July, 2009

While the focus of a Senate hearing yesterday was on the U.S. strategy for helping to implement a comprehensive peace in Sudan, some controversial comments by U.S. Special Envoy Gration sparked a media flurry today that focused more on the rifts within the Obama administration than on the way forward for Sudan.

Gration’s assertion that the U.S. classification of Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism is a ‘political decision’ was one moment that caused a stir in the Senate press gallery. Here’s the original comment, followed by a readout from Enough’s Executive Director John Norris:

Here is a quick roundup of some of the coverage of Gration’s remarks:

The Christian Science Monitor writes: “The Obama administration’s internal debate about whether or not the term ‘genocide’ still applies to the conditions in Sudan’s Darfur region has spilled into public view.” The article notes that the comprehensive review of Sudan policy has hit several delays as key differences – between U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Gration and between the National Security Council and the State Department – have emerged.

The Washington Post notes that while Gration told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration has created and is planning on announcing a new comprehensive strategy that includes “both incentives and pressures” that there are still clearly lingering tensions – not only with Susan Rice, who has been advocating a much stronger position against Sudan, but also with the State Department, which Gration remarked had turned down his request to fund more U.S. diplomats or private contractors to help his mediation efforts in Sudan.

An article in The New York Times titled “U.S. Envoy Says Sudan Sanctions Should Be Eased” jumped on Special Envoy Gration assertion that “there is no evidence to justify Sudan’s presence on a U.S. terrorism blacklist.”

A piece by Grace Chung, for McClatchy Newspapers noted that Gration’s comments on the question of genocide and the easing of sanctions “raised hackles among senators and human rights groups, who worry that the administration might be easing its pressure on Sudan.” Enough’s own Colin Thomas-Jenson, who is quoted in the article, echoed the sentiment: “The policy that the administration seems to be adopting has an overemphasis on incentives. The fact is, sanctions in the past have been an effective tool to change the behavior of Sudan.”      

The title of The Washington Times’ front-page article sums it up simply: “Obama aides clash over Sudan policy.” It notes that this is one of the first clashes within the administration that has been made public. The article asserts that Gration and Rice differ not only about the question of genocide in Darfur, but on the equally large question of sanctions on Sudan. While Gration has spoken openly about the “honest debate” that he and Rice are engaged in, Rice’s aide told the paper that the U.N. Ambassador would not comment about their discussions.   

And finally, NPR, in a story entitled “Love Blooms at Otherwise Serious Senate Session on Sudan,” has kindly posted the entire exchange between Special Envoy Gration and Senator Roger Wicker, which left the world in no doubt about the ‘love’ that Gration has for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, despite their ongoing debate over Sudan policy.

Technorati Tags: Darfur and Southern Sudan

A fairly painful briefing at the State Department today as reporters quizzed Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs PJ Crowley on Gration's comments before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. You can see for yourself in the video below (start at around 2:30):

Technorati Tags:

In the Senate hearing yesterday morning, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) used her allotted time to discuss the disastrous and destabilizing effects of sexual violence and the use of rape as a weapon of war in Darfur. Furthermore, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) spoke with emotion about the difficult conditions that women are forced to endure in Darfur's IDP camps. During a recent trip to Darfur, Corker said that he observed "women confined to small spaces," living in fear of attacks and further violence, and unable to leave the camps to collect firewood. Numerous senators asked Special Envoy Gration about how the needs of women were being met in the camps following the expulsion of international and Sudanese humanitarian organizations in March.

Sexual violence was also a focus in the hearing with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice this week. Speaking before the House of Representatives, Rice spoke powerfully about the prevalence of the use of rape as a weapon of war, saying that it was an important issue to her "as a woman and as a human being."

Continued attention to violence against women from Congress is commendable. More, however, must be done. Actions must be taken against sexual violence through the development of more robust protection and prevention mechanisms in places like Darfur and Congo and an end to impunity for the perpetrators of violence. Elected officials on both sides of the aisle are deeply concerned. Now is the time to translate that concern into action, and we’re hopeful that Secretary of State Clinton will return from her upcoming trip to Congo as a champion of this cause and will raise the profile of the horrific pattern of crimes against women.

