Over the past few weeks, much discourse (both public and private) has taken place within the Jewish community (among many other communities, I am sure) on the subject of Darfur. Much of what has been said and written has been quite eloquent concerning the unspeakable horrors facing the victims there, and many have exhorted the members of our community to participate in an April 30 rally in Washington, to urge prompt action upon the Bush Administration. To my great surprise, and, I am sorry to say, embarrassment, I have heard words from people to the effect of: “what do I care about these people?” or “they’re mostly Muslim and hate Jews…why should we help them?”

In the world in which I grew up (and, I daresay, this applies to many, if not all of us), it was a virtual article of faith to say that: “while the Jews burned, the world kept silent.” I, like most of my peers, accepted that statement as (you should excuse the expression) Gospel. In my opinion, if we do not stand up for Darfur, we lose the right to continue complaining about world apathy, past and present, for Jewish woes. In short, we forfeit the moral ‘high ground’ and, I believe, no longer can lecture an uncaring world.

This is such a basic article of the Jewish creed, that I am astonished that it needs to be pointed out by anyone, least of all, an am ha’aretz like myself. One of the three principles enunciated and ALWAYS quoted and attributed to Hillel is: “If I am only for myself, what am I?”

Now I know that it is only natural that people worry first about their family, next about their friends and community and only afterward about strangers and the world at large. But somewhere in the mix, we need to consider not only WHO the victims are, but the severity and scale of the suffering. And while I would certainly be the last person to suggest that helping finance a yeshiva is unimportant (I beg that you not interpret my words to, G-d forbid, say such a thing), the people of Darfur are, in my opinion, the victims of a holocaust.

Yes, I know it makes Jews very angry to see that loaded term used in ANY context other than THE HOLOCAUST—hence, I use a lower-case ‘h’. But in reality, we might ask ourselves, “Why is this NOT a holocaust?” It is, after all, precipitated by nothing other than racial/ethnic hatred, involves the wholesale murder of, potentially, millions of people, and in a brutal, gruesome manner that would do the Nazis proud.

Thus, I am hard-pressed to understand why people who are always responsive to charitable requests, and who usually, if not always, turn out for Jewish or Israeli causes, find Darfur unworthy of their efforts. I don’t know a single one of the victims or potential victims of these atrocities. I probably never will. I don’t have any personal emotional investment in their well-being, or even that of their innocent children. But I know, as surely as one can know anything, that our standing up for them is a kiddush hashem, and an obligation that we all share.

Those who do not think this horror deserving of their attention must, I think, consider carefully any future complaints against a world indifferent to Jewish suffering. And if our community, which (rightly) supports Jewish soup kitchens, UJA, Israel Bonds, and literally dozens of other wonderful and important causes and acts of chesed, does not turn out in DROVES for this event on April 30, then SHAME ON US!

Once again, please accept these words as an expression of strong personal feeling and not of criticism of anybody or of our community. The skilled and articulate leaders in our midst who are advocating participation in this event hardly need my help in promoting it. In reality, in any event, the justice of the cause should speak for itself. Please consider the foregoing in that light.

The human race is known for being outlandishly cruel and cowardly in handling of different ethnic groups. Genocide, as it is called, is a massive “cleansing” of a race, ethnic group, or even anyone with a slight difference from another group. Genocide can be carried out by a government, a rebel group, or by average Joes. In most cases, a controlling political group of the area is responsible.  These groups seek to rid themselves of a group of people they see as a threat or nuisance. They blame them for economic troubles, much like Hitler did with Jewish people in Germany. They use a poor, in almost all cases, ethnic group as scapegoats. They torture and kill hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of innocent people.

For genocide to be accurately categorized and compared in this essay, three main criteria need to be present in each specific case. The first of these criteria is for the acting group to view the genocide as a righteous act. They must fund the genocide in monetary terms and in an army goods and soldiers. In some cases, like in Germany, they will seek public approval and “campaign” for the vicious slayings. The victimized group must be viewed by the acting as a reason for their troubles and the ousting of the ethnic group will be the solution.

