And, if they haven't already done so, members can sign the online petition at Save Darfur and also pick up on current campaigns and links from the same site.

would it be possible to include at the top of this thread any members of ned who have actually been to Darfur or who fund someone on the ground there?

Mark, Thanks for setting up September! It's good to see folks here on NED. Jim

Cool!!

Thanks Mark!

September will be a month with a lot of action. We have to keep being creative and be ready to step up the action. We cannot be satisfied with slow, linear, progress.

With the transition from O.net, let's use this as a reason to find new energy.

I'm looking forward to working next to all of you. I wish it was as a part of a happier issue, but I'm proud to have you as friends.

John, great idea.

Chris, I invited Mamer from o/net who is Sudanese. Not sure who else has been there, though Gabriel has been to bordering Chad three times now.

Jim, glad you are here...and you bet. Let's keep this issue in focus in the Front Porch Group and really keep people on task with actions.

Niny, very nice to see you here.

Gabriel, let's get some more actions rolling in September. New energy on the Front Porch where everyone is watching.

Gabriel, Jim,, Esther - It's looking like the USHMM is going to be carrying my Tzedaka Village charity box kits in their gift shop soon. I also just got the Museum of Jewish Heritage in NYC and will be working on others...

In addition to having the product in museum shops, I'd also love to do some hands-on family/kids workshops making tzedaka/charity boxes - and maybe even Peace Tiles - as part of Darfur action/awareness program for children at the museums.

Any thoughts? Are you in a position to put me in touch with a good contact at the USHMM? Or perhaps the hands-on creative workshop is something to add to some existing programming in the works?

My vision also includes getting some corporate underwriting for the workshops as well...ideas welcome...

It's nice to have found our new home...

Michele, You might contact Jerry Fowler. I think he is still associated with the Museum. jfowler at ushmm.org I was just in DC and when I'm there, I always try and go by the Darfur exhibit. The night before I was at an event that was attended by the Ambassador of Sudan to the US. His family suffered tremendously at the hands of people from Darfur who were used by the government during the North/South war, and it made me so sad to see how his personal history is shaping (to a small degree) world history.

We'll need to point Ashis in this direction as he worked with the Darfur refugees for a year and probably has some good ideas for people/orgs to support.

September action -- the biggest is Global Day for Darfur. 24 Hours for Darfur is doing something in New York. We are doing something smaller in San Francisco. Gabriel - are you joining us in SF? Anything going on in LA?

http://globefordarfur.org http://darfursf.org http://www.24hoursfordarfur.org/ main.php

At the end of September is the STAND National conference in DC.

The Darfur Interfaith Network is still showing up at the Sudanese Embassy every Wednesday from 12-1pm. They said they could use a "shot in the arm" so perhaps we can think creatively as to how we can support their efforts.

Can Europe and China 'Save' Darfur?

allAfrica.com

GUEST COLUMN 31 August 2007 Posted to the web 31 August 2007

By John Prendergast

After all the U.S. government's rhetoric about Darfur's genocide, and all its finger-wagging over the inaction of other nations, it is an instructive irony that the forces finally emerging to actually address Darfur's ills are on the other sides of the Atlantic and Pacific. Indeed, the governments that seem mostly likely to walk the walk are in France, the UK, and - surprise - China.

Three years ago, the U.S. Congress harangued President Bush about not calling the Darfur crisis "genocide" until he finally did so. His administration then spent the next few years using the term repeatedly, bird-dogging other nations about their lack of action, issuing vague statements about the use of force for which the Pentagon has not done serious planning, strong-arming one of the rebel groups to sign a peace deal that made matters worse on the ground, imposing unilateral sanctions that had no impact on the culprits, and sending millions of dollars of humanitarian aid to substitute for effective political action.

During this timeframe, the U.S. could be forgiven for being disappointed in China and Europe. Beijing ran interference for the Khartoum regime in the UN Security Council while pumping Sudanese oil and selling arms to the government. France and the UK provided no direction to the European Union and sat on the sidelines, despite a reservoir of leverage in Paris from its relationship with Chad, and high octane speeches from former Prime Minister Blair about no-fly zones.

However, in one of those kairos moments, everything is suddenly changing. China has come under intense pressure from activists for its support for the Sudanese regime, which it wants to shake off so it can host a controversy-free 2008 Olympics. France elected a president who wants to work with the U.S. on Darfur. Britain's new prime minister plans to go with the new French president to Darfur to move the peace process forward. All three countries played constructive roles in getting the UN Security Council to pass a resolution a few weeks ago authorizing a force of over 20,000 troops to help stabilize Darfur.

