What ARE they doing? Part Three

Photograph from Government of Canada, http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sudan-soudan/assets/images/10-03-10.jpg.

I’d like to start this entry by apologising for the long hiatus in my blog entries. This was partly due to the fact that I spent the month of July doing research in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, which was fascinating, difficult, and above all, time-consuming!

I’m now back and would like to pick up where I left off, which is with looking at security, the third and final pillar in Canada’s three-pronged strategy towards Sudan (the other pillars are aid and diplomacy). Here I return to the Canadian government’s website on Sudan – which, just to remind you, can be found at http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sudan-soudan/index.aspx. According to this site, Canada is a contributor to both of the UN peacekeeping operations in Sudan: the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) and the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS). The government reports that “in addition to diplomatic, financial and material support, Canada has committed up to 50 Canadian Forces personnel and 25 civilian police officers to these peacekeeping operations in Sudan.”

The website explains that “Canada provides, on a voluntary basis, training and equipment for African countries deploying civilian police, military and Formed Police Units (FPUs) to UNAMID” – the example given is Canada’s provision of GILA armoured vehicles and non-armoured equipment to four African FPUs taking part in UNAMID: two units from Senegal, one from Burkina Faso, and one from Uganda. Apparently Canada also funds training “to help prepare peacekeeping personnel and units deploying to UNAMID,” part of which was carried out by the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, but concrete details of this training are not provided on the site.

Operation Saturn, the website tells us, refers to the deployment of “Canadian Forces personnel...to UNAMID to provide needed expertise.” Task Force Darfur is the name given to Canada’s UNAMID contingent, which is commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel Ken Moore and is headquartered at El Fasher. The contingent has seven members of personnel: three logistics experts working at the headquarters of UNAMID, and four soldiers who train UNAMID troops in the operation of Grizzly and Husky AVGPs (which stands for ‘armoured vehicles, general purpose’) lent to the mission by the Canadian government.

Finally, Canada is currently the co-chair (with the US) of the “Friends of UNAMID,” a group made up of UN member states with an interest in the mission, as well as UN personnel. According to the website, this group meets regularly “to facilitate the swift and full deployment of UNAMID and coordinate donor support for the mission.”
Previous to Canadian support to UNAMID, Canada also supported the old African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) – the precursor to UNAMID – from 2004 to 2007. The website states that Canada was “one of the most important donors to AMIS,” providing “essential airlift and ground transportation, as well as targeted expert deployments of civilian police and Canadian Forces personnel to the mission” within the framework of Operation Augural.

Operation Augural, as Canada’s military involvement with AMIS, had the aim of building “capacity in the areas of strategic planning, air operations, contracting, logistics and operations planning, and land operations with the Canadian “armoured vehicle, general purpose”, or AVGP.” Canada began supporting the mission in 2004, contributing “basic army equipment, including helmets, body armour, and maps,” totalling over 104 million dollars. Then, in 2005, the Canadian government lent 105 AVGPs, to Senegal, Rwanda, and Nigeria, three troop-contributing countries. As mentioned above, this loan was later extended to UNAMID for a three-year period from 31 December 2007 to 30 June 2009 under the auspices of Operation Saturn). Finally, the website refers to “[a]viation assistance provided by Canadian contracted helicopters to AMIS,” particularly during the transition from AMIS to the UNAMID mission. Canada’s mission of support to AMIS was named Task Force Addis Ababa., made up of 11 members of the Canadian Forces. This included five working in mission support, as well as with the Darfur Integrated Task Force (DITF) in Addis Ababa, two working on contracts and logistics in Khartoum, and four based in El Fashir in Darfur, providing “logistics support” and training Nigerian, Rwandan, and Senegalese troops in the use of the AVGPs.

Finally, Canada also supports the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission in the Sudan, or UNMIS, through Operation Safari, which is “the military component of the Canadian whole-of-government engagement in southern Sudan.” This refers to the deployment of members of the Canadian Forces, as well as civilian police officers, who have been deployed to Sudan’s southern region “as peacekeepers and military observers.” The contingent of Canadian Forces personnel, Task Force Sudan, includes 30 members. 20 of these act as United Nations Military Observers (UNMOs) across southern Sudan; another eight are staff members at UNMIS Headquarters in the Sudanese capital; and another two are with the “Canadian support element in Khartoum.”

UNAMID’s ongoing shortfall is well-known – particularly in terms of troops and helicopters – but could Canada do more than what it is already doing? In terms of troops, it is certainly falling woefully short, with no more than 50 Canadian Armed Forces personnel committed throughout the different peacekeeping missions that have been established for Sudan. What of helicopters and other essential equipment for the mission – can Canada be doing more than it is? According to the website itself, other than the “GILA armoured vehicles and non-armoured equipment” that Canada is providing to UNAMID, it appears that much-needed helicopters have not been a part of what Canada has able to provide, or willing to press other countries to provide. What is the reason for this? What is Canada currently doing as co-chair of the Friends of UNAMID? Watch this space... Continue reading this article...

What ARE they doing? Part Two

In my last blog entry, it was my aim to look at what Canada is concretely doing to take action on the situation in Darfur. I wrote about Canada’s relations with Sudan, and, drawing on the Canadian government’s website, outlined Canada’s approach to Sudan in the realm of diplomacy (one of three pillars including aid and security). I will now turn to the first of two remaining pillars, aid, looking at what the Canadian government website says it is doing to assist Sudan in this area.

Through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Canada “provides humanitarian assistance to meet the immediate basic needs of conflict-affected populations in Sudan, mainly in the Darfur region, as well as support for the return and reintegration of millions of people displaced by the separate civil war in southern Sudan.” According to the government website, Canada has made over $143 million available in relief aid to civilians affected by war in Sudan.

