Enough Said

Printer-friendly version
Blog

Loading...

CNN Spotlights Ashley Judd in Congo

Enough recently had the opportunity to travel with actress and activist Ashley Judd on her second trip to eastern Congo. John Prendergast accompanied Ms. Judd to the region, where they worked closely with Enough’s field researchers to visit camps for Congo’s displaced people, mines, local civil society organizations, and hospitals treating survivors of sexual violence.

“We really drilled down into the causes and solutions,” reports Prendergast. “Ashley mixed real compassion for survivors of sexual violence with probing analysis of the issues that drive the violence."

CNN.com published the first report about the trip this morning. Here’s a portion of the piece, which captures Ms. Judd’s thoughts on the trip in her own words:

CNN: In general, how should travelers planning humanitarian missions prepare emotionally, mentally and practically for journeys to remote and possibly dangerous places?

JUDD: Number one: Check your motives. That's the most important thing.

Number two: Understand the local context. Educate yourself. Reach out to experts, both at the policy level as well as the grass-roots level. Read books about the history of the place. And also be savvy about the particular historical perspective that the author may have.

Watch documentaries. I watched "Born into Brothels" before I started spending time in brothels in Mumbai, India, and it was very helpful for me to kind of spiritually fortify myself because I had the visual.

I knew what they looked like, what they sounded like, before I went, and so that helped me skip over the visceral shock of walking into these phenomenally crowded, fetid brothels.

I had a spiritual director in my life and a spiritual community with whom I stay very current -- and that's enormously important to me.

Because eastern Congo is what it is, it's such a severe place and the problems are so huge, I had my crisis of faith and my breakdown within 72 hours of getting here. Normally, it happens like three weeks into a trip, but this place just cut me off at the knees immediately, and I had to reach out to people with whom I'm walking this walk -- both through e-mail and through telephone -- and that sort of helped me have that breakthrough and tap back into my resilience.

Click here to read the full piece and check out more photos by Jeff Trussell of Ashley Judd in Congo.

Sudanese Diaspora Protest Kenya’s Welcome of Bashir

Disappointment hung in the air yesterday outside the Kenyan embassy in Washington D.C., where members of the Sudanese diaspora and human rights activists gathered to protest the Kenyan government’s recent reception of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. “We’re here to protest the Kenyan government allowing the dictator Bashir to go safely into Kenya and return back home,” said Khalid Gerais, a member of the Nubia Project. “We are here with our friends, the Americans, to protest this action for all Sudan, from north to south, east to west, for the whole country.”

Despite being a signatory to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, Kenyan officials did not arrest Bashir when he arrived on Friday to participate in a ceremony for Kenya’s new constitution. In response, Darfur activists arranged protests, in both Los Angeles and Washington D.C., to convey their disbelief.

In Washington, Jimmy Mulla, from Voices of Sudan, presented a letter on behalf of the Sudanese diaspora to a Kenyan embassy official. “We are here to express our outrage that Bashir an indicted war criminal be allowed in Kenya—a country that has signed on to the ICC statute,” Mulla said in an email. Mulla believes that peace and security in the region will ultimately benefit Kenya—which borders South Sudan—economically. “If we have peace in all of Sudan, it is good for Kenya as well,” he said.

Melissa Delbon contributed to this post.

President Obama's Sudan Policy

There are 132 days left until two decisive votes take place in Sudan. That deadline, and the increasing unlikelihood that it will be met, prompted the Obama administration to send an expanded negotiating team under the leadership of former ambassador Princeton Lyman to Sudan last week. These extra “diplomatic boots on the ground,” as the State Department called them, and the display of high-level engagement that they represented, are a necessary and welcome step. But, without a clearly spelled-out Sudan policy from the top, one that defines which incentives and pressures the administration is willing to deal out and what actions or inactions will trigger those responses, the expanded U.S. ground presence will not have the necessary direction to do its job effectively.

In the eleven months since the unveiling of its Sudan policy last October, the Obama administration has appeared more consumed by infighting than the implementation of its approach. Over the weekend, New York Times columnist Nick Kristof outlined the failings of President Obama’s approach to Sudan thus far and, more importantly, the potential human cost of continuing to fail. He wrote:

“(…) Mr. Obama is presiding over an incoherent, contradictory and apparently failing Sudan policy. There is a growing risk that Sudan will be the site of the world’s bloodiest war in 2011, and perhaps a new round of genocide as well. This isn’t America’s fault, but neither are we using all of our leverage to avert it. (…) [T]he problem isn’t that the administration is too busy to devise a policy toward Sudan but that it has a half-dozen policies, mostly at cross-purposes.”