This is the diplomatic and political equivalent of low-hanging fruit for President Bush, as he considers how to begin shaping his legacy. If his administration can set aside all its posturing, roll up its sleeves, send a diplomatic team to the region, and start working multilaterally, a real success story could be written.

And for the first time on an African issue, resolving the crisis in Darfur would have positive domestic political ramifications. Over the past few years, a movement has grown among politically active Americans to confront genocide in Darfur. In churches, synagogues, town halls, and university classrooms all over the U.S., citizens are telling their elected officials that it is unacceptable to stand idly by while genocide unfolds. More than a million Americans have asked to be on the Save Darfur Coalition's email action list. The book I wrote with "actorvist" Don Cheadle rocketed to number 6 on the NY Times Bestseller List, and at every stop of our book tour we spoke to thousands of people hungry to learn what they could do to get our politicians to act. The highest rated show on television last week was a "60 Minutes" episode on Darfur. Until there is a political cost for inaction in the face of genocide, author Samantha Power has written, we will get inaction.

What is needed isn't exactly rocket science. I've been working in Africa's crisis zones for 25 years, and contrary to popular perceptions, the continent is ripe with success stories about countries that have been ripped apart by civil war, but have been able to resolve their issues and move on. Mozambique, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Burundi, and others can attest to the formula: a serious peace process combined with the deployment of relevant force works.

A quartet of President Hu, President Sarkozy, Prime Minister Brown, and President Bush should pursue a peace and protection initiative that would prioritize a peace deal between the regime and rebel groups, and enforce the rapid deployment of the Security Council's authorized multinational forces to Darfur and eastern Chad. They should be prepared to back targeted sanctions in the UN Security Council (President Putin, you are welcome to join in) against anyone - government or rebel - who tries to obstruct these objectives. Not only would Darfur be "saved," but transatlantic and transpacific cooperation would also be enhanced at a time when such multilateralism is desperately needed.

President Bush, your legacy is calling. Will you answer?

John Prendergast co-chairs the ENOUGH Project (www.enoughproject.org) and is co-author with Don Cheadle of Not on Our Watch.

As noted by Mohamed E. Suleiman (Darfuri) and Martina Knee (SFBADC), evidence suggests that the GOS knows its time is running out and will do whatever it needs to do in order to eliminate the people of Darfur. The only way to stop them (while the UN amasses troops, etc.) is to cut off their supply of funding (which supports their military efforts) through multilateral sanctions. This must be done in a way (such as setting up a trust fund) so that funding is not cut off from the Government of Southern Sudan, which in my opinion, is the only hope for a new democratic Sudan.

Good to see everyone here and ready to continue working. As I read today's NYTimes article about the Arab on Arab violence erupting in Darfur I realize there is so much to do.

Hi everyone. It is both comforting and odd to see this format!

Thank you for contuning the discusions and the actions.

Not sure if you saw this piece by Alex van der Waal and Julie Flint:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp -dyn/content/article/2007/08/27/ AR2007082701339.html

I agree with it, although it feels like it should have been said last year and now our efforts are too little too late and not geared towards preventing the inevitable repeat that is part of Sudan's history. It also goes to the importance of R2P and what happens when we fail to act early.

Thoughts?

......And talking of harsh realities, maybe the Washington Post article should be read alongside this Africa-Reuters report on the militarisation of the camps in Darfur.

When these crises are allowed to run and run and fester over years, resentment simmers and surely it can be no surprise when resistance grows.

Are echoes from the early days of the Palestinian diaspora salutory reminders ? Today there are 'celebrations' in Lebanon because the government has seized control of a Palestinian 'refugee camp'.

The longer these things are left, the more complicated they become.

http://africa.reuters.com/top/ne ws/usnBAN033278.html

Agreed John.

The comments in here by the UN SG about justice and accountability are important:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070 903/wl_nm/sudan_darfur_un_dc_8;_ ylt=AmWC2uQKQhRXGWVZJssxEl8E1vAI

Pam, I agree that Ban Ki-moon's trip is important and should be welcomed and I take your point about justice and accountability - but I also wonder where the teeth are in his reported statement that the world was changing its role as a "seemingly helpless witness" to the conflict and was serving notice that Khartoum's human rights record was under scrutiny.