Through CIDA, Canada also makes early recovery support available to underpin the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. This refers to CIDA’s support for “governance, education, health care, mine action, and reintegration of internally-displaced and refugee populations.” According to the website, since January 2006 Canada has made over $89 million available for early recovery efforts.

Finally, in addition to Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, moreover, Canada is part of the Joint Donor Team, which is “mandated to assist to Government of southern Sudan to promote policies in support of sustainable peace, poverty reduction and the attainment of Millennium Development Goals.”

There is no mention on the government website about Sudan’s recent move expelling 13 foreign aid agencies from the country following the issuing of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for Sudanese President Bashir – an act that, in my view, has tainted the rosy picture painted of Canadian involvement in Sudan. Of late, moreover, the situation for aid workers (including Canadians) has become more perilous, with several of these workers having been kidnapped in recent months. How will the Canadian government respond to the imperilling of humanitarian activity in Darfur, which will further compromise the lives of Sudanese civilians?

The briefness of this section of the website makes it seem like a dollar figure should be sufficient for Canadians to feel that we are doing our very best to help those in need of humanitarian assistance in Darfur. It isn’t enough, for these aggregate figures can disguise many realities. If you go to the link http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/sudan, there’s the good stuff, for it gives concrete figures for what has been accomplished in Sudan. These figures, however, are problematic for they do not assess CIDA’s specific contribution, only the global results that CIDA has contributed to along with other donors. A useful resource may be the Mid Term Evaluation carried out by the Joint Donor Team in February 2009, which is available at http://www.norad.no/items/14798/38/4592453832/Mid-Term%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Joint%20Donor%20Team%20in%20Juba,%20Sudan.pdf.

In my next blog entry: I will look at the last element in Canada’s three-pronged approach to Sudan, security. As always, I invite your comments and suggestions!

-Sarah Katz-Lavigne Continue reading this article...

What ARE they doing?

If you have been following the Canadian government’s action on the crisis in Darfur, you might feel that they – like the majority of governments around the world – have fallen short when it comes to taking action on the Darfur. There is no better proof than the fact that this sad situation persists even though the uprising of Darfuri rebel groups, and the corresponding counter-insurgency campaign launched by the Sudanese government, dates back to 2003. We all know that the failure to find a way to stop the atrocities sponsored by the Sudanese government in the Darfur region has been paid for largely with the blood of Darfur’s civilians. If more countries had taken a real stand on this issue, the situation might be very different today.

But for a moment, rather than focusing on what the Canadian government isn’t doing, let’s take a look at what they ARE doing. The following statement, which opens the “Canada: Active in Sudan/ Le Canada à l'œuvre au Soudan” section of the Canadian government’s website, makes it clear that Canada sees itself very much as part of the solution, not part of the problem:

“Canada is part of a concerted international effort to support a just and lasting peace in all of Sudan. Canadian contributions focus primarily on resolving the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Darfur, and supporting the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) which ended the southern civil war in January 2005.”

According to the website, moreover, “Canada’s whole-of-government approach applies to all of Sudan and is based on three pillars of activity: aid, diplomacy and security.”

Canada’s Measures

In this entry I’ll be focusing specifically on the diplomacy pillar (see later blogs for the rest!) According to the website, the areas where Canada has been active in diplomacy specifically relating to Darfur are:

• Diplomatic involvement in the Darfur Peace Process (particularly with respect to the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) – including providing financial and diplomatic resources and supporting “the efforts of the United Nations and the African Union towards bringing the rebel movements together to prepare for the next round of negotiations.”
• Multilateral initiatives: “Canadian diplomats take every possible opportunity to raise the issue of the humanitarian and human rights crisis in Darfur in international and multilateral fora such as the G8, the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations, the International Organization of La Francophonie and other informal groups.”
• Peacebuilding: “Canada’s Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding Group, a component of the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START), is working with the international community to facilitate the full implementation of Sudan’s peace agreements, with special emphasis on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement…Canada is supporting the political and social consolidation of peace in Sudan by promoting initiatives in several key areas including: strengthening judicial institutions, federalism, corrections reform, improving community security, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR), as well as building the capacity of all stakeholders to participate in the renewed talks for peace in Darfur.”
• Bilateral relations: this refers to an “ongoing dialogue with the Sudanese government,” maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, and members of the Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations in New York, in addition to other “senior Canadian officials and diplomats throughout the world.”
• For instance, “in March 2008, the former Foreign Affairs minister made an official visit to Sudan – the first visit to that country by a Canadian Foreign Affairs minister. The former minister took this opportunity to raise Canada’s concerns to senior Sudanese officials, including the Sudanese Foreign Minister.”
• Measures: The measures Canada has put in place “ against Sudan in response to the current human rights and humanitarian situation, and in support of its policy for peace in this country…include: the withholding of support for commercial support services, including export finance and trade and investment development activities; and the withholding of government-to-government development cooperation.”
• “In addition, Canada has implemented in Canadian domestic law the sanctions mandated by the United Nations Security Council, including an arms embargo as well as an asset freeze and travel ban directed against designated persons.”

Finally, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) has set up a Task Force on Sudan “In order to coordinate Canada’s whole-of-government contribution to the pursuit of sustainable peace throughout Sudan.”

Key elements

I’ll point to some key items that stood out to me, and some questions that arose in my mind, when I was reading about Canada’s approach to the Sudan/Darfur situation.