The second criteria are for large numbers of the ethnic group to be displaced, tortured and killed. In the end, this group must face the possibility of extinction and the genocide to have negative ramifications for an extended period of time after the genocide has ended. This could be extreme poverty, loss of social standing, and/or discrimination and segregation for decades.  The group must be physically forced out of their rightful land and to refugee camps.  Also, after the genocide is over, the oppressed group is seen as outcasts and usually receives no compensation or aid to help them regain their foothold in the world. 

Lastly, a third party, usually of other nations or groups, views these as atrocities. The third party must take a stance against the genocide or give aid to these people. This aid could be in the form of care packages, monetary support for a defense of some sort of military aid to fight against the oppressors.  However, not in all cases, will this criteria be meet and therefore, will not be considered genocide. This criterion is of the most importance and is needed for genocide to have taken place. If no one takes a stand against the group or views it as immoral, then the genocide can be said to be given backing and approval making it a plausible action. 

In other cases not included in this, one of three to be present or two of the three. However, for the accurate classification of genocide all three must be present. For instance, in some cases, a third party might not object to the crimes. This tends to be the situation for most other cases viewed to be genocide. For instance, Vietnam may be seen as genocide. Although according to these criteria it is not. America did not come into Vietnam for the reason of seeking a solution to a problem by killing an ethnic group. Their motives were to end a form of oppressive government. The two other criteria match in Vietnam. Thousands of people were displaced and brutally killed, and in America anti-war groups protested the war as immoral.

Part 2

The first example of genocide to be evaluated is the recent genocide of the people in Darfur. The government, in this case, acts as the oppressors. In 2003, a rebel group carried out attacks on government centers. The reason for the attacks, the native Africans were being neglected to establish Arab people in the region. The government was neglecting the needs of the poor Africans to cater to the Arabs. The government then sent out “self- defense” militia to control the rebel groups. Since 2003, the Africans have been killed and driven out of their rightful land. Many children are left without food, clothes, shelter and more importantly family from these vicious “self-defense” militia that raid villages and rape and kill.  Darfur has all three criteria and is a present day example of genocide.

        The native Africans in Darfur have been oppressed by the government, matching up with the first criteria. Much like in the Battle of Culloden, the government acts to squash rebel threats. The government approval and poor “policing” of the militia groups led to out of control behavior. The militia and armies run free and impose their own will viciously raping and killing everyone in sight. This is due to the distance of the government in relation to the area of the genocide. In Culloden, the slaughtering took place in Scotland, far enough out of the eyes and ears of the Crown. In Darfur, the section of the natives are located is a poor area away from the central government. Due to the distance, the groups are not controlled and commit horrible crimes against the innocent people. However, the government does not take action when they get wind of the crimes. They, instead, turn away and allow the vicious crimes to continue. This only supports the classification of genocide.

Regarding criteria number two, the people are displaced from their homes and farms. In Darfur, those who are lucky to escape are left to wander the dessert and settle in refugee camps where food is scarce. This is much like in Armenia, when Armenians were marched to death camps from their homeland and were killed. Although the genocide continues, one can pretty much assume that when it is the Africans will be discriminated by the Arabs and government for decades later. The remaining supporters of the genocide will forbid the Africans from getting a job and an education. Much like in Culloden were the Highlanders were continually looked down upon by the Lowlanders and Brits. The displacement of the people is not just physical in these cases, but also social that leads to years of prejudice.

          Today, many charities are established to raise money for care packages to send to refugee camps. The Peace Corps send hundreds of people to the camps to educate and give them food and shelter. This third party action is the third criteria. The African Union has sent 7,000 troops to defend the people from the government deployed militia. [BBC News] The United Nations have also sought to help the Africans. They have called for peace deals and some progress has been made. All these third parties prove that the action taken by the government is brutal and immoral.