Technorati Tags: Advocacy Darfur and Southern Sudan Eastern Congo Prevention Protection Punishment Sexual Violence United Nations Violence Against Women

The phrase sums up the sentiment expressed by leading Sudan experts this week on Capitol Hill when they testified for a House subcommittee chaired by Congressman Donald Payne (D-NJ).  This moment in Sudan is far too important to the future stability of the country and broader region to let U.S. diplomats fall into the same old trap set by Khartoum.

As the panelists – John Prendergast of Enough, former U.S. Envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson, and Roger Winter, former special representative for Sudan to the deputy secretary of State – each described, President Bashir and his regime have a well-documented history of negotiating agreements and then engineer violence to create distractions and stall the forward movement. “If there are no sticks, there will be no successful peace process,” Winter frankly stated.

As Winter explained, the leaders of Bashir’s National Congress Party, who are behind the genocidal violence in Darfur and for years masterminded campaigns against Sudanese in the South, have been in power for 20 years. The advisors surrounding Sudanese President Bashir largely rose to power in 1989 alongside Bashir. By contrast, the United States has appointed numerous special envoys and special representatives to negotiate with Khartoum, each of whom seem to fall into the same trap.

(The regime in Khartoum) knows us very well,” said Roger Winter, “They are used to getting away with murder because they have been able to do it with us for a long period of time.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is, at best, putting forth a policy that is disjointed and slow on the uptake. Key U.S. leaders have been rhetorically resolute about devoting the necessary and appropriate strategies to a comprehensive peace process in Sudan, but an internal policy review is ongoing (‘in the next few weeks’ has been the oft cited timeframe by administration officials) and in the meantime, even one-time champions of the Darfur cause have been noticeably silent at key moments when they could have made an impression on international and Sudanese actors.

Now, despite the encouraging move by President Obama to appoint a special envoy to Sudan early in his term, the administration, through Envoy Gration’s actions, is pursuing a strategy that inappropriately favors incentives over pressure, a point that both the panelists at Wednesday’s hearing and long-time Sudan advocates on the subcommittee drove home.

So what’s to be done? Williamson, Prendergast, and Winter emphasized the critical window of opportunity Congress has currently to influence the administration’s Sudan policy, which is under review at the deputies- level of the National Security Council before it will be kicked up to the top decision makers. Congress must ensure that U.S. policy for engaging Sudan in a comprehensive process – one that centers on implementation of the fragile but pivotal CPA and on meaningfully restarting a peace process for Darfur that includes the voices of civil society and women in particular -- makes clear to Khartoum that there are consequences for failing to meet its commitments and orchestrating efforts to destabilize the South as the 2011 self-determination referendum approaches. Prendergast underscored the role for Congress:

What the Congress urgently can do now…is weigh in very constructively with the principals in the administration who will sit around the table at a National Security Council meeting to arbitrate and deliberate about what U.S. policy should be…  We need the people who have been champions on Sudan, champions of Darfur throughout their Senate or private sector careers… to be front and center in that meeting.

The subcommittee members seemed quite captivated by the witnesses’ testimony, as well as by a briefing and Q&A with Secretary General of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement Pagan Amum that opened the session. Ranking member of the subcommittee Chris Smith (R-NJ) expressed concern, -- evoking Bosnia and Rwanda – that U.S. policy makers may overlook past tragedies where the U.S. regretfully reacted too slowly or did nothing:

I’ve been in Congress for 29 years, and I’m shocked that so many bright people are missing these warning signs…. I’m concerned that if war breaks out again, the best and brightest among us will ask, ‘how did that happen?’ This panel has given us the early warning.

As the panelists noted and a new video (discovered by a couple of my colleagues) below conveys, congressional leaders, concerned citizens, and activists must also avoid being fooled into thinking that U.S. leaders will necessarily get Sudan right this time.

Many Sudan watchers hoped that the new administration would usher in much-needed resolve to lead an international coalition engaged in working toward a comprehensive solution for Sudan. So far, despite the positioning of leading voices for actions in ultimate decision-making posts – namely, the offices of President, Vice President, and Secretary of State – we’re seeing a U.S. policy that by many accounts, certainly those on Wednesday’s panel, will result in the same cycle of broken commitments from Khartoum, delays in delivering the promised ‘peace dividends’ intended to come from the CPA, and, most tragically, the needless deaths of countless more Sudanese who are treated as pawns.