• Canada’s approach is a holistic one, which sees the Darfur situation within the larger context of the rest of Sudan, which includes the North-South dynamic and the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. This is surely a good thing, but may obscure the urgency of the situation in Darfur if one of Canada’s top priorities rests on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)
• Does the tendency to refer to the situation in Darfur as a “humanitarian and human rights crisis” obscure the Sudanese government’s responsibility in causing the crisis? Can the Canadian government employ language that does not do so?
• In terms of the support that Canada is allocating the “political and social consolidation of peace in Sudan,” what does this mean in practical terms? How is Canada “promoting” different initiatives? What form has Canadian support taken, and how much of it has there been?
• Has Canada taken a strong enough stance in its bilateral relations with Sudan? What tone have Canadian diplomats taken with Sudanese government officials, and has it reflected the urgency of resolving the situation?
• Has Canada reviewed the measures it has taken to sanction Sudan, and whether these measures have been sufficient or have proven to be effective?

More to come! Please feel free to share any thoughts you might have!

Continue reading this article...

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Bashir shows his defiance in the face of the International Criminal Court’s warrant for his arrest (Photo from De Welt).

Some recent news coming out of Darfur is that a Sudanese aid worker with Canadian agency Fellowship for African Relief (based in Ontario) has been shot to death. It has been suggested that there is a link with the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictment of Sudanese President Bashir, though at this stage it’s only speculation (UNAMID is investigating the crime). A clearer link can be made between the indictment and the kidnapping about two weeks ago in Darfur of three aid workers, including Laura Archer, a Canadian nurse. Happily, the kidnapped workers were released three days later, but Médecins sans frontières (MSF) had to withdraw almost all of its expatriate employees from the region. This will only compound the already drastic effects of President Bashir’s expulsion of a number of humanitarian NGOs from Darfur in the wake of the ICC indictment.

A dangerous trend is apparent here. There is no justification for transferring anger about the application of international criminal justice to aid agencies. Yet President Bashir has managed to take this position to the extreme with his expulsion of aid agencies from the country. But is it the government or other actors who are behind the latest attacks? World leaders, including the Canadian government, need to make sure that a high-quality investigation is carried out into these latest attacks, to prevent the impunity that already surrounds the expulsion of humanitarian agencies from going any further.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has issued a plea for the international community to pressure Bashir to reverse his decision to expel aid agencies from Sudan. This is certainly a welcome move, but I fear that without a targeted approach, international condemnation will only harden Bashir’s resolve. It’s time to get creative! Can some of the Arab states that Bashir considers his allies – who have already said they will not arrest Bashir on their soil – be harnessed to put some (friendly) pressure on Bashir to allow humanitarian agencies pursue their work in the country?

In this increasingly desperate situation, what will work best with Bashir – international condemnation, or a more conciliatory approach? Bashir is, after only, only a human being. Humans can be persuaded, but they can also be stubborn and inflexible. It’s an indication of how bad things have gotten that in this particular scenario, what’s at stake are thousands upon thousands of lives.

Continue reading this article...

The rationale for supporting Stand: A handy guide to inspiring supporters.

So I am standing with a new acquaintance, a friend of a friend at a social gathering. She recently read about Darfur because of Bashir's indictment in the news. She seems concerned about Darfur. We start to talk. After a few minutes, it seems she believes it is important to care about Darfur. She wants to know what she can do about it - but she is a busy person and she wants to make sure any action she takes with Stand actually impacts Darfur.

You've probably experienced this yourself, maybe volunteering at a Stand booth or discussing at family dinner or chatting when out with some friends. You begin to talk about Stand, but find yourself losing your audience. You know Stand and its advocacy is important, but you can't seem to articulate it.

Here are some of my ideas to make that conversation easy:

I want do help, what does Stand do?

We make it easy to act against genocide.

What do I mean "making it easy"? Genocide is a massive issue that most people find overwhelming. Most people care about genocide and want to do something but they don’t know how to do so effectively. We create simple and effective ways for people to take action against genocide.

What kinds of "simple and effective" things do you actually do?

Just a few examples: we create a monthly Darfur Digest that summarizes all of the key information on Darfur to make government action easy; we make it easy for ordinary people to influence government by calling 1-800-GENOCIDE; we train people who care about Darfur in how to advocate, we subsidize their trips to Ottawa and we set up meetings for them with MPs. You can multiply the impact of your individual efforts right now by joining a team of passionate Darfur advocates - on your campus, or working on a national project.

How do these tools you create actually have an impact?

Picture the desk of a Canadian politician. There is a stack of "issues" she needs to address. Each time she receives a call (through 1800GENOCIDE) about Darfur, it moves Darfur a little bit up the stack. 10 calls move Darfur up the list higher. 100 calls really raises her eyebrows. 1000 calls makes Darfur impossible to ignore. Through our Stand for the Dead campaign we want to send 10,000 calls to Ottawa.

As a US Senator once said: “If every member of the House and Senate had received 100 letters from people back home saying we have to do something about Rwanda when the crisis was first developing, then I think the response would have been different.”

We make writing those letters easy.

But what happens when Darfur ends up on the top of the stack of issues? What does Canada actually do?

The Canadian government has the international power and influence to lead the fight against genocide. It has proven that when it makes an issue like Land Mines its top foreign policy priority, the country can change the world for millions of people.

The Ottawa Process led by Canada was an impressive undertaking: in than one short year in the late 1990s over 100 countries has signed a treaty that banned landmines outright, led my small and medium-sized countries, outside the UN system, unimpeded by Superpower resistance (See http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/significant). As of 2007, at least 38 nations have stopped production, and global trade has almost halted completely.

We are aiming for the day when Canada's top foreign policy priority is ending genocide. We want ending genocide to be Canada's next Land Mines.

If this is up to the government, what do I have to do with it?

