 13), National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said that “this force is deploying but very slowly. And we think the sooner the force is deployed, the sooner we can create better security, a better environment for humanitarian assistance and a better context for people … politically.”

The U.S. has provided large and generous amounts of humanitarian aid to help support the more than two million people displaced during five years of fighting in Darfur. Sadly, however, despite President Bush’s concern about genocide in Darfur, the U.S. has done too little to support peacekeeping in Darfur.

Consider these facts:

• The U.S., which owns the world’s largest fleet of military helicopters, has turned a deaf ear to the UN’s calls for helicopters to support UNAMID.
• The current fiscal year 2008 budget falls $334 million short of meeting the U.S. share for funding the expanded peacekeeping force in Darfur.
• The fiscal 2009 budget that President Bush sent to Congress earlier this month asks for only $414 million of the projected U.S. commitment of $550 million for UNAMID, a shortfall of $136 million.
• The U.S. and its allies remain passive while the government of Sudan interferes with the deployment of UNAMID and continues its genocidal attacks against civilians. The U.S. and European powers, for example, have refused to enact rigid travel and financial sanctions against top Sudanese officials. As a result, Sudan’s President al Bashir, continues to travel to international meetings in Europe.

When it comes to Darfur, U.S. actions don’t match its rhetoric. The U.S. needs to take a tougher stance against genocide, and President Bush should announce his intentions while in Africa. It would be fitting for him to outline a tougher policy when he visits the memorial to the victims of the Rwanda’s 1994 genocide in Kigali on Feb. 19.

--Ken Bacon

State of the Union or State of Inaction?

On Monday night President Bush delivered his seventh and final State of the Union address. While I was fairly confident that I hadn’t misheard, I wanted to do some fact checking about the President’s priorities for Iraq. I scanned through the transcript of the speech and found that Iraq was mentioned 32 times. The same search function revealed that the word refugee did not appear, confirming what I had already known.

This administration has made the war in Iraq its domestic and international priority, yet refuses to acknowledge the widespread humanitarian catastrophe that has accompanied our military engagement. It is disheartening to me as a citizen of this country, that our elected leader, the president of the United States, would fail to take responsibility for a displacement crisis of this magnitude. The Middle East is currently hosting 2.5 million Iraqi refugees and there are over 2 million civilians in Iraq who have had to leave their homes for safer areas within Iraq. “A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. A free Iraq will be a friend of America, a partner in fighting terror, and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world,” said the President. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a stable Iraq or Middle East without a resolution to this refugee crisis.

President Bush has made changing hearts and minds around the world a focal point of his international agenda – at least in rhetoric. Last night’s speech included one simple line about Darfur: “America opposes genocide in Sudan.” Earlier this month, while welcoming the new United States envoy to Sudan, Rich Williamson, the President made a similar statement about Darfur: “My administration called this a genocide. Once you label it ‘genocide’ you obviously have to do something about it.” In his final year in office, there is more that can be done for Darfur. Enforcing a widely violated arms embargo, tightening the travel restrictions for the regime in Khartoum, and imposing stiffer economic and financial sanctions on the regime.

President Bush has one more year an office. His response to these two issues will tell the world that he is willing to back his rhetoric with real action. Not acting will speak louder still.

--Jake Kurtzer

President’s Corner: Sudan Continues to Outfox the West

Sudan’s brazen rejection of international rules and standards and the West’s feckless response continue to amaze me.

Refugees International just issued a report detailing violations of a United Nations Security Council Resolution designed to bar Khartoum from transferring arms to Darfur without UNSC approval. The RI report, citing evidence gathered by a UN panel of experts, lists a number of serious violations of the arms embargo, including the arrival of three Chinese “Fantan” ground attack jets in Darfur and two Russian Mi-24 attack helicopters.

I have seen rocket casings in Darfur with both Chinese and Russian markings on them. These were fired from the air on defenseless towns destroyed by government forces and government-backed militias. By some estimates 400,000 people have died in Darfur during five years of fighting and some 2.5 million have been displaced.

What has the U.S. done? It has called for a stronger arms embargo but done little to secure one or to punish the people who violate it.

Sudan’s president, Omar al Bashir, continues to travel and hob-nob with leaders around the world. In the last month or so he has been in Portugal and Turkey. Neither the UN, the U.S. nor the European Union has done anything to place travel and other restrictions on him, despite his government’s violation of the arms embargo.

Violating the arms embargo is not all al Bashir as done. Last April, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Ahmed Haroun charging him with crimes against humanity and war crimes in connection with attacks in Darfur. The Khartoum government denied he was guilty and then went out of its way to thumb its nose at the ICC. According to Human Rights Watch, Haroun was named co-chair of a committee established to hear complaints from victims of human rights abuses and then it made him the government’s liaison with the new UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur. Khartoum has repeatedly delayed and obstructed the deployment of the expanded peacekeeping force.

Earlier this month, President al Bashir named Musa Hilal, one of the most notorious leaders of the government supported militias responsible for most of the killing in Darfur to a government post. Hilal, the Sudanese president said, had “contributed greatly to the stability and security in the region.”