According to sources, including the Washington Post’s article on the administration’s intensified efforts in Sudan, the president and his advisers are currently reviewing U.S. policy toward the country, and are notably “mulling over incentives” to secure the Sudanese government’s cooperation. Incentives are of course necessary, but so are pressures, not in the least because there should be some consequences for the role that the government has played in the recent deterioration of the situation in Darfur. As Kristof points out, Khartoum “sees that it pays no price for misbehavior,” and this only encourages it to continue on a path that makes peace more elusive.

In recent weeks, the Sudanese government has stepped up restrictions on humanitarian aid organizations, quietly expelling a handful of workers in the last month and blocking humanitarian access to a camp for displaced Darfuris in the south. The government has also proposed “domesticating” the Darfur issue, a strategy that may sound good in theory, but that many believe is an attempt to extricate the international community from the peace process altogether, and may ultimately solve the Darfur “problem” through massive violations of the rights of the displaced. Alarmingly, reports indicate that the U.S. has signed off on the dubious plan. Preparations for the two referenda are not going well either; the Abyei vote seems indefinitely stalled as tensions on the ground mount, while substantive preparations for the southern referendum only recently started. Yet while the administration has intensified its efforts on the referendum, it has stayed largely silent on Darfur.

In the little time left until the two referenda, it seems that the administration has decided to prioritize a smooth southern referendum over other issues and principles, including some of those outlined in its original policy. In doing so, the administration has opened itself up to manipulation by Khartoum and a government that can dangle the prospect of a failed or insecure referendum before U.S. diplomats, while stalling or fueling other issues however it sees fit. Bashir’s brazen visit to Kenya last week, which solicited only ‘disappointment’ from President Obama, shows just how far he can push the envelope. The right decision for the president to make at this juncture is to return to the administration’s October policy, one composed of both incentives and pressures and one that looks at the conflicts in Sudan comprehensively.

Photo: President Barack Obama and U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Major General Scott Gration (AP)

American Consumers Can Help End Congo's Circle of Violence

This article originally appeared in Global Post.

WASHINGTON — In central Africa there is a proverb: The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

Recently, the U.S. Congress, with the support of advocacy groups, faith-based organizations and concerned citizens nationwide have shown that they understand our national connection to the horrific conflict in eastern Congo and have taken their first bite of elephant.

The conflict in the Congo is one of the most complex the world has ever seen. As American citizens we should realize we can only do so much, but more importantly we should realize that we can do something.

Like it or not, the most effective way to create political will in the United States is by amplifying people’s voices through their dollars and consumption habits. The recent passage of a conflict minerals provision embedded within the Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform Bill is a testament to a group of American citizens and policymakers understanding the ways we can make a difference, and understanding that small steps and persistence will ultimately yield success.

The new bill requires U.S. companies that use tin, tantalum and tungsten — the three T’s — as well as gold, to annually disclose their methods of determining whether their materials originated from the Congo or not and in turn, whether through acquiring those minerals they have directly or indirectly funded armed militants.
Like any legislative reform, the provision has its critics. Some complain that this method of resolving the issue of conflict minerals is over-simplistic, and that the new law will require burdensome reporting requirements, lead to de facto boycotts on mining in the region and create job losses causing increased instability.

The truth of the matter, however, is that inaction on this issue is unacceptable and — for companies that source minerals from eastern Congo and hope to continue to move along the path of the status quo — tantamount to complicity.

The trade in minerals comprised of the 3T’s as well as gold is a primary driver of the conflict in Congo, which has claimed more than 5 million lives, displaced millions more and is directly responsible for a reported 1,100 rapes per month.

These minerals are primary components of the vast array of gadgetry we now consider essential in our everyday lives — mobile phones, laptops, mp3 music players and jewelry to name a few. There is no escaping the connectivity. The new bill is intended to combine U.S. government, private sector and consumer pressure to bolster the government and civil society of the Congo and to reduce the presence of armed groups in the region known to have committed some of the worst human rights atrocities in history.

Both the bill and the Enough Project are working to create legitimate, legal and peaceful mineral trade programs in Congo that would benefit both private sector development and war-weary communities that have absorbed so much destruction.