     Darfur is a great present-day example of genocide. All three criteria are met. The government approval, the displaced and murdered civilians and lastly, a stance taken against the oppressors and aid given to the oppressed. Although the genocide is not over, it still provides a good comparison to genocides of the past and for the future. Darfur is a tragic and grotesque example of the racial prejudices that are the root of genocide. 

Part 3

The last example of genocide is of the Native Americans. They were taken advantage of by the white Europeans and then kicked out from their prosperous land, west to less inhabitable. Eventually, when the United States was formed, the Native Americans lost almost all their lands and were forced to live on barren wastelands called Reservations. “The most massive act of genocide in the history of the world” is used by David E. Stannard in his book, American Holocaust, to describe the Native American treatments. The Europeans and later Americans culturally and physically killed the Native Americans. They were raped of their land and their culture. Today they are still facing extinction. They have lost a huge amount of their land and culture due to the insensitive and immoral actions of the oppressors.

When explorers came over to the New World, they were given grants by their government (usually King or Queen) giving them “rightful” ownership of the land. To the explorers this meant to use whatever means necessary to insure a safe haven for themselves. This usually meant kicking the Native Americans off their land, stealing their property and killing them if need be. Since the grant gave them approval by the government, criteria one is meet. The government, like in Culloden, sent over troops to a foreign land to crush any opposition to the government’s claims. Soldiers aboard the ships would use force to take away the Native Americans and make them slaves for labor. 

When United States of America was founded, the Louisiana Purchase allowed for further exploration of the west and led for many Native American’s land to be stolen by the Americans.

However, these people were not left out to dry. They were given wasteland reservations to live on. To get to these reservations they had to walk hundreds of miles to the designated areas, much like the Armenians. In these reservations, the Native Americans had little food and were constantly watched by white troops. Their freedom to follow the buffalo was restricted and due to this they had less food. Not only did this affect their food resources, this also took away their culture. For hundreds of years the Native Americans followed the buffalo as they roamed and relied heavily on them as a major food source.  Nowadays, the Native Americans are still looked down upon and have trouble being socially accepted. They are still discriminated and this qualifies them for the second criteria. One account has over 700 Sioux tribesmen dieing in self defense in one battle. The Sioux were resisting the movement of their tribe in the Dakotas to Oklahoma reservations. [Disrupting the Natives] 

Today there are many groups and organizations trying to preserve what is left of the Native American Culture, in forms of museums and libraries. Also, there are some groups that are seeking reparation for the descendants that still feel the repercussions of the genocide. These groups, taking a stand against the immoral actions of past governments, meet criteria three. “National Relief Charities (NRC) provides program services that benefit Native Americans throughout the United States. Our mission is ‘to help Native American people improve the quality of their lives by providing opportunities for them to bring about positive changes in their communities.’” [National Relief Charities] The mission of this charity, and charities like this one, try to bring a better future for Native Americans by continuing the culture of the past. 

The Native Americans have faced the longest racial genocide in history. Since the 15th century Europeans and later Americans have socially outcast them, stripped them of their traditions, culture and heritage, and killed thousands upon thousands of them. Unfortunately this genocide can not be swept under the rug, like many Americans try to do, and the outcomes still affect their and our society. The genocide was bloody, brutal and belittling to a people with a rich tradition and wealth of knowledge and art to share. 

                                              Works Cited

BBC News Website
   Q&A Sudan’s Darfur Conflict
HYPERLINK “http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

End of the Oregon Trail Center
Disrupting the Natives
 HYPERLINK “http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/road2oregon/sa19indians.html” http://www.endoftheoregontrail.org/road2oregon/sa19indians.html

National Relief Charities

Mission Statement                           

 HYPERLINK “http://www.nrcprograms.org/” http://www.nrcprograms.org/

In Darfur, My Camera Was Not Nearly Enough
Brian Steidle — Washington Post, Sunday, March 20, 2005; Page B02
 HYPERLINK “http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/steidle/?gclid=CN3gy8Dj2YgCFQtRGgodYRDpkg” http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/steidle/?gclid=CN3gy8Dj2YgCFQtRGgodYRDpkg