It is crucial that Congress stay engaged and activists keep beating the drum. 

Darfur: We Won't Get Fooled Again from Darfur on Vimeo.

Technorati Tags: Advocacy Darfur and Southern Sudan Genocide International Criminal Court Omar al-Bashir Peace Protection Punishment

In a telling exchange from yesterday’s State Department Press Briefing, spokesman Ian Kelly underscored U.S. confusion on key questions regarding America’s Sudan policy:

QUESTION: On Sudan, this morning, Scott Gration, who, as you know, is the Special Envoy for Sudan, said that there was absolutely no evidence that Sudan – the Sudanese Government was a state sponsor of terrorism. Is this the Administration’s position? And if it is, when are you going to take them off the list?
MR. KELLY: Yeah. I have not seen these remarks. When I see the remarks, we’ll be happy to provide comment on it.
QUESTION: There seems to be a debate within the Administration. When the envoy, General Gration, was here a few weeks ago, he talked about the remnants of genocide, said it was not an ongoing genocide. This caused an uproar in the Darfur advocacy community as well as within the Administration. And I believe you or one of your colleagues kind of had to walk it back, the statement, the next day.
How big of a debate is there going on in the Administration about what’s going on in Sudan, and how do you deal with it?
MR. KELLY: Well, look, I certainly don’t want to give you the impression that we don’t take this seriously. In fact, we take it so seriously, I want to be sure that we give you a completely accurate and thorough characterization of what our policy is. So I will take your question and we will get back to you this afternoon.
Yes.
QUESTION: But this is not rocket science. I mean, either there’s a genocide or there’s not genocide. I mean, this has been something that has been going on within the Administration --
MR. KELLY: Sue, I have answered your question. I will – we will get you an answer this afternoon.
QUESTION: I mean, what is the – I don’t understand.
MR. KELLY: Are there any other issues that you would like to ask about, please?

General Gration took pains during his hearing yesterday to emphasize the congenial nature of his relationship with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and downplay the interagency disagreements that many believe are stalling the Sudan policy review process. He noted, "I will tell you in public that Susan Rice is one of my dear friends. She is one of two women in the world that I say, ‘I love you' to. We have a comprehensive and integrated approach to insure that all elements will be taken care of."

Gration's comments, however, did not really elucidate what consensus might be emerging. Officials note that the Sudan review should be rolled out in the coming weeks. Hopefully the clarity that will come with firm policy positions and guidelines will make for clearer State Department positions.

Technorati Tags: Darfur and Southern Sudan

Speaking at yesterday’s hearing, Special Envoy Gration agreed with sentiments from Committee Chairman Kerry (D-MA) that the situation in Darfur had "changed" from the height of the genocide. Gration noted that the levels of violence in Darfur are "getting significantly better," but that "this doesn't mean our efforts will stop," because "one death is too many." He also noted that although it is "very clear" that the Sudanese government armed and supported the Janjaweed militias as proxies "in the beginning" of the genocide in 2003 and 2004, he now believes that "some [of the rebel movements] have some autonomy [from the Sudanese government], but [that] there are still linkages." [Emphasis mine] On the question of how the situation affects U.S. efforts to build a new peace process for Darfur, Gration said that his team is "working with the Sudanese government to disarm the militias," describing his strategy as a "law enforcement type of plan."

It is true that the conflict in Darfur has changed and that levels of violence are significantly lower now than they were in 2005 and 2006, but it is incredibly worrisome that Gration would even mention "law enforcement" as part of the strategy at this point for discussing peace in Darfur with the Sudanese government. Establishing security in Darfur is essential to enabling the returns of an estimated 2.7 million displaced Darfuris to their homes. But this cannot happen until the Sudanese government commits to negotiate in good faith to end the conflict in Darfur. This does not start with law enforcement; it starts with a commitment from Khartoum to not only work to disarm the proxy militias, but also to cease supporting these militias. As Gration noted, although "some" militias may be operating with "some autonomy" from Khartoum, there is no evidence that all of the Janjaweed militias have ceased to be supported by Khartoum (just as it would be impossible to prove that the Justice and Equality Movement, or JEM, the largest rebel movement in Darfur, is not receiving any support from the Chadian government; there are financial and logistical "linkages" and these are undisputed).