President George Bush has accused the Sudanese government of sponsoring genocide in Darfur. The U.S. response—or lack of effective response—will be part of his legacy.

--Ken Bacon

President’s Corner: Time for the U.S. To Do More in Darfur

The United States has started a new chapter in its effort to stop the death and displacement in the Darfur region of Sudan. I hope that it is more successful than previous attempts.

On Jan 17th President Bush met in the Oval Office with Ambassador Rich Williamson, his new Special Envoy to Sudan. At the meeting Mr. Bush said all the right things: “We talked about our common commitment and the commitment of this government to help the suffering of citizens in Sudan who, you know, suffer deprivation and rape,” the president said. “My administration called this a genocide. Once you label it “genocide” you obviously have to do something about it.”

President Bush and the Congress accused the government of Sudan of committing genocide in Darfur in 2004. Now, nearly four years later, fighting and displacement continue in Darfur and the government responsible for supporting brutal attacks against civilians remains in power. The U.S. has not done enough to stop what it has called a genocide.

At the end of the day, Ambassador Williamson will be judged on whether he can, working with the UN and others, convince rebel and government forces to stop the fighting. In working toward this goal, there are intermediate steps he can take to tighten pressure on the regime in Khartoum and on rebel leaders. For example, the U.S., working with its allies, should:

• Do more to enforce a widely violated arms embargo on both the government and the rebels.
• Tighten travel sanctions against members of the Khartoum regime so they can’t travel around the world as respectable leaders.
• Impose stiffer economic and financial sanctions on the regime.

In his White House comments, Mr. Bush said the U.S. wants to help make the United Nations, which is currently deploying a UN-African Union peacekeeping force in Darfur, more effective. “The United States can help what has been a process, frankly, that has unfolded a little too slow for our liking,” he said. “And we can help.”

One reason the UN is having a hard time deploying the new force is that it lacks adequate support from donor countries, including the U.S. It needs equipment, such as helicopters, that military powers have been slow to provide. That’s one area where the U.S. can help. Another reason for the slow UN deployment is a series of obstructions erected by the government of Sudan. The U.S. and its allies have been too willing to let Khartoum get away with delaying the deployment of peacekeepers.

We need tough, new measures to end a difficult, old conflict.

--Ken Bacon

Learn more about our work in Sudan at our Crisis in Darfur page.

Making a Difference in 2007

It’s amazing to see what a difference a year makes. In 2007, Refugees International completed 20 missions to countries around the world, assessing and promoting solutions for some of the most critical refugee crises. Our advocacy led to several major successes for the 35 million refugees and internally displaced people and over 11 million stateless people.

The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act was a major milestone for RI this year. Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR), along with a coalition of NGOs, expanded the resettlement opportunities in the U.S. for Iraqis who have worked and risked their lives for western forces. Our public education campaigns and other efforts also led to higher levels of UN funding for education and healthcare for the over 2.2 million Iraqi refugees scattered throughout Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and other countries in the Middle East. The UN’s budget for Iraqi refugees rose from $22 million to over $250 million, and the American budget rose from $43 million to $200 million in 2007. Still, the crisis is not over and we will continue to push policy makers to meet the needs of Iraqi refugees in 2008.

In November, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres praised RI’s work with statelessness and vowed to make the issue a priority for the coming year.

Refugees International is playing a major role in raising awareness, in advocacy and in forcing us to do what we need to do, what we are supposed to do. So, it is a welcome pressure that I hope will go on, especially in drawing my attention to the need to be more effective in this area. As a matter of fact, UNHCR in the beginning was probably a little bit reluctant to give enough importance to statelessness.

In Darfur, the violence and displacement continue, but some progress was made in 2007. In June, we released our report, Laws Without Justice, which recommended changes to the system of Sudanese laws that exposes rape victims to further abuse. As a direct result of this report, members of the House of Representatives passed a resolution to prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur. In addition, after years of calling for a strong peacekeeping force in Darfur that can protect civilians, we are happy that the new joint AU-UN peacekeeping force will finally deploy in Darfur next year.

RI advanced the interests of internally displaced people in Colombia—who comprise the second largest displacement crisis in the world—by working with Congressman McGovern (D-MA) to recognize 2007 as the Year of the Internally Displaced in Colombia. RI also led the effort that resulted in a significant reconfiguration of U.S. funding in Colombia, with the percentage of U.S. assistance going to humanitarian and development work, as opposed to military and security aid, rising from 20% to 44%.

Chad, Central African Republic (CAR), Democratic Republic of Congo, and south Sudan…the list of places where we have traveled to speak with displaced people this year is lengthy. In May, the UN congratulated us for our work in drawing attention to the forgotten Kasai Oriental province in DR Congo where our recommendations for infrastructure building were taken seriously and implemented. Refugees International also successfully called for stronger UN leadership in the CAR, an important step that is already leading to a more forceful response to the violence and displacement in this neglected country.