The Enough Project is categorically opposed to any form of boycott and we are urging our supporters to pressure companies who use these minerals to commit to producing conflict-free products. With the passage of this recent legislation, companies can now make a positive impact in the Congo.

However this is just the tip of a much larger spear. Governments, companies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) need to go further by implementing three critical steps to creating a legitimate mineral trade in eastern Congo. We propose starting with a framework to trace, audit and certify.

To continue reading, click here.

Photo: Tin ore (Sasha Lezhnev/ Grassroots Reconciliation Group.)

Bashir Visit to Kenya Undermines U.S. Policy

Kenyan officials today welcomed Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to a signing ceremony for Kenya’s new constitution, in direct contravention of the state’s legal obligations as an International Criminal Court signatory, to arrest the indicted sitting head of state. Bashir is wanted by the ICC for multiple counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Kenya’s public repudiation of international law demonstrates an alarming lack of commitment to accountability for war crimes. It also raises numerous questions about the government’s support for the ICC’s ongoing investigations into post-election violence in Kenya, as well as the motivations behind this gesture of friendship to Bashir, so close to the potential split-up of Sudan.

Kenyan Foreign Affairs Minister Moses Wetangula was unapologetic about his government’s decision: "There are no apologies to make about anybody we invited to this function because I am sure we are enhancing peace and security and stability of this region more than anything else.”

While the first ICC arrest warrant initially resulted in international isolation for Bashir—last November, his attendance at an Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting in Turkey was canceled in response to international pressures, as was a trip to an African Union summit in Nigeria last October—more recently this trend has reversed. This year, visits to Egypt and Libya have escalated to travel in ICC signatory states, including Chad, and now Kenya. Bashir’s visit to Kenya is a continuation of this growing willingness to flout international law, and an alarming statement of the line the Obama administration is willing to toe with regard to Khartoum.

As David Bosco says on Foreign Policy, there is little doubt that the U.S. knew about the trip in advance. Special Envoy Scott Gration is currently in Sudan, engaged in talks. Yet it appears that no pressures were brought to bear—on a Kenyan government that has strong relations with the U.S.—to prevent the vist from taking place. The lack of U.S. commitment to accountability that took place today sends a clear signal to the Sudanese government that the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice some of its own core policy objectives, mostly notably justice for the people of Sudan, in order to achieve others, namely the upcoming South Sudan referendum. In so doing, the administration sends the go-ahead for future acts of intransigence—for non-implementation of the CPA and an indefinite hold on the Darfur peace process—ultimately weakening the administration’s position vis-à-vis Khartoum and undermining any U.S. strategies going forward.

Enough’s official statement can be found here.

Photo: Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Al-Shabaab Offensive Wreaks Havoc in Mogadishu

Over 80 people have been killed this week by fighting between militant group al-Shabaab and Somali government troops backed by African Union forces in the capital of Mogadishu. Al-Shabaab, which has links to al-Qaeda in east Africa, announced on Monday that it would escalate its war against the fragile Somali government, and followed up with four straight days of fighting thus far.

The violence peaked on Tuesday, when over 30 people, including members of the Somali parliament, were killed in an attack on a hotel in a neighborhood of Mogadishu that is nominally under the control of government forces. Tuesday night, members of al-Shabaab made a push toward the presidential palace, but were repelled by African Union peacekeepers.

President Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security advisor John Brennan said on Tuesday that al-Shabaab’s agenda is “something that we are very concerned about,” and called the hotel attack “a particularly outrageous act during the Islamic month of Ramadan.”

In mid-July, al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for two bombings in Uganda that left more than 70 people dead—demonstrating in its first international attack a reach and capability further than most expected. In response, the African Union pledged an additional 4,000 troops to its peacekeeping mission; hundreds of peacekeepers from Uganda arrived on Monday.

Domestic and international pressure is mounting for the Obama administration to prevent Somalia from becoming the next AfPak. According to AP, thirteen House Democrats called for increased U.S. support and action on Somalia in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in July:

Al-Shabab-controlled territory in Somalia is becoming a safe haven for terrorists from around the world. The United States must not sit back. ... Extremists in Somalia have already made clear their intentions to harm us, and if they have not done so already, they will soon seek capabilities to carry out attacks in the United States.

Foreign Policy’s Elizabeth Dickinson blogged about similar warnings coming from Kenya’s new U.S. ambassador Elkhanah Odembo, quoting the ambassador as saying, “You can’t make this investment in Afghanistan and Pakistan and not worry about where the terrorists are going to. And the one place that we know for certain they are going to is Somalia.”