American Indian Holocaust
 HYPERLINK “http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/aiholocaust.html” http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/aiholocaust.html

American Holocaust
by: David E. Stannard
November, 1993

The Battle of Culloden Film

New Yorker Article 

DEAD RECKONING
The Armenian genocide and the politics of silence.
By ELIZABETH KOLBERT
Issue of 2006-11-06
Posted 2006-10-30

Hollywood action star of the party of the Oscars red carpet. George Clooney is busy, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe called to discuss the situation in Darfur.

“I met the president in the Oval Office for about 15 minutes, and then I met with Vice-president,” he said during a guest star as Larry Ling Live as quoted by E! Online, Wednesday , February 25, 2009.

They spoke on his return from the border in Chad and Darfur. Soon, says the actor was 47 years, is a good time to correct the bad words out there.

Criminal Court sentenced him to the president of Sudan for war crimes. This is the first of a new presidential powers have received a sentence like that.

As an envoy of UN peacekeeping, George Clooney said Obama and orderly, priorities and ways you can do to bring peace in the region. “Diplomacy has to start, be aggressive and immediate. There is an opportunity here,” he said.

Before meeting with Barack Obama was the star of ‘Oceans 12′ issued 250 000 cards. The cards are collected by Save Darfur has been given to the President and Vice-President of the newly appointed U.S. 17 in January.

Clooney last visit was the sixth trip to Darfur and Chad. Output Clooney was held in secret. Along with several journalists, including newspaper editors in New York Times, Nicholas Kristof and NBC correspondent, Ann Curry, Clooney flew. It has been limited. The Sudanese government has refused him a visa.

The war between Darfur rebels and the African Government in its latest country erupted in 2003. Sudanese government is accused of ignoring the rights of ethnic discrimination, and. The rebels took up arms. Nearly 2.5 million people displaced. Conflict in Darfur has killed 300,000 people in Darfur.

            Since March of 2003, there have been widespread and violent conflicts in Darfur, a region of west Sudan. Rebel groups, principally the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), rose up against the Sudanese government, accusing them of favoring Arab Sudanese over black Africans, who have faced tensions for many years over land and grazing rights. This sparked a large government anti-resistance campaign, carried out in cooperation with the Janjaweed, an Arab militia, involving widespread violence and terror. The events involved with this campaign, have been called genocide, particularly by people who support direct military intervention. However, the events in Darfur, although unfortunate, do not match the official definition of genocide. Despite the label of “genocide” failing to apply to this situation, the U.S., in cooperation with the international community, should act to provide humanitarian aid to refugees, disband the Janjaweed, prevent further violence by threatening the Sudanese government with sanctions, establish safe havens and no fly zones, restrict travel outside the capital, and completely freeze the assets of certain political figures who are identified with having a large involvement in the violence and support of the Janjaweed.

            The situation in Darfur cannot be called genocide because what has taken place does not fit the established definition at the Genocide Convention in 1951. According to the legal definition, as defined by Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, genocide includes “any acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” Although there has been “cause of serious bodily and mental harm” to civilians, the “intent to destroy a national, ethnical, or religious group” is missing, according to the 2005 report to the UN Secretary General regarding the situation in Darfur.

The International Commission of the inquiry established that the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for major human rights violations, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians, such as mass killings, torture, rape, pillaging, and the destruction of villages. However, the Commission also found that the black Africans of Sudan weren’t being specifically targeted. As mentioned prior, the attacks were indiscriminate; against anyone associated with the resistance. Simply that some tribes were attacked and their tribe members forcibly displaced does not warrant the use of the term “genocide.”. It is recognized that in some instances, crimes were committed with genocidal intent, particularly by the Janjaweed; however these can only be addressed by a competent court on a “case by case basis.”