Public pressure changes government priorities. Consider the issue of the Environment. In 2006, North American governments did nothing about the Environment. In 2008, every government had a "green plan" because a groundswell of citizens demanded it. After people like Al Gore helped transformed the latent energy in millions into a loud voice on the environment, governments began to listen.

Help us tell the government: we want to live in a world free of genocide.

Why should I support Stand and not a humanitarian organization?

Humanitarian aid is critical but not enough. Bags of rice alleviate suffering; they don't end genocide. When you support Stand’s advocacy you help achieve two important humanitarian outcomes:

First, you multiply your dollars for humanitarian aid. You could raise $100,000 for a single program in Darfur or directly advocate for $1,000,000 our (government) dollars sent to the right programs impacting Darfur.

Second, we can reduce the need for humanitarian aid by preventing genocide.

I think all we need to do is educate people about Darfur, or raise more awareness.

You educate people so that they will be compelled to act against genocide. One million "educated" people make no impact on Darfur unless they take action. Join us so that we can show the "educated" easy ways to get into action.

Any questions you seem to get stumped with? Any questions seem to veer you off course? Send them to me, post them here, and I am happy to offer my 2 cents. Or if you have good answers to share, please do!

Continue reading this article...

Special Envoy Woes

Apparently, the latest must-have fashion accessory for Western countries is…a special envoy to Afghanistan. Now that the United States, Britain, France, and Germany have them, it seems that Canada needs one as well, for fear of being left behind in the race to wield influence on the world stage.

This begs the following question: why isn’t Canada considering the appointment of a special envoy to Darfur or even Sudan? We did, after all, have one, in the person of Senator Mobina Jaffer, who was Canada’s Special Envoy to the Peace Process in Sudan from 2002 to 2006. Why now, when the crisis in Darfur is entering its sixth year, has the momentum on this country seemed to fade in favour of the (it seems) more immediately relevant to our national interest? Perhaps a better question to ask would be how we can make Sudan and the ongoing genocide a national priority once again.

Sudanese President Bashir’s move to expel aid agencies from Sudan in response to the International Criminal Court’s issuing of a warrant for his arrest is a shining example of what a Canadian special envoy to the region could have brought to the table. The UN Security Council flailed about in search of a statement in response to the expulsion, ultimately failing to agree on one. A Canadian envoy could have added his or her voice to that of Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, to publicly speak out against Sudan’s move. A Canadian envoy could have put pressure on the Security Council to enact a strong response to the expulsion. With a special envoy to Sudan or Darfur, Canada would have been in a position to provide a coordinated response to the expulsion of humanitarian NGOs from Sudan. Without one, Canada was just flailing like the rest.

Continue reading this article...

Where is the partnership on Darfur?

If you watched or followed Obama’s visit to Canada and the Obama-Harper encounter – and chances are you did – you may have noticed that despite the urgings of STAND members and a number of other voices, the issue of the ongoing genocide in Darfur was not on the agenda. Obama’s visit was hailed as a success, but it did not reflect the hopes of many that Obama’s administration will be the one to push for a real breakthrough on Darfur.

Trade was on the agenda, as was NAFTA and the strengthening of economies at a time when the credit crunch is the most pressing concern for many. The environment and climate change were, of course, a top issue, and rightly so. In their discussion, Prime Minister Harper and President Obama highlighted our mutual interdependence and looked ahead to a strong partnership between Canada and the United States. Foreign policy did come to the fore, but when it did, it was in relation to the controversial mission ongoing in Afghanistan, and the future of Canadian involvement there.

For those who were expecting the two “partners” to come out with a common stance on the issue of genocide, particularly with relation to the Darfur region, Obama’s visit was a disappointment. It hit all the key issues that one would expect, but neglected the much-anticipated question of Darfur and genocide. The failure to mention the question, still pressing, of how the world should react to Darfur in particular and situations of genocide more broadly was not addressed in the discussion between Obama and Harper. Yet one might have expected at least a mention – Harper, after all, is the top official of the country that actually spearheaded the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), while the US has been an important player in diplomatic efforts to pressure the Sudanese government to take concrete steps to improve the human security situation in Darfur. Yet sadly, domestic issues and issues of national interest clearly carried the day. Despite the promises of a strong partnership between the neighbour countries going forward into the new administration, there was no suggestion of a partnership on Darfur.

The absence of any mention of Darfur belies the reality that behind the scenes, much work is still ongoing at the level of US policy. Nicholas Kristof, for instance, has reported that Obama’s administration is actually reviewing its Darfur policy, with Samantha Power, well-known and respected for her seminal work “A Problem from Hell,” part of that effort. One can only hope that this review will have real meaning and will not remain behind the scenes for long. Like the partnership proudly proclaimed by Harper and Obama in Ottawa, Darfur should be front and centre for Obama’s new administration.

Continue reading this article...

Obamarama

Guest post by Jackie Bonisteel.

On February 19th, President Obama is coming to town. Canadians have been repeatedly advised to temper our expectations: the visit will be short and limited to no-nonsense discussion of the economic crisis. There will be no welcome rally, no Rideau Canal skate, no inspiring speech to the Canadian people. So settle down, we are told.

But since Obama himself stands for "the audacity of hope", perhaps the Darfur advocacy community should have the audacity to hope for more. In that spirit, I propose that Darfur should be a top priority on the Canada-US bilateral agenda.

As a close neighbour, and a chief architect of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, Canada is ideally poised to stand at Obama's side as his administration acts decisively to end the violence in Darfur. Setting aside a change of course in recent years, we are a nation with a history of peacekeeping and strong international diplomacy. We are one of the largest contributors to UNAMID. Together, Canada and the US can take decisive action for Darfur that will motivate other key international players to follow suit.