Throughout the year, our advocates urge Congress, the Administration and the United Nations to increase their efforts for refugees, speak out for the people they encounter on missions and find workable solutions for decision makers. As we reflect on those that we’ve met around the world and the struggles they face, we can be cheered that our work has made some improvements in their lives.

Hell is…Life as an Aid Worker in Sudan, Part 2

Last week, we brought you the first installment of our posts from Khartoum where we looked at the difficulties facing NGO workers in Sudan. Advocate Melanie Teff and Advocacy Associate, Camilla Olson, recently spent three weeks in Sudan assessing the humanitarian situation for Darfuris and the shortfalls affecting those who work with them.

The NGO workers we met in Khartoum seemed pretty demoralized. And who wouldn’t be when it seems like the Government of Sudan goes out of its way to make your life as difficult as possible? If you are an NGO worker in Sudan, you need a government permit to do almost anything. Not only do you need an entry permit and a residence permit, but you need a photo permit in order to take even tourist photos, and you need a travel permit to even venture outside of the capital, Khartoum. Worst of all, if you want to leave the country, you need an exit visa. And then, of course, there are the re-entry visas to contend with.

Not only do you have to wade through the tediousness of bureaucratic procedures, you also have to deal with increased banditry and lawlessness. From January to October 2007 in Darfur, 12 humanitarians were killed, 118 were abducted during hijackings and 75 humanitarian premises were raided by armed men. It seems that each day in Darfur brings a new rebel group with a new acronym. All of these splinter groups prey on the UN and NGOs for their resources, particularly Land Cruisers and satellite phones. Because of the insecurity in Darfur, none of the organizations we spoke with are able to access their field sites by road. Instead they use “hit and run” tactics – paying for expensive helicopter flights to bring in staff for a few hours once a week to make sure a project is still running. They can’t even drive their Land Cruisers in main towns like Nyala or El Fasher because they will be carjacked. Instead they are forced to rent old beat up taxis in order to get around.

The majority of humanitarian workers we spoke with also told us they are certain that the Government of Sudan is monitoring their emails and listening to their phone calls. More than once when we got to that point in the conversation, the person we were speaking with would look around and whisper, “In fact, I’m sure they’re listening to us right now.”

We asked many aid workers why their organizations did not just pack up and go home, in protest at the difficulties they were facing. But they pointed out that millions of people are dependent on the assistance that they provide, and that if they left now, their organizations would probably never be permitted to re-enter the country. At the end of the day, despite all of the challenges, civilians in Darfur - who have been through horrific experiences during the conflict of the past four years - must not be abandoned by the international community just because their government is making it so difficult for people to access them with assistance.

Suffice it to say, the difficulties that the UN, international NGOs and civil society face in Sudan are enormous. But, just like those aid workers who are managing to stay the course despite the obstacles thrown in their path, the international community must stay the course and continue to support the humanitarian operation in Darfur. Until a peace deal is reached, it’s all that there is to keep the long-suffering Darfuri population alive.

-Camilla Olson

Hell is…Life as an Aid Worker in Sudan, Part 1

We’ve just got back from a three-week mission to Sudan in which we were intending to travel to Darfur to find out if people displaced by the conflict were getting adequate food, health care, shelter and protection from violence. We never made it to Darfur as the government denied us travel permits. But we glimpsed the surreality and the deep frustrations of life as an aid worker in Sudan.

When entering the Government of Sudan’s Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC) to apply for our permits it felt like we had fallen into a strange combination of the movies “1984” and “Alice in Wonderland”. This may be unsurprising in a country whose Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, Mr. Ahmad Muhammad Harun, has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

So we asked for the form we needed to fill in to apply for travel permits to Darfur, and were given one copy. We asked for another copy, since there were two of us, but were told that no more forms were available. We headed off to a find photocopy the form, but were then told that we needed four copies of each form. After another trip to the photocopy shop we tried again to submit our forms, but were now told that we needed four copies of several other documents. Owning a photocopy shop near the HAC must be very lucrative!

We duly came back with all of the correct documents, but the person we had to submit them to was now out, so we waited four hours for him, before managing to give him our forms. He refused to accept the forms, since our organization was not registered in Sudan, but he said that he would phone us to let us know how we could proceed. For the next week we tried to contact him every day. Finally he told us that he was prepared to accept our travel permit applications, and to come back the next day for a decision. When we came back we were told that they were still waiting for advice from national security and military intelligence officers in Darfur. In all, we ended up visiting the HAC offices more than ten times over a period of nearly three weeks before we finally received a decision from them. Of course, it was a negative decision, but it felt like an achievement to finally get one.

Our experience of applying for travel permits is just one tiny example of the endless bureaucratic nightmare that aid workers in Sudan have to deal with on a daily basis. The Government of Sudan is not at all appreciative of the essential humanitarian assistance that aid workers are providing in war-torn Darfur. They don’t like having these international witnesses to the ongoing abuses around, so they make their lives as difficult as possible. One aid worker from another African country told us that he had worked in many humanitarian crises in several different countries and that he had experienced hardships and difficult conditions, but that Sudan is the first country he had worked in where the government had made him feel unwelcome. Another experienced aid worker told us that in 25 years of humanitarian work in nearly as many countries, he had never come across another government that cared so little about the humanitarian operation that was keeping its people alive. We applaud the efforts of these NGO workers who continue to provide assistance to people in Darfur despite the obstructions imposed by the Sudanese government and the day-to-day difficulties they have to endure.

