OurPledge

How much time for planning?

It’s been one month since Hillary Clinton told the Senate:

“We have spoken about other options, no-fly zones, other sanctions and sanctuaries, looking to deploy the UNAMID force to try to protect the refugees but also to repel the militias…there is a lot under consideration.”

We understand that policy planning is a living, ongoing process. But in light of the urgent need to respond to GENOCIDE, one month is a good deal of time for crafting sensible and actionable foreign policy.

We are anxisiouly waiting for a comprehensive Sudan policy from the Obama administration. Khartoum hasn’t stopped bombing Darfuri civilians. Arguably the only thing that will make it stop is if it starts to recognize and absorb serious consequences for its continued violence. This includes (but isn’t limited to) the imposition of targeted multilateral sanctions against Khartoum’s top leaders.

[End of Post]

More on the arrest warrant

Many of you have emailed us to ask about this big news from the ICC, mainly because the ICC put out a press release today indicating that no arrest warrant has been formally issued for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.

Simply, though, it looks like The New York Times and other major news sources have filed their articles based on solid knowledge. Here’s the key explanation from John Norris, Executive Director of the Enough Project:

“In a statement, the ICC insisted that they have yet to issue a warrant for Bashir, which may be true in the narrow sense, but with the multitude of leaks coming out of U.N. headquarters saying that such a decision has been reached and will appear soon, it is difficult not to conclude that a warrant is indeed a done deal.”

Stay tuned.

[End of Post]

BREAKING: Court Approves Warrant for Sudan’s President Bashir

We’ll have more on this later. For now, please take a minute and sign this new petition on the Save Darfur Coalition’s website. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice must do all they can to protect innocent civilians in Darfur in the wake of Bashir’s arrest warrant.

Court Approves Warrant for Sudan’s President Bashir
By Marlise Simons and Neil MacFarquhar
February 12, 2009

THE HAGUE — Judges at the International Criminal Court have decided to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, brushing aside diplomatic requests to allow more time for peace negotiations in the conflict-riddled Darfur region of his country, according to court lawyers and diplomats.

It is the first time the court has sought the detention of a sitting head of state, and it could further complicate the tense, international debate over how to solve the crisis in Darfur.

Ever since international prosecutors began seeking an arrest warrant last year, opponents have pressed the United Nations Security Council to use its power to suspend the proceedings. But a majority of Council members have argued that the case should go forward, saying Mr. Bashir has not done enough to stop the bloodshed to deserve a reprieve.

Many African and Arab nations counter that issuing a warrant for Mr. Bashir’s arrest could backfire, diminishing Sudan’s willingness to compromise for the sake of peace. Others, including some United Nations officials, worry that a warrant could inspire reprisal attacks against civilians, aid groups or the thousands of international peacekeepers deployed there.

The precise charges cited by the judges against Mr. Bashir have not been disclosed. But when the court’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, first requested an arrest warrant in July, he said he had evidence to support charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide related to a military campaign that “purposefully targeted civilians” and had been “masterminded” by Mr. Bashir.

Lawyers familiar with the case said the court had already sought to freeze the president’s assets but had found his possessions to be hidden behind other names.

The decision to issue a warrant against him, reached by a panel of judges in The Hague, has been conveyed to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and is expected to be formally announced at the court, officials at the United Nations said.

The prosecutor became involved in the case after the Security Council asked him to investigate the conflict in Darfur, where massacres, disease and starvation have led to the deaths of up to 300,000 people and driven millions from their homes.

Although there has been sporadic fighting in Darfur for decades, the conflict significantly intensified in 2003, when rebel groups demanding greater autonomy for the region attacked Sudanese forces. The Arab-led government responded with a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign, which the court’s prosecutor called a genocidal strategy against Darfur’s black African ethnic groups.

Relations between Mr. Ban and Mr. Bashir continue to be strained by Sudanese government actions in Darfur and by Mr. Ban’s refusal to deal with Mr. Bashir directly.

But on Sunday the two men had an unscheduled encounter at a summit meeting in Ethiopia. Diplomats described it as “a stormy meeting” and “a shouting match” in which Mr. Bashir vented his anger at the court, though it is independent of the United Nations. Mr. Ban, in turn, insisted on the safety of United Nations staff members and peacekeepers, and demanded that Mr. Bashir stop the attacks on civilians.

The prospect of an arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir has already caused a diplomatic rift, with the African Union and members of the Arab League asking the Security Council to exercise its right to postpone any moves against the president for a year, arguing that he might still help bring a settlement in Darfur. Once an arrest warrant is issued, the Council can request that it be postponed.

There is broad concern that removing Mr. Bashir from power could threaten a landmark peace treaty between the Sudanese government and rebels in the southern part of the country. The treaty was signed in 2005 to end a civil war in which 2.2 million people died, far more than in Darfur.

Mr. Bashir fought members of his own party to approve that peace deal, and it is widely seen as critical to holding the country together.

On Wednesday, the Sudanese ambassador to the United Nations, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem, dismissed the court’s decision as “not deserving the ink used to print it.” The ambassador accused the court of being a political tool of mostly Western powers that want to fragment Sudan.

Mr. Abdalhaleem contended that in separate talks at the United Nations last fall with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and top European officials, Sudan was promised that Western powers would support a suspension of the prosecution if the country cooperated with United Nations peacekeeping efforts, pursued peace talks and more aggressively pursued war criminals.

“We are moving on all those tracks,” he said, though human rights groups and diplomats disagree.

A top United Nations official said Mr. Ban’s advisers were now struggling to forge a policy that supports the court’s pursuit of justice but avoids wrecking Sudanese cooperation with the complex missions there.