Granted, the decisive action we would like to see from Obama has yet to materialize. The economic crisis will of course be the new administration's overwhelming focus for some time. However, there are encouraging signs that US leadership in Darfur is on its way. During his Presidential campaign, Obama spoke of the need for a no-fly zone and greater US logistical support to UNAMID. He has surrounded himself with advisors such as Susan Rice, Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, Anthony Lake and Samantha Power who are strong advocates for greater US commitment in Darfur. With US resources being freed up from Iraq, the time appears to be ripe for a shift in focus to Darfur.

Yes, there is an economic crisis, but there is also a crisis in Darfur of the utmost severity. Obama may offer the hope we've been waiting for—but only a strong push will turn hope into reality. With our commitment and solidarity, Canada can be part of that push.

Tell Prime Minister Harper that you would like to see Darfur become a top priority on the Canada-US bilateral agenda. It's EASY:

Call 1-800-GENOCIDE to be connected directly to Prime Minister Harper's office. It will only take a few minutes!

You can also write to the prime minister at pm@pm.gc.ca or

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

Tell your friends! Post this link to your Facebook profile or forward it in an email.

Write to the media! Share your views with the public - let's gather more support. Tell your community members why they should care. Continue reading this article...

Express Thanks - Write a Letter

The Minister of Foreign Affairs released a statement yesterday deploring the recent increase in violence in Darfur (more on this to come soon). In the meantime I encourage all readers of this blog to take a moment to write a letter of gratitude to the Minister at Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca. One of the best ways to build momentum on this issue is to show that there is a large mass of people who care about it when the government takes actions like this. Below is the text of the statement and a possible letter.

Canada Deplores Upsurge of Violence in Darfur

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, today issued the following statement regarding the recent upsurge in violence in Darfur:

“Canada deplores the increased violence in Darfur. Military activities conducted by the Government of Sudan and by Darfur rebel forces are seriously undermining prospects for peace in Sudan and impeding humanitarian efforts in the region. Their actions threaten the lives of thousands of innocent civilians.

“Canada also notes that the Government of Sudan has not implemented the ceasefire it announced in November. We call on the government and all rebel forces to cease hostilities and to resume the negotiation process led by the United Nations and the African Union.

For information on Canada’s contribution to establishing long-lasting peace in Sudan, please consult the following website: www.canadainternational.gc.ca/sudan-soudan/index.aspx.

Possible Letter:

February 3, 2009

Re: Minister's Statement on Darfur


To the Honorable Lawrence Cannon,

I am writing to express my sincerest gratitude for your remarks deploring the recent upswing of violence in Darfur. The wording of your statement reflects both the seriousness of the situation and the responsibility of all parties to cease hostilities and protect civilians.

The ongoing violence in Darfur and deplorable humanitarian conditions is a blight on our common humanity. While your statement condemning the violence is a strong step in the right direction, I urge you also to consider other possible options such as appointing a Special Envoy to the region.

I applaud your efforts to end the violence and look forward to hearing more from you in the future on this vital issue.

Sincerely,

[enter name here]
Stand-Canada
[Address]
[Any other info - phone number, email, etc.] Continue reading this article...

The New Rice

Here are some Susan Rice quotes to get us all excited about Obama's inauguration, courtesy of the Save Darfur Coalition. (Susan Rice is the incoming US Ambassador to the United Nations)

“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]

“There are only two ways to end a genocide: to apply powerful enough pressures or inducements to persuade the perpetrators of genocide to stop; or to protect those who are the potential victims of genocide. A negotiated solution would do neither, though it is necessary, ultimately, to resolve the underlying conflict.”

[Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 11, 2007]

“How can the administration explain to the dead, the nearly dead and the soon to be dead people of Darfur that, at the end of the day – even when we declare that genocide is occurring, even when we insist repeatedly that we are committed to stopping it – the United States has stood by for so long while the killing has persisted.”

[Testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, February 8, 2007]

Continue reading this article...

Oh Sudan, Sudan, Sudan...

The more I read about Sudan, the more there is to read about Sudan. How can one country be so complicated?

I have recently been given the privilege of reading a briefing paper about one expert's opinions about the future of Sudan. Unfortunately, I am still awaiting the word as to whether I am allowed to say who or what this paper was, but I thought that in the meantime I would transmit some of its extremely illuminating and troubling details.

The Premise: How to prevent the entire country of Sudan from erupting into a huge war when the South votes for independence in the referendum scheduled for 2011?

For those who don't know, the peace treaty between the North and South signed in 2005 between President al-Bashir and Southern hero John Garang guaranteed a referendum on the status of the South to be held in 2011. The thinking was that this time could be used to convince the political elites from the North and the South of the benefits of working together, so they could subsequently either come up with a new agreement or convince the Southern people that a unified Sudan is not that bad. Unfortunately, with the violence in Darfur, the ICC indictment, and the unfortunate death of John Garang, the elites have been more than a little distracted.

If the vote were held today, the vast majority of Southerners would vote to secede from Sudan, a situation that is unlikely to change in the next two years. The North would not be too happy about this because of oil and the effect that would have on the rest of the country. Similarly, the South Sudan Government is not known as the most well-functioning government around and could quite possibly turn into a fragile or failed state itself.

Basically, the possibilities for violence in the case of a secession by the South are all-too-likely, even as it appears that this situation is an eventuality. So how do we prevent a possible future humanitarian crisis even while trying to solve the one that is happening right now?