--Melanie Teff

Visit our website for more information about our latest mission to Sudan

President's Corner: No Helicopters For Darfur

What if the United States and its allies pressured the United Nations to deploy a large new peacekeeping force to the Darfur region of Sudan and then failed to support it? I would consider the lack of support hypocritical and a clear lack of leadership.

Well, that is exactly what the U.S. and its allies are doing. On January 1st a new UN-African Union force will take over peacekeeping responsibilities in Darfur. The hybrid force will eventually have 26,000 members, replacing a beleaguered African Union force of about 7,000. Not only is the new force supposed to be larger, it is also supposed to be better equipped than the AU force. It is supposed to have sophisticated communications equipment and adequate transport, including helicopters, so it can move quickly around Darfur, an area as big as Texas.

So far, however, a UN campaign to win pledges of adequate helicopters and crews has failed completely. Last week, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon sent a letter to the UN Security Council asking for 24 helicopters for the Darfur force, also known as UNAMID. Despite his plea, “no member state has come forward to provide these vital assets,” he told the press.

Mr. Ban has done more than write letters. Last week Deputy Secretary General Asha-Rose Migiro said: “In the past weeks and months, the Secretary General has contacted, personally, every possible contributor of helicopters—in the Americas, in Europe, in Asia. And not one has been made available.” UN officials say that Mr. Ban has repeatedly raised the helicopter issue with top U.S. officials.

“In Europe alone there are thousands of military helicopters of different types. Large numbers of helicopters also exist in key Asian powers, and in the Americas,’ Ms. Migiro said. “Any assistance the governments in these regions can offer would be profoundly appreciated, not least by the people of Darfur.”

President Bush has accused the government of Sudan of committing genocide in Darfur, yet the U.S. now seems unwilling to provide a new peacekeeping force with the equipment it needs to succeed. U.S. officials say that the U.S. helicopters assets are tied up in Iraq, Afghanistan and in training. What’s more, they say that Sudan wouldn’t allow U.S. military pilots to fly in Darfur. Maybe they’re right, but why not put the Khartoum government on the spot by offering to send helicopters, perhaps from Reserve units?

The new UN-AU force faces many obstacles, including unwarranted restrictions imposed by the government of Sudan. Now wealthy, well-armed nations appear to be working hand in glove with Khartoum to sabotage the new peacekeeping force by grounding it even before it deploys.

This is more than hypocritical; it’s outrageous.

--Ken Bacon

Read Refugees International's latest bulletin on the current challenges for protecting civilians in Darfur.

Sudan: Struggling to Show Solidarity

While in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan, on November 25th I attended the local inauguration of the global 16 days’ of activism against gender violence campaign. In a country which has often taken the official line that sexual and gender-based violence does not exist in its culture, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that such an event was taking place, and was even more impressed to see that it was a government-led event.

In the western Darfur province of Sudan there have been widespread reports of systematic rapes of women and children. Yet, in Sudan, many non governmental organizations (NGOs) have been prevented by the government from running programs that assist rape survivors and have threatened these groups with expulsion for talking publicly about violence against women. But there I sat at an official government event talking about violence against women. There were speakers from UN agencies and even a representative of local NGOs. Looking around the room, I realized that there were in fact very few local NGOs present. Unlike many other countries around the world, there did not appear to be any women’s organizations running public events as part of the 16 days’ campaign against violence against women.

I talked with a few local Sudanese women’s organizations to find out why they were not organizing any public events. I soon came to understand the difficulties that these groups were facing, and admired them for being able to carry on working at all.

I heard about how their staff members were frequently being taken away and questioned by national security and intelligence agencies about their activities and about their funding sources. Often when they organized a workshop to discuss violence against women it would be ruined by such disruptions. I heard about events, such as those organized on International Women’s Day, which were cancelled by government bans of public events on the days in question. I heard about how their organizations’ registration was frequently suspended by the government. And, I heard how many Sudanese women’s organizations that want to work with women in Darfur who are facing so many problems, are not permitted by the government to work there.

I also heard about the funding problems that these groups were facing. Some groups told me that they wanted to organize activities about violence against women on November 25th, but they couldn’t afford to do so. It is really hard for local NGOs to access funds that are much more readily available to international NGOs and UN agencies. Local groups just can’t comply with all the complex regulations involved in applying for such funds. They can often get funded to run individual activities, but not to pay their staffing or administration costs.

As one women’s activist said to me: “What’s the point of funding us to run eight workshops when we can’t pay staff to follow up on anything that came out of the workshops?” She talked about her frustration at the lack of support that international donors are showing towards local civil society organizations. Some of her words stuck in my head. “One day the UN and the international NGOs will leave Sudan. If they don’t invest in groups like ours now, then when they leave all of the advances made will be lost. Sudanese women, particularly Arab Sudanese women like myself, must be enabled to show solidarity with our sisters in Darfur now while they are suffering. If not, then the divisions in our society will never be healed.”