Esther Sprague said:

As noted by Mohamed E. Suleiman (Darfuri) and Martina Knee (SFBADC), evidence suggests that the GOS knows its time is running out and will do whatever it needs to do in order to eliminate the people of Darfur. The only way to stop them (while the UN amasses troops, etc.) is to cut off their supply of funding (which supports their military efforts) through multilateral sanctions. This must be done in a way (such as setting up a trust fund) so that funding is not cut off from the Government of Southern Sudan, which in my opinion, is the only hope for a new democratic Sudan.

WE know that this is true, that the urgency and danger is as grave as ever, but the feeling "out there" that I perceive from people is that there is less urgency because of reports of UN resolutions, troops getting ready to go in, and lower mortality rate.

There aren't many more villages to destroy in Darfur, although we still hear of attacks led by GoS air bombings. The picture is getting murkier, so we have to be better at presenting the story in a way that people feel compelled to engage.

I like that article by Prendergast mentioned above. It is a relatively simple, doable, outline of action for Bush.

I agree with you, Esther, we have to look at a solution for the whole of Sudan, and the South offers an "in" to peace. In the LA Times this week there was an article on the front page about the "next Darfur"--the Nubian genocide.

Gabriel, I'm not convinced that it's very helpful to jump from talking about 'Genocide in Darfur' to the 'Nubian Genocide'.

Isn't this starting to spread the term 'genocide' so thinly that it loses all of its original portentous meaning ?

That said, I do think your point (your question) about how to engage people - given the changing reality on the ground - is the key to maintaining momentum and keeping up the political pressure.

Although it is dangerous to use the word genocide too often it is important to recognize that this is the GOS's strategy for retaining power and wealth in Sudan...use ethnicity, religion, etc. to divide and conquer.

Gabriel is right -- they are planning to wipe out the Nubian culture with dams that benefit Egypt and the GOS.

We should not shy away from using the term if it fits -- and for the GOS it fits over and over and over. So rather than addressing 10 different genocides, let's help Sudan get ready for an election in 2009 that will remove such a destructive government from power.

Seems almost impossible...but worth giving everything we've got to empower the Sudanese to make it happen.

Dear Colleagues

I am new to NED ... but not new to problems like the situation in Darfur.

I would like to see something that tells me a lot more about the history of the problem eliminating the many gross simplifications that are used to compress complexity into 30 second sound bites. I rarely see, for example, discussion about the conflict between pastoral society and settled society which, I would argue, is perhaps an element of the root cause of the crisis. I would also like to see, for example, more clarity about wealth creation and wealth accumulation in Sudan (as well as in other societies around the globe) which serves, in my view, to drive critical decisions about security and lack of security.

Sincerely, Peter Burgess

Hey Peter,

The Enough Project has great information:

http://www.enoughproject.org/reg ion/darfur/overview.php

John Firth said:

Gabriel, I'm not convinced that it's very helpful to jump from talking about 'Genocide in Darfur' to the 'Nubian Genocide'.

Isn't this starting to spread the term 'genocide' so thinly that it loses all of its original portentous meaning ?

That said, I do think your point (your question) about how to engage people - given the changing reality on the ground - is the key to maintaining momentum and keeping up the political pressure.

Hey John:

I really agree that the word genocide should not be used lightly.

As Esther said, with the Government of Sudan, signs have to be taken seriously, given their history. I'm sure that the LA Times used "fears of another Darfur" on their headline because of the seriousness of the situation.

For prevention, I believe that we have to start seeing the signs way before it is a full blown genocide.

On the other hand, the Bush administration, for the first time in history, called a crisis a genocide, but then failed to follow up with the appropriate action, given the responsibility that is implied with that.

So, I see your point and agree at one level (and on that post I was referring more to the potential implied in the LA Times article--but I was not clear with that), but I also see the need, especially between us here, to find a better, faster way to respond to clear signs for a potential genocide, before it happens.