The writer of the briefing paper has a few ideas to this end, but none of them are simple. Along the basic things that need to happen to prevent catastrophic war in 2011 are:

1) Ending the violence in Darfur.
2) More implementation of the parts of the Comprehensive Peace Treaty that have still not been implemented.
3) An agreement between political elites in the North and the South about how to proceed with the referendum. Postponing it could lose the Southern leaders their legitimacy; holding it could lose the Northerners a large chunk of their country.
4) Coming up with a contingency plan for how to deal with the possibility of a vote for secession.

Is that all? That should be easy in a country that has had a total of 13 years peace since 1956.

I hope you are all up for challenges... Continue reading this article...

Susan Rice for a Change of US Policy?

While the Canadian government is in shambles, Stand'er Ben Fine recently sent me this article about US President-elect Obama's new choice for UN Ambassador. Like Clinton, it is expected that Obama will make this position a Cabinet-level position, critical to making foreign policy decisions.

This could very seriously represent a change of US policy when it comes to Darfur or response to genocide. As the VOA article mentions, Rice gained some notoriety when she called upon the US to use force against the Sudanese government to end the crisis in Darfur. Here is an op-ed she wrote in the Washington Post outlining her policy recommendations. The basic outline of her argument is that the US should not be afraid to bomb Sudanese military targets or blockade Sudan from oil exports in order to enforce compliance with UN resolutions.

Clearly, this is a very controversial stance and built upon the US actions against Serb targets in the late 1990s in response to Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Would force end up making the situation worse? Could it empower an even more radical elite within the National Congress Party (NCP) that currently rules Sudan? Could it unravel the fragile north-south peace treaty and plunge the country back into a larger civil war, even as (supposedly) the possibility of elections approaches for next year? Would it make the UN peacekeepers currently deployed sitting ducks for government retaliation? In that case, there could be a very serious escalation in which US ground troops would have to get involved eventually. And with military interventions, it is almost inevitable that some civilians will be killed...

On the other hand, I would welcome an Obama presidency that made it clear from the outset what sort of actions it would accept and wouldn't accept, while at the same time ensuring that the US complies with international law to maintain its own moral legitimacy. The Bush Administration, despite forceful action to bring about the end of the North-South civil war, has had its hands tied on Darfur, partly because of Iraq, the war on terror, and the loss of legitimacy due to Gunatanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. I think Obama might have a little more leeway because of the street cred he already seems to have in the rest of the world.

So basically, it would be great to see Susan Rice and Obama outline a strategy from day one that is both consistent and coherent. There will be much more international support for the use of force in Sudan if it is clear that other steps have been taken and the Sudanese Government has clearly violated resolutions or agreements. I also believe that other countries would jump behind the US if they seriously took the lead on pushing for peace negotiations.

At the very least, I think we can be fairly confident that Rice will keep the issue of Darfur on the agenda, as well as other possible scenarios of genocide, considering her research interest in failed states and responsibility to protect.

If only we had some similar hope in Canada right now... Continue reading this article...

What does it all mean?

The comments below do not reflect the official position of Stand, but are intended to start a discussion:

While governments, groups and individuals are issuing statements left, right and center about the announcement of a ceasefire by the Government of Sudan, it is sometimes difficult for us concerned to really have any idea what it means. Let's try to look at this move with a little perspective.

First off, the number of ceasefires that the government of Sudan has violated in the past is uncomfortably large. No one is denying this. A ceasefire is very tentative measure that can be overturned on a dime, and is often no more than an excuse to regroup, rearm, and redeploy. As Alex de Waal points out, the Government and government-supported militias have undoubtedly broken more ceasefires than the rebels over the past year. So you can't blame the rebels for being skeptical.

There are reasons to be positive about this effort, however. Partly, because there has been no real peace process for a year or so now, and partly because the ceasefire comes after a "peace conference" with no rebels but a few opposition voices, including the Southern SPLM and the Umma Party. In fact, the recommendations of the conference offer some really interesting criticisms of the government, including calling on them to release Darfuris who may be arbitrarily detained, establish a fund to help internally displaced persons and refugees return home safely (and voluntarily!), and create a new Vice-President position in the government for someone from Darfur. Those are some solid, good ideas that, if truthful, could lead to good negotiations.

Finally, from our point of view, I'm glad the UN and Canadian Government are issuing statements of encouragement, but seriously, is that all that's going to happen? If this ceasefire is really to be turned into an opportunity, a few things need to happen on our end.

1. UN mediators (or a Canadian Envoy....hint hint...) need to sit down with the rebels and discover what sort of monitoring methods would convince them of the government's commitment to this initiative, and then set up those mechanisms. It is not implausible to me that the Canadian government would set up some sort of benchmarks that the government of Sudan would need to meet step-by-step to prove their commitment. The US did precisely that during the negotiations for the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement, responding to the attainment of a benchmark with rewards and the failure with punishment. Such benchmarks could include allowing UN troops access to places they have otherwise had trouble monitoring, disarming the Janjaweed militias, setting up real trials for crimes and providing compensation to victims, or allowing unfettered humanitarian access to the entire region. Halting bombing campaigns is assumed also....

2. UNAMID (the joint African Union-UN peacekeeping force) needs to focus on verifying the implementation of the ceasefire and needs to yell really loudly if it is broken.

3. As already mentioned, the rebels need to be brought on board. Discussions about a Qatar-backed peace conference are already circulating. The UN and/or Canada et al. need to meet with Qataris, government and rebels and reach a compromise about how such a conference would take place and where. While I'm glad to see that the peace process is slowly getting started, it won't be a peace process for long if the rebels don't jump on board at some point.

As de Waal mentions, we should all encourage and support a "homegrown" Sudanese solution to Sudanese problems; that said, the international community now needs to help make sure those solutions are actually carried out. Luckily for us, this is something we CAN do (unlike so many of the prescriptions that have been passed around over the past five years), through monitoring and verification, trust-building exercises, mediation, diplomacy and public statements, neutral locations for peace conferences, providing peacekeepers as a way to break the security dilemma, and more such "soft-power" actions of referee-ing. So let's get on it.