-Melanie Teff

Advocate Melanie Teff and Program Associate Camilla Olson recently returned from a mission to Sudan to assess the humanitarian situation in Darfur.

President’s Corner: The U.S. Needs To Do More in Darfur

Two news articles last week made me question whether the U.S. and its allies are really serious about ending the killing and displacement in the Darfur region of Sudan. On Nov. 14, the Associated Press reported a warning by the UN peacekeeping chief, Jean-Marie Guehenno, that an expanded peacekeeping force currently deploying to Darfur could be a “failure” unless it gets more sophisticated equipment from donor countries to support the mission. In particular, he said that the 26,000 member UN-African Union force that is to police an area as big as Texas needs 18 transport helicopters and six light support helicopters for a rapid reaction force. “I think it tells a sad story on the commitment for Darfur, frankly,” Guehenno said of the lack of helicopters.

On Nov. 15, the BBC reported that British Foreign Secretary David Miliband excoriated European Union countries for not committing badly needed helicopters to the large, new Darfur force. “EU countries have around 1,200 transport helicopters, yet only about 35 are deployed to Afghanistan. And EU member states haven’t provided any helicopters in Darfur despite a desperate need there,” he said in a speech.

President Bush has accused the government of Sudan of committing genocide in Darfur. The Genocide Convention makes it clear that signatories, such as the U.S. and all major European powers, must act “to prevent and punish the crime of genocide”, yet the U.S. and Europe can’t find 24 helicopters between them to help the new force.

So it seems reasonable to ask: how deep is our commitment to deploying a larger, more capable peacekeeping force in Darfur with the hope of stopping genocide there? After news of the helicopter shortage, a reporter at a Pentagon news conference asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates if the U.S. could provide the helicopters. Gates said he was not aware of any request for helicopters from the UN-AU force. But even if the U.S. got a request, “I would say just as a matter of general principle, our helicopter resources are pretty…pushed between Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Don’t get me wrong. The U.S. is doing a lot to support the so-called hybrid UN-AU force. The new 26,000 member force of troops and police will replace a 7,000 member AU force that is currently deployed.

First, the U.S. pays at least 25% of the cost of all UN peacekeeping operations. According to a State Department official, this means that the U.S. will pay the UN $884 million to help support the force through June 30, 2009, if Congress appropriates the money. Second, we are in the process of turning over to the new force 34 bases that we built for the AU in Darfur and about $40 million of equipment, including vehicles and satellite communications gear. Third, we recently transported about 800 Rwandan troops into North Darfur. Finally, we have been a major promoter of peace talks to end the war. So far, however, the peace talks have gotten nowhere.

Still, the question remains: Is President Bush doing enough to stop genocide in Darfur. The answer is no.

--Ken Bacon

President’s Corner: Combating Rape in Darfur

Thanks to those of you who responded to our request to urge Members of Congress to take a stand against rape in Darfur, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 726.

This vote comes on the same day that The Washington Post front page carried an article headlined “U.S. Promises on Darfur Don’t Match Actions.” The story details the large gap between President Bush’s expression of concern about the violence in Darfur, where he has accused the government of Sudan of genocide, and the lack of effective American action to end the fighting.

During 4 ½ years of fighting, an estimated 400,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have been driven from their farms and villages. Although the causes and consequences of the war are complex, there is a strong ethnic element to the fighting; many of the dead and displaced are African farmers who have been attacked by government and militia forces comprised largely of Arabs.

A number of humanitarian agencies have documented the common use of rape as a weapon of attack when villages are being destroyed. In February, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court said that a leader of the Janjaweed, an Arab militia associated with the government of Sudan, “issued orders to militia/Janjaweed and armed forces to victimize the civilian populations through mass rape and other sexual offenses, killings, torture, inhumane acts, pillaging and looting of residences and market places, the displacement of the resident community” and other criminal offenses. Over the summer Refugees International issued a report, Laws Without Justice, that noted that Sudan’s laws protect many of the rapists from prosecution. The report is about to come out in Arabic.

The House Resolution, co-sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-FL) and Brad Miller (D-NC) instructs the State Department to develop programs to help women in need and seeks justice for victims of rape and sexual violence.

I have spoken to rape victims in Darfur, and they have no hope of seeing their attackers brought to justice. But the Resolution is an important expression of U.S. concern and another step toward calling world-wide attention to crimes that are both denied and condoned by the government of Sudan.

--Ken Bacon

Washington Circle: RI at the Canadian Embassy

On Monday, October 15, Refugees International’s Washington Circle presented a fall briefing at the Embassy of Canada in Washington, DC. Adam Chang reports on the event.

From the eyes of a humble intern standing on a 6th floor terrace looking out on the nation’s capitol glowing at dusk, the Embassy seemed like a great mansion. Guests filled the reception area, spilling out the doors after taking their seats. After a warm welcome from Ambassador Michael Wilson, the evening proceeded with two key note speakers from Refugees International – Human Rights expert and lawyer, Adrienne Fricke and Charles (Sandy) London, former research associate at RI and author of One Day the Soldiers Came.