The term “genocide” not applying to this situation “should not detract from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region” as stated by the report to the UN Secretary General.” The crimes committed in the region are immensely serious, including crimes against humanity and war crimes, and are just as grave as genocide. The U.S. should therefore act, in cooperation with the international community, to prevent further crimes.

An estimated 2.7 million people have been displaced by the conflicts and many of these people are living in refugee camps. The U.S. should provide humanitarian aid to these camps, as many don’t have access to clean water, food, fuel, hygiene, or proper waste disposal. Resources for the aid can be obtained through donations or government funds. The U.S. should also urge other countries to contribute as well. Safe havens to protect civilians should also be established, enforced by armed UN Peacekeepers. Additionally, the U.S. should provide the necessary aid to the UN, such as peacekeepers or resources, such that they have the means to intervene and help the victims of the conflict.    

            Politically and economically, there are several actions that will help reduce the conflicts. First of all, individuals within the Sudanese government who play a large role in promoting the violence should be identified, and have all their assets frozen. The Sudanese government is desperately corrupt, so this method will be effective in scaring the corrupt government officials into changing their policy. Additionally, certain multi-national Sudanese companies should have their assets frozen to further prevent money from going into the corrupt government, further pressuring the government officials to act.

            Militarily, the U.S. can do several things. Many of the attacks on villages comprise of an attack from the air by government aircraft, followed by a ground attack by the Janjaweed. The U.S., again in cooperation with the international community, should establish no fly zones over areas with civilian populations. This will hinder the ability of the Sudanese government to use aircraft against their victims. To deal with the Janjaweed, many steps need to be taken. Although it may be beyond the power of the international community to completely dismantle the Janjaweed without direct military intervention, it is possible take steps to weaken the Janjaweed. First of all, the international community should take necessary action to stop weapons, ammunition, and supplies from reaching the Janjaweed, which are thought to be provided by the government, primarily by helicopter. Therefore, the international community should intercept weapons being sent into the country, and once again, a no fly zone should be established to prevent supplies from being brought to the Janjaweed by helicopter. Also, travel outside of the capital should be restricted, to spotlight regime leaders as not being full members of the international community, and to hinder their ability to interact with the Janjaweed.

            Despite the events in Sudan not fully matching the definition of “genocide,” the U.S. must still take action in cooperation with the international community, politically, economically, and to some degree, militarily, as the events in Sudan are just as grave as genocide. Overall, the U.S. needs to participate in providing humanitarian aid to refugees, dismantling or weakening the Janjaweed, threatening the Sudanese government with sanctions, establishing safe havens and no fly zones to protect civilians and prevent supplies from reaching the Janjaweed, restricting travel outside of the capital, and freezing the assets of regime leaders identified as having a large role in initiating or supporting violence.  

Sources

http://www.un.org/News/dh/dev/scripts/darfur_formatted.htm

http://www.thenation.com/article/genocide-darfur

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/04/world/fg-darfur-genocide4

http://www.darfurscores.org/darfur

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/sudan/fact_sheet.pdf

http://www.un.org/News/dh/sudan/com_inq_darfur.pdf

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v5/n3/7/

Elie Wiesel speaks of what ordinary people can do to prevent genocide, what they can do in reaction to what is already happening. Many people don’t do anything, for their governments don’t do anything. But Wiesel argues that we all must speak out, even if it falls upon deaf ears. The words will bring comfort to the victims as well as keep our own conscience alive. (source 1)

When ordered to do illegal and/or immoral actions, should individuals obey? Arendt watched the war trial of one of the convicted Nazis, and reached several conclusions. The man said he realized “he had participated in was perhaps one of the greatest crimes in history, but, he insisted, if he had not done so, his conscience would have bothered him at the time.” Arendt believes this is so because of the utter lack of good role models to follow during that time of war; that people just followed orders because there was nothing to say that that action is wrong. Nobody was there to tell them what was morally acceptable or inacceptable. At the time of conflict, most of the rules that govern our conscience are tossed out of the window. For many of the atrocities there weren’t even any rules since they were unprecedented by anything before in human history. Only after the people commit these crimes do they realize how terrible it is. (source 2)