The court has issued two other arrest warrants in connection with the Darfur conflict, one for a former government minister, Ahmad Harun, and another for Ali Kushayb, a leader of a government-backed militia. Neither has been arrested.

The prosecutor has also accused three rebel leaders of the killing of 12 African Union peacekeepers. They have said publicly that they will surrender to the court.

Marlise Simons reported from The Hague, and Neil MacFarquhar from the United Nations.

[End of Post]

In her own words, pt. 2

Key excerpts from UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s public statements on the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Hat tip to Save Darfur for compiling this record.

ON THE NEED TO ACT

“The Bush administration has remonstrated for five years about the genocide in Darfur. Yet we have imposed only the mildest of sanctions, and we have given only lip service to standing up a [joint] African Union-United Nations force. The imperative has to be to pressure the regime to stop the killing, and to allow the A.U.-U.N. force to deploy effectively.” [National Journal, July 12, 2008]

“If any progress at all has been made on the subject of Darfur, it is that we in the United States have gotten past the debate about whether this is, or is not, a genocide. To regress, to re-open this issue, is to further slow-roll any action, to reduce any sense of urgency, and to allow more and more people to continue dying. Make no mistake: Darfur has been a genocide. It continues to be a genocide. And unless the United States leads the world in halting the killing, it will remain a genocide.” [Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 11, 2007]

Light at the end of the tunnel

No doubt, the International Criminal Court’s open case against Omar al-Bashir is a pivotal test for a new, fledgling system of international justice.

The likely issuance of an ICC arrest warrant against Bashir will challenge the deliberative conscience and the protective reflexes of the UN Security Council and individual countries. If Khartoum attempts to shutter humanitarian operations throughout Darfur in response to the warrant, then the international community must answer strength with strength. In the face of genocide, it must use all diplomatic and military means necessary to stop the slaughter in Western Sudan.

With so much at stake in the short term, it’s also important to remember the big picture. Fighting for justice in Sudan also means fighting for a better system of international justice — a system that’s simultaneously battle-ready and committed to some hard principles. MacArthur Foundation President Jonathan Fanton describes the desired endpoint as a “…a new era, one in which the discourse of human rights has become naturalized into political debate, accountability for war crimes and genocide threatens repressive regimes everywhere, and the international community has accepted its responsibility to defend civilians against atrocities allowed, or perpetrated, by their governments.”

Our fight is for a system that can end genocide once and for all.

[End of Post]

In her own words

Susan Rice, testifying in front of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in 2007:

“”Unless the United States leads the world in halting the killing, it will remain a genocide,” she said. “America’s principal priority in Darfur must be to stop the suffering and the killing, and to do so quickly.”

(The quote is from this San Francisco Chronicle article.)

[End of Post]

VIDEO: “The bombardment continues…”

UN Ambassador Susan Rice discusses the Sudanese government’s latest bombing campaign in Darfur:

(From a Feb. 3, 2009 press availability:)

[End of Post]

In case you missed it: Enough and Save Darfur’s Second Letter to President Obama

Late last month the Enough Project and the Save Darfur Coalition published the second in a series of letters to President Obama “spelling out a practical roadmap to end the crisis in Sudan.”

It’s a must-read for those who want to know how the U.S. and other countries can help the people of Sudan right now. And for individual advocates, Enough and Save Darfur have also put out this concomitant activist brief.

Lives at stake right now

Definitely today’s lead story out of Sudan.

Omar al-Bashir and his Khartoum gang are trying to kick UN peacekeepers out of Muhajiriya, a town of 30,000 in South Darfur. Their intent is brutally clear. Please read the Enough Project’s statement below for more info, and click here to find out what you can do to help stop Khartoum.

–
Muhajiriya: The Moment of Truth for UNAMID, the Obama Administration, and the United Nations

One hundred and ninety six peacekeepers from UNAMID, the joint AU/UN peacekeeping force for Darfur, are stationed in Muhajiriya, a rebel-held town of 30,000 in South Darfur. The government of Sudan has requested that UNAMID withdraw these troops, as it masses its military forces outside the town and uses airpower to bombard nearby camps for displaced persons. Thousands of civilians have gathered outside the UNAMID base in Muhajiriya, just as thousands gathered around similar bases in Rwanda and Bosnia. Khartoum’s intention is clear: a full-scale assault on Muhajiriya regardless of the cost to civilians. Given UNAMID’s mandate to protect civilians, it would be nothing short of a shameful capitulation for the UN to abandon its post or to allow the Sudanese government to militarily extort the suspension of the International Criminal Court case against President Bashir through these actions.

The international community, and the Obama administration, now faces a crucial moment. It can abandon 30,000 civilians to state-sponsored violence, or it can embrace its responsibility to protect and make sure that Muhajiriya does not become the next Srebrenica. Rather than withdrawing, UNAMID must immediately reinforce its presence in Muhajiriya, and the United States must spell out specific consequences for the Sudan if it does not immediately cease aerial bombings and abandon its plans for this offensive. This is a clear attempt by Khartoum to test the resolve of the Obama Administration in its early days, and the response of President Obama and the UN will determine the fate of thousands of Darfuris.

This is a moment of real danger, but also a real opportunity for the new administration and its partners on the Security Council to take a new and more strategic approach to the situation in Sudan.

[End of Post]

Darfur: “An Ongoing Genocide”

Writing in The Huffington Post last week, Mark Leon Goldberg, a senior correspondent at The American Prospect, stressed the importance of UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s very recent characterization of Darfur as “an ongoing genocide” [my emphasis]. Of course, these are just words — this is just a phrase uttered at a press availability — on the part of Rice. But this is definitely a good start: it’s important that Obama’s team take every opportunity to frame the genocide in Sudan accurately and with great urgency.

[End of Post]