Adrienne spoke of her report, Laws Without Justice, which details how Sudanese laws do not provide justice for Sudanese women who have been raped. For example, while it is legal for a woman to file a claim against a man who has raped her, current law dictates that she must provide substantial evidence to prove her case – including the testimony of male waitnesses. In filing a claim, she runs the risk of having admitted to a sexual relationship outside of marriage, which is considered adultery.. Under Islamic Sha’ria Law, she then may be charged and handed a sentence that may include whippings, or even death by stoning.

Moreover, Adrienne revealed that the current law makes individuals with government affiliation (guards, soldiers, government workers, etc.) immune from prosecution. Since much of the sexual violence in Darfur is perpetrated by members of the Sudanese armed forces or other government units, this law is particularly problematic. Even if a woman—at the risk of being socially ostracized—can marshal all the evidence to bring her attacker to court, she is barred in this final phase because Sudanese law permits such officials to infringe on the human rights of others.

Following Adrienne’s moving account, Charles (Sandy) read an excerpt about Michael, a boy from a Congolese refugee camp in Tanzania: “‘One day the soldiers came,’ Michael told me. Michael, who was fifteen, fled the Congo almost two years before I met him … ‘I was in the back room when the rebels came,’ he said. The rebels burst into his house, knowing his father was a businessman and would have money. They burst in through the front door armed with machetes and rifles. ‘That’s when I saw my mother and father killed, and all I could do was climb out the window.’”

Sandy then read about another Congolese refugee boy named Justin: “‘What would you tell someone your age who has never been in a refugee camp so that he could understand what it is like?’ I asked him. Justin thought for a moment, choosing his words carefully. ‘I would like to tell him that living in the camp is very bad. I think about going home, but who will I go back to? Everyone is dead. If I talk to this boy who has never been in a refugee camp I would be happy. I want to find children with hope.’”

The successful event was both informative and moving. As the evening came to an end, I got Sandy to sign my books. One, directed to my thirteen year old sister, was poignantly signed, “Keep reading, keep thinking, keep caring.”

-Adam Chang, Development Intern
Refugees International

President's Corner: Israel's Refugee Debate Raises Questions for World

Over the weekend, Israel refused to accept some Sudanese from Darfur, sending them back to Egypt. The expulsion, which has triggered a sharp debate in Israel, raises an important question about the obligation of all countries to determine whether people who seek sanctuary in their countries are legitimate refugees who need protection or economic migrants who don’t.

The 1951 Refugee Convention says that people who flee their countries in the face of "a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" deserve protection as refugees. The same protection does not apply to economic migrants, people who leave their country to work elsewhere to earn a better living. There are about 150 million economic migrants, such as Mexicans working in the U.S. or Pakistanis working in Saudi Arabia, in the world today, compared to about 14 million refugees.

According to Monday’s New York Times, Israel expelled about 50 African migrants over the weekend without checking whether any of them had legitimate claims for refugee protection. The Times cited Israeli press accounts reporting that some of the expelled Africans were refugees fleeing from Darfur, where the U.S. has accused the Sudanese government of committing genocide.

Israel is not alone in turning away people before determining whether they have a right to refugee protection. Today, Jordan is turning away Iraqis and South Africa is turning away Zimbabweans without due consideration of their claims for protection as refugees.

To its credit, Israel has announced that it will absorb 500 refugees from Darfur already in the country. Most reached Israel through Egypt, which has absorbed large numbers of Sudanese, many of whom live in harsh conditions. I suspect that both economic migrants and refugees from Africa believe that life is better in Israel than in Egypt, even though most Sudanese trying to enter Israel are Muslims. But having accepted some refugees isn’t a sound reason for turning others away. Countries that refuse to determine whether they are rejecting sanctuary seekers with a legitimate claim for refugee status are undermining a basic element of refugee protection.

Earlier this month, more than half the members of the Israeli Parliament signed a petition asserting that "the refugees need protection and sanctuary, and the Jewish people’s history, as well as the values of democracy and humanity, pose a moral imperative for us to give them that shelter."

The Israeli parliamentarians are right.

--Ken Bacon

President’s Corner: What Will Bush’s Legacy on Human Rights Be?

Jackson Diehl, a columnist for The Washington Post, often writes on human rights, and he covers the topic with clarity, force and eloquence. His column today (“The Rush for a Legacy,” Aug. 6, 2007) focuses on the difference between President Bush’s rhetoric in support of human rights and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s more real politic approach that is leading her to attempt to cut deals with autocratic regimes.

On June 5, Diehl recalls, President Bush met with freedom fighters in Prague and said that he had asked the State Department to instruct every U.S. ambassador in “an unfree nation” to “...seek out those who demand human rights” and to meet with democracy activists.