A whole other question arises should it prove that the ceasefire is merely dead air...

As always, I welcome thoughts and comments. Continue reading this article...

Have Spoken the Name...and Were Elected

This (hopefully) should be the first of many posts following up on the elections last month. Stand'ers were out in big numbers all over the country, hosting events with candidates, asking candidates tough questions on Sudan, volunteering with big supporters of Stand, and generally making some noise over Darfur. For some evidence, see some of the 30 or so posts on this blog...

...And it was a big success. 51 friends and supporters of Stand were elected across the country, including 8 members of the Conservative Party, 27 members of the Liberal Party, 14 from the NDP, and 2 from the Bloc. These were all candidates who mentioned Darfur or Sudan and helped to make it an election issue this year.

So congratulations to Stand'ers and Stand supporters across the country for making a difference in this year's election. Now all we need to do is hold these worthy politicians to their word and help them make Canada a world leader in ending genocide and crimes against humanity.

Sounds easy? Continue reading this article...

Speak the Name Rewards

As part of the Speak the Name campaign, Stand'ers have offered publicity as well as the occasional volunteers to politicians who talk about the issue of Darfur on the campaign trail. Here's a picture of Stand's own Ben Fine with Borys Wrzesnewskyj, the Liberal candidate for Etobicoke, in exchange for his past commitments to Sudan and Darfur.

Well done, guys!
Continue reading this article...

They Just Keep Coming: David McGuinty

Here's a Letter about Darfur from David McGuinty, the incumbent candidate for Ottawa-South:

October 11, 2008

Dear Stand Canada,

I appreciate having the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the tragedy in Sudan. The brutality in Sudan has reached staggering proportions. Civilians have starved, been beaten and raped, and hundreds of thousands have died of malnutrition, disease, neglect or violence. Millions more have been displaced. We must work to end this crisis.

Upon re-election I will work with my Liberal colleagues to try to mitigate an all-party caucus to address the crisis in Darfur. Many Liberal Caucus members, myself included, have already called for a comprehensive policy for Darfur. Among these measures is the appointment of a high-level regional coordinator. We have also called for an increase of Canadian aid to Africa.

I will lobby for increased resources and support to the UNAMID mission. Deployed January 2008 the UNAMID mission is mandated to protect civilians and uphold the Darfur Peace Agreement. Canada has a duty to ensure this mission succeeds, and a Liberal government will ensure Canada does its part. As a first step, a Liberal government will contribute badly needed resources for the mission, so it can contract the tactical and heavy lift helicopters it needs. I will also encourage our United Nations ambassador to re-energize the Darfur peace process through the US-Norway-Canada UN contact group, and also to re-engage China.

I will push to send more Canadian expert staff to the region for professional capacity building. I have spent much of my life designing and teaching programs for mid-career legal professionals throughout the developing world. By training mid-career professionals in key areas, such as education, law, and governance, Canada can play a crucial role in fostering local civil society and stability. We need to train the leaders of Sudan for tomorrow, so they can gain the expertise they need to succeed.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on these issues in the future.

Kind regards,

David McGuinty

Continue reading this article...

Talking It Up: Irwin Cotler in the National Post

Irwin Cotler has an op-ed in the National Post today entitled "The Issue this Election Forgot." In case you can't tell from the title, this article is right up our alley (e.g. see every other post on this blog). Below are a few excerpts and comments:

In this federal election campaign, important questions about Darfur need to be addressed by the leaders of Canada's major parties: How do we respond to the Sudanese government beginning its sixth year of genocidal warfare by launching ferocious ground and air assaults on its African civilian populations? How do we protect the Darfurian people as the Sudanese government attempts to destroy the relief efforts set up to offer food and shelter to those in need? How do we reassure aid workers whose own lives are threatened by a government-orchestrated campaign of terror? How do we respond to the bloodshed in the Kalma displaced persons camp last month, where the Sudanese government killed 31 people, including 17 women and children?...

...As I have previously recommended, what is desperately needed now is a "Darfur Summit" convening the leadership of the African Union, the European Union, the UN, the Arab League, NATO and the Sudanese government, to implement a "Save Darfur/ Sudan" action plan. This would include the urgent mobilization and effective deployment of the UN-African Union protection force, which could include the 10,000 South Sudan volunteer peacekeepers who are ready to act, the enhancement of humanitarian assistance and protection of aid workers, the rescue of the Darfur Peace Process and the North-South Comprehensive Peace Agreement, both of which are in a coma, the leveraging of China to end its arms sales to Darfur and the implementation of a no-fly zone to stop the indiscriminate bombing of civilian villages.

I have stressed numerous times on this blog that the biggest problem with the international response to Darfur (that is, other than the obvious ones) is a lack of Consistency. There is no strategy, no unity, and no coherency. Cotler's suggestions are precisely the sort of thing the situation needs for the international community to develop a strategic plan that encompasses diplomacy, justice, military protection, and humanitarian concerns. For example, a large group of nations standing together and saying to the Government of Sudan, "you will be supported if you stop the bombings, proceed with elections, hand over international criminals, etc, but you will be punished in these specific ways if you don't."

My only concern with the idea of a "Darfur Summit" is that it would likely be co-opted before it even began by the Government of Sudan's friends in China, the AU, the Arab League and elsewhere. Basically, President Bashir and his cronies have shown a remarkable ability to rally support from other nations when they need it. For this reason, Canada, the US, the UN, and other concerned parties should get together and make sure they are all on the same page before any such meeting (or regardless of whether such a meeting actually occurs anyway). I think Bashir would have a much more difficult time rallying support against a forceful, unified message from the world's most powerful nations.