Fears of a new terrorist haven are not the only reason why the Obama administration should be seized with Somalia, a country that had 1.5 million people displaced at the end of last year and is deemed a “humanitarian crisis” by  the U.N. In a recent report  the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center described the situation on the ground in stark terms:

The civilian population continues to face threats to their life and human dignity, and IDPs have continued to face threats, intimidation, looting, assault, and sexual and gender-based violence. The violence and conflict have stretched peoples’ coping strategies as livelihood opportunities and access to food is further limited.

As Enough has previously argued, past U.S. counterterrorism efforts in Somalia have had a tendency to worsen the situation for both Somalis and the United States. Let's hope that current efforts learn from those lessons and recognize that improving the day-to-day lives of Somalis must be an essential part of preventing Somalia from becoming a haven for international terrorism.

Photo: Militant fighter in Somalia. (AP)

President Obama, Make the Right Decision on Sudan

You know what the Obamas are reading (Jonathan Franzen and John Steinbeck) and playing (Scrabble and Taboo) on their 10-day vacation at Martha’s Vineyard, but what about the ads the president will see when he opens the paper each morning?

Sudan Now, a campaign led by a group of anti-genocide and human rights advocacy organizations including Enough, is running ads in both The New York Times—out today—and the Vineyard Gazette (Friday) as part of a new campaign that aims to influence President Obama’s upcoming decision on the future direction of U.S. policy in Sudan.

President Obama’s decision comes at a critical moment. The Darfur peace process has fallen apart as the security situation deteriorates, and four short months remain before a referendum that could split Sudan into two takes place. The ads, as well as a letter signed by 68 organizations, asks the president to choose a strategy that employs a balance of both incentives and pressures to urge Sudanese actors toward full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and a sustainable peace agreement in Darfur. Twenty-one years of history with the Sudanese regime demonstrates that U.S.-led multilateral leverage and support to coordinated international negotiations can achieve meaningful results.

You can help spread the message too, through any one of these actions:

  • Email or tweet President Obama, asking him to choose the proven and effective policy for Sudan.
  • Facebook the White House page and post: "Mr. President, please make the right decision on Sudan. Act on Sudan Now. www.SudanActionNow.com" or a message of your own.
  • Watch this new video from Stop Genocide Now and share it with your friends on Facebook and Twitter.

When Will Enough Be Enough?

Recently released accounts that the FDLR gang-raped roughly 200 women—and four baby boys—during the course of a four-day raid on a group of villages near Walikale in the North Kivu province of eastern Congo is a stark reminder of why increased pressure to disarm rebel groups and choke off the economic drivers of conflict in the area is so critical.  Reports allege that during the attack, which took place only 20 km from a U.N. peacekeeping base, most of the women were raped simultaneously and by more than one attacker.  One official from the NGO International Medical Corps, which has been documenting rape cases in the region, claimed that the rebels in this case were “systematically” raping the population and “most women were raped by two to six men at a time,” in several instances “in front of their children and their families.”

Although the conflict in eastern Congo remains one of the world’s most complex, one thing is for certain: widespread sexual violence and atrocities committed against civilians are not abating, and in many regions they continue to increase. A year ago Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the use of rape as a weapon in the region, calling it “evil in its basest form.” Secretary Clinton pledged $28 million to fight sexual violence in the Congo and support victims of rape.  This support can’t come fast enough—but it will also not be enough.  Concerned citizens worldwide must continue to raise their collective voices to pressure U.S. leaders, their national representatives, and other western governments to not only take stock of the horrific human rights abuses occurring in the region, but to take action as well. There is a moral imperative at play for those of us who value women and children in our society, who believe in the strength of community, and who feel that no human should have to endure a daily existence of fear for rape, amputation, or forced cannibalism.

The road to peace in eastern Congo is long and cobbled with significant obstacles. Complex issues remain, including the predatory behavior of the Congolese army, grievances around land rights and citizenship, and the utter lack of accountability for human rights violators. There is no silver bullet that will stop horrifying incidents like this.  However, the impetus to act against the use of rape as a weapon of mass destruction goes beyond the usual geopolitical and economic considerations of foreign policy.  There is a human need for action against such atrocities. Those responsible for ordering and committing these abuses must be held accountable, and communities who have endured such trauma must be given support to heal. Thus far our leaders have yet to show they are interested in moving beyond empty rhetoric and throwing money at problems. We must continue to raise our voices for the citizens of Congo and to pressure our leaders to take action to stop those groups responsible for these unconscionable acts.