Sadly, the State Department is not following orders. “With less than 18 months remaining in her tenure and that of President Bush, Rice has turned her famously disciplined focus toward delivering legacy achievements,” Diehl writes. “But her aims are utterly different from those with which Bush began his second term—such as the ‘freedom agenda’ he restated in Prague. Democracy promotion in the Middle East is out, replaced by a belated but intense effort to broker a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. Even more strikingly, the ‘regime change’ strategy that once marked Bush administration policy toward North Korea has been dropped in favor of an all-out effort to negotiate a rapprochement with dictator Kim Jong Il.”

Effective foreign policy requires both deal-making and defense of principle. Clearly the world would be more stable—and the U.S. would be safer—if we could achieve a Middle East peace agreement or get North Korea once and for all to stop its nuclear weapons program. But Diehl accuses the State Department of abandoning principle to chase “diplomatic mirages”—agreements that look closer and more real than they are.

When it comes to human rights, the gap between the administration’s stated principles and actual policies appears to be growing. Just consider two current issues where the administration is dropping the ball—Darfur and Iraqi refugees.

Last week President Bush said that he and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had discussed how to deal with the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Yet there are no new policies, and despite the president’s comment, Darfur appears to have fallen off the administration’s agenda. If the president wants a clear idea of what to do, he should read Nicholas Kristof’s column in The New York Times today. The title is “Mr. Bush, Here’s a Plan for Darfur.”

The administration’s policy toward Iraqi refugees has been all promise and no performance so far. About 2.2 million Iraqis have fled their country to escape violence, and their host countries, mainly Jordan and Syria, are increasingly worried about the burdens and security challenges the refugees pose. In February the State Department announced plans to resettle particularly vulnerable Iraqis into the U.S. and said it hoped to resettle as many as 7,000 here by Sept. 30. Since that announcement, the U.S. has resettled a grand total of 190 Iraqis. Thousands of Iraqis fled the country after they were targeted by terrorist groups because they assisted the U.S. as translators or drivers. They risked our lives to help our soldiers and diplomats in Iraq, and we are doing nothing to help them.

A broader problem is the increasingly desperate state of the approximately two million Iraqi refugees living in Syria and Jordan. Few can earn a living, send their children to school or get medical care. Prostitution and crime are rising as Iraqis scrounge for money to buy food. Officials in Syria and Jordan are beginning to talk about Iraqis as the new Palestinians--a group that becomes more disenfranchised and subject to radicalization as hopes of returning home decline.

After visiting Baghdad last year, Secretary Rice said that “it is vital for the Iraqi people to know with certainty that America will not abandon them.” Iraqi refugees feel abandoned, and they know who abandoned them. The question is: Will human rights advocates around the world also feel abandoned by the U.S.?

--Ken Bacon

Keeping the Peace in Africa

Yesterday our peacekeeping program officer Mark Malan testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, on the US Africa Command or AFRICOM. Mark voiced the concern that as it stands now AFRICOM could dangerously blur the line between a military role and engaging in more civilian responses like development projects and humanitarian assistance. These activities normally fall to humanitarian organizations whose security and access to affected populations hinges on the neutrality of their work.

In short, the concerns of the humanitarian NGOs overlap with those of Africans—to the extent that they are both underpinned by the fear of the militarization of humanitarian and development assistance, as well as US policy in Africa. An obvious way to overcome such concerns and enhance the credibility of the new combatant command, is to focus attention and effort on those non-combatant roles which are relevant, meaningful, and undeniably appropriate for the US military.

You can read Mark’s full testimony here.

Mark is also the director of the Partnership for Effective Peacekeeping (PEP), which works to increase peacebuilding capacity by bringing together various academics, think tanks, humanitarians, policymakers, and others. Visit the PEP website to read more about Mark’s testimony and to sign up for their mailing list.

On a related note, on Tuesday the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that authorizes the deployment of a hybrid mission to Darfur made up of UN and African Union peacekeeping troops and police. The resolution is an important step towards alleviating the violence and humanitarian crisis that has pummeled western Sudan since 2003.

The African Union currently has about 7,000 peacekeeping troops in Darfur (compared to the 14,000 aid workers there), but they are under funded and understaffed, which means that vulnerable populations like women and children receive little protection against abuses such as sexual and gender based violence.

The 26,000 peacekeepers proposed for the hybrid mission could potentially bring some sense of safety and stability to Darfur. But as Mark points out in his commentary today on the UN Resolution, the mandate for the hybrid mission, UNMID, is vague, and it remains to be seen whether the force commander and troop contributing countries will allow the peacekeepers to risk their lives in order to end the violence in Darfur and protect the civilians most in need.

President’s Corner: Go Gordon

Gordon Brown has only been Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for a short while, but I am already a fan. He has begun to embrace an ambitious humanitarian agenda that ranges from ending the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan to reducing world poverty.

His rise to power comes at a time when both these campaigns need new energy and vision.

He brought up Darfur in his first meetings with President Bush on Sunday and Monday and during a joint press conference. European press reports have suggested that he and Nicolas Sarkozy, the new President of France, might go to Darfur together to highlight the violence there and to put new pressure on Sudan’s government to work aggressively for peace in Darfur, where some 400,000 people have died and more than 2.2 million have been displaced during four years of brutal civil war.