One of the questions that I'm really glad Cotler points out involves the protection of the humanitarian aid community who are supporting close to 5 million people in Chad and Sudan yet could be thrown out any day by the Government (which threatens precisely that). A possible first step of an international contact group for Sudan could be to make it abundantly clear to the Government of Sudan that any attempt to shut down or seriously interfere with the life-saving aid effort will absolutely not be tolerated. If the humanitarian effort is shut down (piece by piece), this crisis could turn suddenly a lot worse.

Thank you Irwin Cotler for your emphasis of this issue. Continue reading this article...

Another Point for the Green Party

This just in from Laura Bisaillon, Green Party candidate for Charlottetown:

I offer several thoughts on Darfur:

First, Elizabeth May is the candidate who first made and routinely
makes reference to Darfur. She impresses the need for concerted and
effective action in Sudan. You will have read about her ideas and
those endorsed by the Green Party on Point 9 of the Party Platform
Brief, "Looking Forward" at: http://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform

Second, faraway conflicts are the concern of global citizenry for
reasons relating to common resources, ethics, human security, and
human rights. For those in doubt, I urge them to read up on Complexity
Theory. I speak from experience in the field and research in refugee
health in Africa and Canada. I have worked as a Social Support Worker
for Rwandan Genocide survivors in Montréal and Ottawa. I worked in
refugee camps in the Horn of Africa, and was involved in health policy
and evaluation work during the same period. I am personally
disheartened that resolve is not brought to this conflict several
years after I lived in neighbouring Ethiopia. While there are no quick
fixes to complex situations, I am frustrated that this conflict is
unresolved.

Third, I am aware of the links between war and illness, which is a
further reason for *serious* global action to resolve this conflct. I
am involved with the AIDS movement in Canada and internationally, and
see first hand the impacts of war. For a time I was involved with the
Canadian Council for Refugees, and I am knowledgeable about refugee
and immigrant health issues; these are subject of my doctoral research
in Population Health.

I applaud and support you in your advocacy/lobby efforts to bring
about a cease to violence and human rights violations.

Please contact me if you would like to discuss in further detail.

Warm wishes,


Laura Bisaillon
Green Party of Canada
Candidate for Charlottetown Continue reading this article...

NDP on Darfur

In case you haven't had enough of the major parties' positions on Darfur, here's one from the NDP:

Jack Layton and Canada’s New Democrats are united in their support for all efforts to end the violence against civilians in the Darfur region. We continue to support the work of STAND and the Sudanese Diaspora to keep the Sudan crisis on the Canadian government’s agenda. New Democrat MPs, including Alexa McDonough, Paul Dewar, Tony Martin and Bill Siksay, have consistently spoken out about the need for the Canadian government to do much more for the people of Darfur.

Paul Dewar (MP for Ottawa-Centre) is the NDP foreign affairs critic and has been our lead on Darfur. As you may know, he has been instrumental in moving the issue forward in the House of Commons by initiating a study at the Foreign Affairs committee. Paul is also vice-chair of the parliamentary group against genocide and has been active on Darfur in that capacity as well.

There is a growing concern among everyday Canadians that their public and private investments may be directly or indirectly contributing to the crisis in Darfur. NDP Foreign Affairs critic, Paul Dewar noted, "Knowing what we know about Darfur, business as usual is unconscionable." Despite opposition from Conservatives, the Foreign Affairs committee last year adopted an NDP motion to undertake a study of Canadian funds invested in Sudan and explore legislative initiatives to regulate such investments in light of the worsening crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan.

In May of this year, we have called on the Harper Conservative’s take leadership. Jack stated that "this is exactly the kind of peacekeeping role that Canadians have always supported. Canadians would want us to be in Darfur. That sentiment is found right across the country."

Our Party wants Canada to take a lead role in any UN mission to stop the bloodshed in Sudan's Darfur province. Canada could and should commit immediately to the following measures:

• support the United Nations Mission to Sudan (UNMIS)
• offer Canadian troops to complement the advance party requested by the UN
• push for a stronger UN resolution on Sudan
• offer logistical support to the United Nations-African Union hybrid force carrying out its mandate to protect the population in Darfur.
  

New Democrats will continue to speak out on both Canadian and international inaction on Darfur and will lend our support to all efforts to bring peace to this tragically, neglected region.

While I believe this position shows a lot of commitment to the issue and a great deal of promise, I have to reiterate the point that has been made before on this blog: DIPLOMACY. A peace process is absolutely necessary, but unfortunately it is unlikely to come about without a consistent and coherent international position supported by numerous nations. Along these lines, we've suggested the idea of a Special Envoy (or even a all-parliamentary committee) to create a point man in the diplomatic effort. We really appreciate the NDP stance on Darfur and like the fact that they are making it a priority, but if I could add one thing, it would be about diplomacy.

Thanks NDP! Continue reading this article...

Winnipeg's Walk/Run for Darfur (with friends)

Guest Post: Bobbie Whiteman

This sunday was Winnipeg's second annual Walk/Run for Darfur. It was a really great turn out, close to three hundred people participated, a Winnipeg radio celebrity from a popular radio station kicked the whole thing off, we had support from numerous provicial MLA's and of all the federal candidates that the University of Winnipeg chapter of Stand invited, Anita Neville, Liberal MP and candidate for Winnipeg South Center and John Loewen Liberal candidate for Winnipeg South were there standing up for Darfur and participating in the walk. We at UofW Stand would like to thank them both for attending and for continuing to bring Darfur into attention.

Continue reading this article...