Even today, the governments in places where genocide has occurred deny the occurrence of such a thing. The most notable was the Turkish government denying that Armenian genocide ever occurred.  The journalist Richard Cohen had written an article about the Armenian genocide, and then the Turkish ambassador invited him for a talk. The ambassador completely rejected everything that Cohen had believed, stating that it was a civil war, not genocide, that the Turkish government lost control of its soldiers and could not protect the Armenians. Those statements shook his beliefs, insinuating doubt. The fact that this terrible event is still denied mocks the memory of those who died, and claims one more victim: truth. (source 3)

In places far from where genocide occurs, we get desensitized from the problems from elsewhere in the world. Eventually, people become objects, things that we cannot connect with. Darfur is a perfect example of this, it has gone on for 6 years but little has been done to stop it. People are still dying but we don’t care; so isolated by our personal needs that the needs of others are meaningless.  Elie Wiesel said we become inhuman when we don’t care about others anymore, don’t want to give acknowledgement that they are human as well. (source 4)

Wanted for committing genocide, the Sudanese president Hassan al-Bashir may lose many of his allies, as they work to distance themselves from him. By calling for his arrest and trial, people are actively acting to end genocide by sending the message that even heads of state will be prosecuted, that nobody is exempt from international law. (source 5)

America’s policy toward genocide is puzzling at best. It is improving over time but our role in ending genocide is not enough. The cold war has ended, human rights are spreading across the globe, but genocide still occurs. America is turning a blind eye to those events until it is too late. We only intervene in places where our own interests are threatened, not when other human lives are at risk. America’s leaders have changed their policy many times, but it still means the same thing. Whether it is “we didn’t know” or “we didn’t fully appreciate it”, America does not want to know about the horrors that are occurring elsewhere in the world. They are so terrible that we cannot comprehend it, that we don’t have anything to compare it to. The holocaust is not forgotten, it is just relegated as history, something that won’t happen again. But it is still happening but each event is not as bad as the holocaust, therefore is not our priority to stop. Because of the unknowns, the US does not intervene. But because of that, the regimes intent on committing genocide know they can get away with their actions. America must set a precedent so that the tyrannical regimes will know that there will be swift and harsh punishments. Many more lives could have been saved if that was the case. Also, the United States does not have the will to act, the public as well as the government has no interest in intervening. There is no public outrage that forces the government to act. Our policies must change, as history has proven over and over again, that genocidal leaders often terrorize their own country, and then attack neighboring countries, spreading death and fear over the region. (source 6)

“We try to see who was involved. We receive important information. In some areas have been reported up to one percent of rapes,” said chief prosecutor.

On May 16, Luis Moreno Ocampo has asked judges to issue arrest warrants on behalf of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, son of Al-Islam Box and the intelligence service chief, Abdallah Al-Senoussi, crimes against humanity. His application includes 100 pages of testimonies of victims of repression in Libya, as well as interviews, photos and video.

Ocampo, asked on 26 February by the UN Security Council, announced on March 3 an investigation aimed at a total of eight people, including Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and three of his sons.

Since then, the prosecutor’s office has conducted 30 missions in 11 countries.Have been examined over 1,200 documents, including video and photos.

Image via Wikipedia

 Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Genocide is when one group attempts to wipe out a whole race or nation. Over the years Genocide is a very serious subject and has cause much horrific trauma and suffering in many countries. Some genocide that sticks out the most in history is the holocaust, Rwandan genocide, or the Japanese genocide. One of the most horrific and deadly genocides ever was the purges plus Ukraine’s famine, which was lead by Jozef Stalin.  But the most deadly genocide was in China led by Mao Ze-Dong where over 49-78 Million people were killed. There are still genocides going on today and it is still just as bad as before. Some current Genocides going on include the War in Darfur, which is an ongoing civil war conflicts in Darfur. Genocide is a sad thing but is still going on today just as much as 10 years ago.