In New York City on Tuesday Mr. Brown will give a major address on the reduction of global poverty, as called for in the Millennium Development Goals adopted by world leaders at the UN in 2000.

Both Tony Blair, Mr. Brown’s predecessor, and President Bush talked of taking leadership roles on these important issues, but Mr. Blair stepped down in June, and Mr. Bush’s attention has been be diverted by Iraq, immigration reform and other issues.

It is good to have Prime Minister Brown taking up these issues. I hope his attention does not wander.

--Ken Bacon

President's Corner: No Fly Zone Over Darfur: Keep the Pressure on Sudan

Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, is famous for the “divide and conquer” strategy he uses to keep his opponents off guard. Now the U.S. humanitarian community seems to using this tactic against itself, as divisions arise over the wisdom of imposing a no fly zone over Darfur.

Since 2003, Sudanese air force planes and helicopters have helped government supported militias attack innocent civilians and destroy villages as part of what the U.S. Congress has called “Sudan’s genocidal policies in Darfur.” President George Bush, Sen. Hillary Clinton and many politicians in between have suggested that the West should be ready to destroy Sudanese aircraft used in the attacks. As Nicholas Kristof pointed out in his column in The New York Times Monday, one of the most authoritative promoters of a no fly zone is Roger Winter, who has worked for more than 20 years to educate Americans about the depredations of the Khartoum regime.

Several humanitarian organizations and commentators publicly oppose a no fly zone, saying that it would destroy the one international success in Darfur—the establishment of a humanitarian lifeline that is sustaining more than two million Darfurians displaced by violence.

Unfortunately, this debate is distracting and possibly destructive.

Most—maybe all—humanitarian workers believe in the Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that calls for a series of actions, starting with humanitarian aid and running through diplomacy, economic sanctions, and, if necessary, the use of military force, to compel a country to protect its own people or allow the UN and its members to do so. Military force is a last resort, but the threat of its use makes all the other actions more credible. For the last four years humanitarian agencies have been urging the Bush administration and the UN to do more to end the death and displacement in Darfur, yet some are now afraid—against all evidence—that the U.S. might precipitously impose a no fly zone over Darfur. Announcing that we are unilaterally removing the threat of military action makes about as much sense as one team announcing that it won’t throw any passes in a football game.

In its 2006 report “To Save Darfur,” the International Crisis Group argued that it is premature to use military force in Darfur because the UN and its members had not yet exhausted all diplomatic and other nonmilitary options to bring about an end to the fighting. That is still the case. Military force is not an appropriate or acceptable response, even to genocide, until all nonmilitary measures have been tried, but it would undermine the Responsibility to Protect to remove military force from the table at the beginning or in the middle of diplomatic negotiations.

The Responsibility to Protect is a new and fragile doctrine that needs to be strengthened, not weakened. The humanitarian community will hurt itself in the long run--and perhaps prolong the suffering of the very populations it seeks to protect—by restricting responses under the Responsibility to Protect.

I believe the Bush administration, presidential candidates, the UN and the humanitarian community should take the following positions:

• Talk of establishing a NFZ or taking other military action is premature now because the UN and its members have not exhausted all non military options.
• If non military options fail, the UN and its members must weigh the costs and benefits of any possible military action; if the humanitarian risks are too high, force should not be used.
• Military force should always be a last resort but when properly used in the right circumstances, it can be an effective extension of diplomacy, as it was in the Balkans in 1995 and 1999.
• As long as the genocide continues, it is irresponsible to rule out any reasonable action to protect innocent civilians.

Efforts by the U.S. and the UN to end the fighting in Darfur have been unimaginative, inconsistent and unsuccessful. It will not help the humanitarian community if we appear divided and uncertain about how best to pursue the Responsibility to Protect. We need to support policies that make diplomats more effective, not weaken them further.

--Ken Bacon

Adrienne Fricke on Laws Without Justice, a new RI report

How can the problem of rape in Darfur be solved? The question resounds from all quarters, and while the widespread concern is heartening, the difficulty in finding an answer frustrates us all. But before we can address a problem, we have to understand it. I hope that Laws Without Justice will be a useful tool for activists both inside and outside Sudan, and will provide support to the brave Sudanese activists and attorneys who work so hard in very challenging conditions. I am humbled by the dedication and integrity of the Sudanese human rights community in the face of very real danger.

The extent of rape in Darfur has been well-documented in both the media and in human rights investigations. What has received much less attention are the voices of the human rights workers in the field who struggle against a legal system that all but forecloses prosecution of perpetrators. Unless we start to ask systems-based questions, little will change for women in Darfur. It is also vital for the international community to understand that Islamic law does not require rape to be defined in terms of the Shari'a definition of adultery. Rape is a violent crime, not an act of adultery, and this must be reflected in the law. The current law exposes a woman to a potential charge of adultery where she is unable to meet the impossibly high evidentiary standards invoked as a result of defining rape in terms of sex outside of marriage.

I hope that this report will help us all ask sharper questions as we adapt existing programs and develop new strategies for confronting the horrors of sexual violence in Darfur. By