Special Envoy Gration appears to be pursuing an approach--which, as Senator Russ Feingold noted at the hearing, has been undertaken by the envoy before the administration's Sudan policy review has been finalized--that gives the Sudanese government the benefit of the doubt. However, the idea that the U.S. would "work with" the Sudanese government to "help them" disarm the militias in Darfur ignores the fact that some of these militias continue to be supported by Khartoum. And although Gration did emphasize the deplorable conditions of life for the millions of Darfuris living in displaced persons camps, it is a disservice to Darfuris to suggest that Darfur can be made safe for them to return through a "law enforcement" plan enforced by Khartoum.

Regardless of the present situation in Darfur, any political negotiations with Khartoum by the U.S. must incorporate the notion of accountability for past crimes by this regime. If justice is set aside – whether in the interest of initiating a "law enforcement" program in Darfur or in an attempt to resolve a North-South dispute over the recent census, then the people of Sudan will undoubtedly continue to suffer. As Enough's Executive Director John Norris noted today when he testified in front of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House, "If justice is not part of the solution in Sudan, it probably is not much of a solution at all.”

Technorati Tags: Darfur and Southern Sudan Genocide Protection

Here at Enough, we often swap emails with interesting articles and feature stories that we come across in our favorite publications and on our favorite websites. We wanted to share some of these stories with you as part of our effort to keep you up to date on what you need to know in the world of anti-genocide and crimes against humanity work.

In an op-ed for the LA Times, Helen Wintenitz rightly calls for President Obama to take a long, hard look at Africa’s most dysfunctional countries, namely Congo, after highlighting an African success story through his Ghana speech. In particular, Wintenitz makes a direct appeal for the president to appoint a special envoy to tackle the broader regional conflict with its epicenter in eastern Congo, provide more direct aid, and supporta $6 billion project proposed by China that would yield massive infrastructure development for Congo. Wintenitz has a long-standing expertise in Central Africa, and her op-ed raise some very good points.

The BBC reported on a disturbing though certainly not surprising trend of the militant al-Shabaab in Somalia coercing children into joining their jihadist movement to topple the fragile Somali government. One father whose 15-year-old son recently disappeared and is believed to have joined Shabaab said:

They are using our children as a shield. But the children of people who claim to be leaders are not in the (Shabaab training) camps. They are not fighting. Al-Shabab only use children from the poor as fighters.

AlJazeera has another up-close look at the fighting in Mogadishu, this week focusing on recent attacks by Hizbul Islam and Shabaab on African Union peacekeepers protecting strategic Somali government sites just outside of the capital.  The toll on the civilian population is, as always, dramatic, and AlJazeera visits one of Mogadishu’s hospitals to speak with the lead doctor about what he has witnessed.

The Telegraph published an insightful series of journal entries from actor and UNICEF UK Ambassador Ralph Fiennes’ recent trip to Chad.  The diary describes meetings with former child soldiers, school children, women in a refugee hospital, and chance meetings with a woman who has been separated from her son and a boy who fits the mother’s description. Fiennes’ account is well informed and reflective, certainly an impressive example of an actor’s goodwill to use his recognizable name and face as a way to draw attention to human suffering in an often overlooked part of the world.

In its print edition this week, the Economist offers a useful rundown of the substance of the Abyei decision and reactions from northern and southern Sudan that have been expressed over the past week as the decision had a chance to sink in.

Rebecca Brocato contributed to this post.

Technorati Tags:

The Obama administration is in the midst of a contentious review of its Sudan policy, which was the subject of three hearings on July 29 and 30 on Capitol Hill.  The outcome of the debate will help determine the future of millions of people from Sudan and the surrounding region. 

At the July 29 Africa Subcommittee hearing, members heard a bipartisan critique of the current direction of U.S. policy towards Sudan.  Rich Williamson, Roger Winter and I all have negotiated extensively with the regime in Sudan, have roughly a combined six decades in working on or in Sudan, and have a very clear idea of what is required for lasting peace to have a chance in that embattled country. 

