Security Council meets on Darfur

Today, the United Nations is holding a special session on peace and security in Sudan. The meeting will be chaired by Richard Williamson, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, and Mia Farrow, John Prendergast, and Niemat Ahmadi (Darfuri Liaison Officer to Save Darfur) are scheduled to address the council.

Jerry Fowler and John Prendergast released a report yesterday entitled: Keeping Our Word: Fulfilling the Mandate to Protect Civilians in Darfur. In it, they outline the steps UNAMID would need to take in order to protect civilian lives.

The Devil Came On Horseback

dcoh.jpgNext Sunday, April 6, the Virginia Holocaust Museum will present a free screening of the award winning documentary The Devil Came on Horseback at 2 p.m. The film chronicles the tragic genocide currently taking place in Darfur through the eyes of former U.S. Marine Captain Brian Steidle.

The screening will be followed by a question and answer session with Jane Wells, one of the film’s producers. For more information, visit the VHM website.

On Samantha Power

As an anti-genocide activist and an insider in the greater structure of Holocaust organizations in the United States and abroad, I’m not surprised by the number of hits my site has been getting over the last week concerning Samantha Power. I’ll state up front that I don’t know her, nor have I ever met her, yet I’m familiar with her work, and have admired the stance and positions she’s taken over the years as a human rights activist.

Undoubtedly, the bulk of visitors who are stopping by are looking for the latest scoop on her resignation from Barack Obama’s campaign; or looking for some insight as to why she referred to Hillary Clinton as “a monster.” I’m not going to really address either of those points, as not only do I not have any perspective for fresh insight, but honestly couldn’t care less.

The truth of the matter is the number of people in this country who are actively and aggressively working to end genocide can practically be counted on one hand. If you were inclined to make such a list, Samantha Power would certainly be on it, if not at the top. While I’ve had the pleasure of meeting/listening to/working with others who do what Samantha does — Jerry Fowler, Jen Marlowe, Paul Rusesabagina, Awer Bul, and the host of survivors I see on a daily basis — I can’t think of anyone who’s done a better job of illustrating our country’s lack of motivation in responding to genocide.

Marc Cooper’s recent article on The Huffington Post said it best:

Therein resides the richest and saddest irony of all. Samantha Power has actually lived the sort of life that Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has, for public consumption, invented for its candidate. Though not quite 40 years old, Power has spent no time on any Wal-Mart boards but has rather dedicated her entire adult life rather tirelessly to championing humanitarian causes. She has spoken up when others were silent. She took great personal risks during the Balkan wars to witness and record and denounce the carnage (She reported that Bill Clinton intervened against the Serbs only when he felt he was losing personal credibility as a result of his inaction. “I’m getting creamed,” Power quoted the then-President saying as he fretted over global consternation over his own hesitation to act).

We gave Power the Pulitzer for exposing the, well, monstrous indifference of the Clinton administration as it stared unblinkingly and immobile into the face of massive horror. But we give her a kick in the backside and throw her out the door when she has the temerity to publicly restate all that in one impolite word. Monstrous, indeed.

For those of us who work in this thinly populated profession, having champions like Samantha Power is an enormous benefit. In a single article or news conference, she can not only raise the kind of awareness that it often takes non-profits months to generate, but can even turn the public’s attention to a subject that so often gets ignored or overlooked.

To build on Marc Cooper’s last words, it’s monstrous to think of how long this kind of story stays in the news cycle, particularly when compared against the amount of time we see devoted to Darfur.

Bush’s obfuscation

During a recent interview with the BBC’s Matt Frei, President Bush talks about his upcoming trip to Africa and his stance on the genocide in Darfur. Even though one might be inclined to applaud Bush for his African AIDS policy (which I do think is admirable, particularly for this administration), his response on the Darfur issue is ridiculous with regards to both content and his unceasing negative characteristic of the left, who are the most ardent supporters of a peaceful end to the violence in Darfur.