Gabriel, I can't and don't disagree with that! :)

This is Great having this thread here.What is happening in Darfur is Genocide and that term should be used over and over again. Its great that the Secretary General Bhan Kin Moon is Visiting Sudan to see the best way forward for Darfur.Although i am supporting the deployment of Robust UN peace keepers in Darfur i still feel that their presence will not lead to the end of the Genocide.I remember one time the Secretary General saying that the problems in Darfur including the war are Climatic.This was clear that he was feeling that there was need to do more than just sending the UNforces to Darfur. I have been to Southern Sudan in a "town" called Nasir and the Robust UNMIS is there.Well they have all the resources that are necessary while going for war.Their presense have not stopped most of the Inter clan wars that have been going on from time to time.Its like they are there to make observations.In their mandate they have stated that they protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence.Imminent is very relative.I do not know what their presence has detered or has made to happen.To me the UN peacekeepers will not mean the end of Genocide but the removal of Bashir Administration will lead to the end. Bashir administration is capable of doing every evil as long as its in power.Well its better to have a force endowed with resources but its presence at most can only mitigate the effects of the Genocide.Removing the Bashir Administration is the Key. This made me read the UNMIS Mandate which i have copied below.

UNMIS MANDATE

Having determined that the situation in Sudan continued to constitute a threat to international peace and security, the Security Council, by its resolution 1590 of 24 March 2005, decided to establish the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS). It also decided that the mandate of UNMIS would be the following:

1. to support implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement by performing the following tasks:

1. to monitor and verify the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement and to investigate violations;
2. to liaise with bilateral donors on the formation of Joint Integrated Units;
3. to observe and monitor movement of armed groups and redeployment of forces in the areas of UNMIS deployment in accordance with the Ceasefire Agreement;
4. to assist in the establishment of the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration program as called for in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, with particular attention to the special needs of women and child combatants, and its implementation through voluntary disarmament and weapons collection and destruction;
5. to assist the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in promoting understanding of the peace process and the role of UNMIS by means of an effective public information campaign, targeted at all sectors of society, in coordination with the African Union;
6. to assist the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in addressing the need for a national inclusive approach, including the role of women, towards reconciliation and peace-building;
7. to assist the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, in coordination with bilateral and multilateral assistance programs, in restructuring the police service in Sudan, consistent with democratic policing, to develop a police training and evaluation program, and to otherwise assist in the training of police;
8. to assist the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in promoting the rule of law, including an independent judiciary, and the protection of human rights of all people of Sudan through a comprehensive and coordinated strategy with the aim of combating impunity and contributing to long-term peace and stability and to assist the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to develop and consolidate the national legal framework;
9. to ensure an adequate human rights presence, capacity, and expertise within UNMIS to carry out human rights promotion, protection, and monitoring activities;
10. to provide guidance and technical assistance to the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, in cooperation with other international actors, to support the preparations for and conduct of elections and referenda provided for by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement;

2. to facilitate and coordinate, within its capabilities and in its areas of deployment, the voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons, and humanitarian assistance, inter alia, by helping to establish the necessary security conditions;
3. to assist the parties to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, in cooperation with other international partners in the mine action sector, by providing humanitarian demining assistance, technical advice, and coordination;
4. to contribute towards international efforts to protect and promote human rights in Sudan , as well as to co-ordinate international efforts towards the protection of civilians , with particular attention to vulnerable groups including internally displaced persons, returning refugees, and women and children, within UNMIS's capabilities and in close cooperation with other United Nations agencies, related organizations, and non-governmental organizations.

Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council also: (i) decided that UNMIS is authorized to take the necessary action, in the areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to protect UN personnel, facilities, installations, and equipment, ensure the security and freedom of movement of United Nations personnel, humanitarian workers, joint assessment mechanism and assessment and evaluation commission personnel, and, without prejudice to the responsibility of the Government of the Sudan, to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence; and

2. requested that the Secretary-General and the Government of the Sudan, following appropriate consultation with the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, conclude a status-of-forces agreement within 30 days of adoption of the resolution, taking into consideration General Assembly resolution 58/82 on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, and notes that pending the conclusion of such an agreement, the model status-of-forces agreement dated 9 October 1990 (A/45/594), shall apply provisionally.

re: the van der Wall and Flint article that Pam mentioned -- it might feel a little late, but that would be to those of us who have some idea of what's going on. In lunch conversations with friends, I still hear mainly ignorance. Nonetheless, the final paragraph should be poignant for both those in the know and those who know little:

For them, it is true. For the people of Darfur, the story is more complicated. So, if you are dispatched to Darfur as a peacekeeper, best to wise up quickly. Leave that fortified camp, step out of that armored car and ask the Darfurian people: "Just what the hell is going on here?"

And a question to everyone. I was talking with my father the other day and he asked whether I'd heard of the book that talks about the U.S.'s main deterrent from participating more fully in Darfur -- China's economic threat. He didn't know the name. Any ideas?

There are a couple of good possibilities on that Luke.