Photo: Three Congolese women (Enough)

Reports: Sudan Gov't Plans To Relocate Darfur IDP Camp

Both the Sudan Tribune and Inner City News reported Sunday that the state of South Darfur plans to relocate the residents of Kalma camp to two new camps in the area of Beliel, southeast of the state capital Nyala. There are reportedly over 50,000 internally displaced people, or IDPs, living in the camp which has seen increased violence in recent weeks, mostly tied to the involvement of local IDPs in the Doha peace process. According to local officials, the new camps will each accommodate between 25 and 30 thousand people and will be equipped with all the basic services.

While at first glance this plan seems to be a rather innocuous development, it once again points to a larger trend about which people on the ground (including aid staff and locals alike) appear concerned. As I wrote in another blog post last week, now that the international community has its attention focused on the North-South negotiations, the Government of Sudan seems determined to solve the Darfur “problem” on its own terms. While the specific details differ depending on the source, most everyone agrees that the government’s solution will undoubtedly include camp closures and some degree of forced movement that is tied to the forfeiture of land rights (about which the displaced will likely be unaware). Reports that Kalma camp may be closed should therefore serve as a red flag to the distracted international community.

When Inner City Press requested more information on the planned relocation, an OCHA spokesman replied:

“[The] Humanitarian Team (UN and NGOs) in South Darfur will meet to discuss issue of proposed new site, as there are various implications. The U.N. cannot support any movement of IDPs that is not voluntary or otherwise appropriate. Until such a time as a suitable location and facilities are established, and decision reached on movements in full consultation with IDP community of the camp, IDPs in Kalma camp should continue to have access to humanitarian assistance as required.”

This is all fine and good but it does lead one to wonder: if the government decides to move forward with the forced relocation of camp residents, or of anyone else for that matter, what exactly does the U.N. plan to do to stop it? I know from firsthand experience that the U.N. faces incredible constraints in Darfur, including an inability to do honest reporting for fear of being expelled. While this fear is understandable, it also means that U.N. actors on the ground are (ironically) the least likely to prevent a forced relocation, should the government choose to orchestrate a full-scale campaign. So where does that leave the displaced people of Darfur? The international community should give that some thought before settling on its priorities for the pre-referendum period.

Photo: Child under tree at Kalma camp in Darfur (Doug Mercado)

REFUGEE CAMPus At Queens College

Two years ago, the STAND chapter at Queens College in New York consisted of three friends sitting around a table, talking about Darfur and wondering how in Lemkin's name to get people on our campus involved. When we came up with the idea for REFUGEE CAMPus a few months later, our chapter took off.  What had been three became closer to thirty, and what had been tiny became a food pantry for our local community, a fund for conflict-affected Congolese students to go to school, a much higher quality and breadth of issues addressed, and a sustainable, empowered community of activists at one of the most diverse schools anywhere.

So what is this event that created so much change? REFUGEE CAMPus was conceived as a 5-day, 4-night camp out on our campus quad, complete with educational events and interfaith jamming sessions, to raise consciousness and action about the conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This year, between August 30 and September 3, STAND at Queens College is proudly hosting its second REFUGEE CAMPus. This time, we have the students and the resources to cover a much broader range of refugee situations, from Sudan and Congo, to Palestinian and environmental refugees, even LGBTQ youth who are homeless because of who they are in New York City.

We are not just talking about these issues, however, we are also giving students and community members tangible actions to take. We are engaging in a video campaign to put a spotlight on Sudan, urging the U.S. to take strong diplomatic action immediately, we are brainstorming ways to help make our laptops, cell phones, and cameras conflict-free, we are fostering Peaceful dialogue on our campus about tough issues like Israel-Palestine, we are distributing information about how students can make their everyday lives more environmentally-friendly, and more. In short, we are empowering everyone to take action for their favorite cause in a wide variety of ways.

Therefore, our educational events, Peace Jam, open-mics, and small-group dialogues are about far more than raising awareness. REFUGEE CAMPus is about empowerment. REFUGEE CAMPus will this year be packed with trainings and workshops to help students—both college and high schoolers—to underSTAND that every individual, no matter whom, or how old, or where, is truly empowered to create positive, tangible changes in our World.

Jenn Polish is a student at Queens College and an active member of the QC STAND chapter.