Frei: You were very tough in your speech about Darfur. And, yet again, you called what’s happening there genocide?

Mr Bush: Yeah.

Frei: Is enough being done by your administration to stop that?

Mr Bush: I think we are. Yeah. You know, I had to make a seminal decision. And that is whether or not I would commit US troops into Darfur. And I was pretty well backed off of it by – you know, a lot of folks – here in America that care deeply about the issue. And so, once you make that decision, then you have to rely upon an international organisation like the United Nations to provide the oomph – necessary manpower… You know, I read – did call it (SOUND GLITCH) genocide, and I think we’re the only nation that has done so. Secondly, I did remind people that we’re sanctioning leaders. That we have targeted [Sudanese] companies and individuals, including a rebel leader, who have yet to be constructive in the peace process. We [are] beginning to get a sense of these things as they’re affecting behaviour. We’re trying to ask others, by the way, to do the same thing. Some of who are reluctant; some who aren’t. And then, finally, I pledged that we’ll help move troops in. And yeah, and as I also said you might remind your listeners, that I’m frustrated by the pace.

Frei: I’ll get on to that in a minute. But, I mean, genocide is just a loaded – it’s such an important word. And you have committed troops – American troops around the world in other cases throughout… Afghanistan. Why not in this case?

Mr Bush: Well, that’s a good question. I mean, we’re committing equipment, you know? Training, help, movement. I think a lot of the folks who are concerned about America into another Muslim country. Some of the relief groups here just didn’t think the strategy would be as effective as it was. I mean, actually, believe it or not, listen to people’s opinions. And chose to make this decision. It’s a decision that I’m now living with. And it’s a decision that requires us to continue to rally the conscience of the world and get people to focus on the issue. You know, you’re right. I mean, we sent marines into Liberia, for example, to help stabilise the country there. And Liberia’s on my itinerary where I’ll meet with the first woman, you know, elected president in Africa – history. And – but, I just made the decision I made.

Frei: Yesterday, Steven Spielberg – the Hollywood director – pulled out of the Beijing Olympics over Darfur. He said the Chinese aren’t doing enough to stop the killing in Darfur. Do you applaud his move?

Mr Bush: That’s up to him. I’m going to the Olympics. I view the Olympics as a sporting event. On the other hand, I have a little different platform than Steven Spielberg so, I get to talk to President Hu Jintao. And I do remind him that he can do more to relieve the suffering in Darfur. There’s a lot of issues that I suspect people are gonna, you know, opine, about during the Olympics. I mean, you got the Dali Lama crowd. You’ve got global warming folks. You’ve got, you know, Darfur and… I am not gonna you know, go and use the Olympics as an opportunity to express my opinions to the Chinese people in a public way ’cause I do it all the time with the president. I mean. So, people are gonna be able to choose – pick and choose how they view the Olympics.

Personally, I find it difficult to take the President’s position on Darfur seriously. Even though he’s admitted that genocide has taken place in Darfur, his continued lack of pressure on Sudan, and his fairly obvious disinterest in committing military personnel gives his entire position a hollow, political feeling. Not unlike Clinton’s stance and repeated obfuscation on the Rwandan genocide.

Spielberg exits Olympic games

As many of us expected, Steven Spielberg announced that he will be withdrawing from any involvement with the Beijing Olympics because of China’s continued support of Sudan and their genocidal policies. The acclaimed director of Schindler’s List was supposed to be an advisor for the opening and closing ceremonies for the games, but he commented that his conscience wouldn’t allow him to continue to work with the Chinese.

“At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies but doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that continue to be committed in Darfur.

“Sudan’s government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these ongoing crimes but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more to end the continuing human suffering.

“I have decided to formally announce the end of my involvement as one of the overseas artistic advisors to the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games.”

Even though the Chinese have appointed a special envoy to oversee the Games, and have put increased pressure on Sudan to accept an international peace keeping force, they continue to do business with Khartoum and show little (if any) concern for the flow of violence in the Darfur region.