Could you imagine living in a village controlled by rebel soldiers, or seeing friends, even family members killed by ruthless soldiers willing to kill anything in their path? This is what young children in Darfur have to go through every day. These people have had horrible lives because of the out of control violence that happens in their country. They live in fear because of this genocidal killing. Children wish that they could have some relief, or just to get out of this disaster and lead normal lives. Young girls have to take care of their younger brothers and sisters because their parents have been murdered or taken away by terrorists. Everybody dreams of growing up being a successful person and living a good life. This is very unlikely to happen, as schools are burnt to the ground and children don’t have the possibility to go to school. If they do happen to be freed from these rebel groups, they will start from scratch, with nothing, no possessions, no toys, not even the smallest of necessities. Many of them will not even attend a school. The people in Darfur need help. They have been ravaged by extremist terrorist-like groups. Children experience horrible things, even to the extent of seeing family members die, and wish that they themselves could live a free life and have education instead of living under rebel control. I think that the situation in Darfur should be a national emergency, and there should be something done to stop this extreme rebel movement throughout the corrupt country of Darfur.

While I remain concerned about the implementation of the upcoming referenda for southern Sudan and the Abyei region, today, I write to encourage the appointment of a high-level diplomat for Darfur.

In the last 10 days alone, Sudan’s notorious security service has conducted a wave of arrests of human rights activists, civil society leaders, student activists, and journalists. This wave of arrests, combined with reports in Darfur of aerial bombings of villages and water sources and a buildup of armed forces, are disturbing reminders that Darfurians are tremendously vulnerable to human rights violations and attack.
 
I was heartened by the appointment of a senior-level diplomat, Ambassador Princeton Lyman, to help ensure implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and I urge you make a similar designation for Darfur. I would expect that the Darfur diplomat would work to keep the spotlight on Darfur in the media and with world leaders; support ceasefire negotiations between rebel groups and the government of Sudan; drive the Darfur peace process and make sure there is genuine participation by Darfur civil society; press the United Nations Security Council to fully equip, deploy and empower peacekeepers to protect civilians; push for unimpeded access for humanitarian relief; and promote justice and accountability in Darfur.
 
I urge the Administration to ensure that Darfur remains a priority by appointing a qualified, high-level diplomat at the earliest possible moment.
 
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Ebey Soman

Map of Sudan and the Darfur Region (Image via Wikipedia)

I am writing to urge you to make the upcoming referendum in South Sudan a priority for your administration in the final weeks before the January 9th vote. I appreciate your past leadership on promoting peace in Darfur and throughout Sudan and urge you to take action again to prevent a return to large-scale violence in Sudan.

Peace in Sudan is possible, and the United States must take these key actions immediately:

1.    Clear Consequences: Make clear that the United States and its allies will impose swift and severe consequences if any party chooses to derail the referenda or instigate mass violence.

2.    Comprehensive Contingency Planning: This planning should be done in coordination with our allies wherever possible and must be kept up-to-date as the situation on the ground changes.

3.    Ensuring flexible funds are available for emergency support: The United States should also encourage key players in the international community including UN Security Council and European Union member states to make funds available for contingencies. This includes responding quickly to any major displacement within Sudan or refugee spillover into neighboring states.

4.    Enhancing Peacekeeping Forces’ Capacity to Respond: Support deployment of additional UNMIS peacekeepers to flashpoint areas, and/or if needed provide more direct assistance to peacekeeping forces to quell violence.

5.    Monitoring and Intelligence Gathering: Any information on the organization or perpetration of violence should be shared as appropriate with peacekeeping forces and allies. The U.S. should be prepared to shut down military-related communication if necessary to prevent violence.

Sincerely,

Ebey Soman