Technorati Tags: Darfur and Southern Sudan Netroots Nation Sexual Violence Violence Against Women War Crimes

“At some point we're going to have to unwind some of these sanctions,” said Special Envoy Gration as he muddied the waters during the question and answer session of his hearing today. Gration argued, "The consequences of the sanctions that result from [Sudan’s inclusion on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List], and other sanctions, are preventing us from doing the development we absolutely need to do," particularly in southern Sudan. These statements by Gration are dismaying for a number of reasons. First, there are existing clauses in sanctions legislation that allow assistance to flow to southern Sudan, and representatives from southern Sudan have certainly not been leading the charge to have sanctions lifted. Second, instead of talking about specific obstacles that might be blocking aid to the South and how to address them mutually with Congress, it sure sounded like he was pushing for Khartoum to enjoy much broader relief from sanctions. The special envoy was notably mum when directly asked by Senator Feingold what practical steps the government of Sudan had taken to deserve having sanctions lifted.

Equally remarkably, the special envoy claimed, "There's no evidence in our intelligence community that supports [Sudan] being on the state sponsors of terrorism. It's a political decision." That proclamation set off a sharp back and forth among the senators present amid calls for a private session to discuss the merits of what the special envoy claimed. However, even more importantly, is the special envoy accurately reflecting administration positions on this matter? Is President Obama simply keeping Sudan on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for political reasons? Are other countries on the state sponsors list for purely political reasons? If so, far more serious questions need to be answered about how such determinations are made, although I suspect that the administration may end up doing some damage control around this one.
 

Technorati Tags:

This week has been a busy one for Africa watchers. The Hill has been alive with hearings on different international peace related topics.

This morning U.S. special envoy to Sudan Maj. Gen. Scott Gration testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and answered tough questions.

Live now, Enough Co-founder John Prendergast is participating in a press call to answer the challenges raised by Gration's hearing.

Coming up a little later this afternoon, Enough's executive director John Norris will testify before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission in the House.

John Norris will be joined by Amir Osman from Save Darfur; Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth from the South Sudan Mission; Roger Winter the former Special Representative on Sudan; and Ken Isaacs of Samaritan's Purse.

Keep checking Enough Said for coverage and follow blogger Laura Heaton @laura4enough for her live microblogging via twitter.

Technorati Tags: Advocacy Africa Peace

At the hearing this morning, Senator Corker (R-TN), who recently made a trip out to Sudan, pointed out something that has been obvious for a long time, that UNAMID has “an incredibly weak mandate.” He made the case that it is “a no-brainer” to change the mandate, and that in many cases the U.N. force has to go through so many procedural hoops that they can do little more than “wave at” different armed actors on the ground. Special Envoy Gration agreed the mandate was insufficient and argued that over time the force would need more aerial assets, new command and control arrangements, and stronger direct links with UNMIS - but suggested that this revised mandate would only come after a more comprehensive peace agreement and ceasefire was put in place.

Technorati Tags: Darfur and Southern Sudan

Update on the Senate hearings. Some tough questions for the Special Envoy from Senator Feingold -- who obviously shares the concern that the Special Envoy’s approach has been heavy on incentives and light on pressure. Feingold pushed Gration to make clear that the administration is considering punitive measures as well as incentives, given Khartoum’s long history of ‘foot dragging.’ While Gration was obviously reluctant to discuss such issues in open session, he did indicate that the administration was indeed considering punitive measures if Khartoum does not play ball. The bottom line: Gration agreed to brief Feingold on the punitive measures being considered by the administration. We would love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion.

The Special Envoy also argued that “lack of incentives is a pressure” – a formulation which I would imagine Senator Feingold has some problems with. In a separate line of questioning by Senator Corker, Gration suggested that he is not a fan of the current sanctions regime, saying, “At some point, we have to unwind some of these sanctions,” because he feels they are hurting development in the South. But it is also telling that when Feingold asked for practical examples of how Khartoum has acted in good faith, Gration did not offer any specific examples other than some vague language on the humanitarian situation.

Technorati Tags: Darfur and Southern Sudan Punishment