A new year, a new president, a new chance for Darfur?

We’re looking toward a new year, a new president, and maybe an end to genocide in Darfur. In his Sunday New York Times column, “A New Chance for Darfur,” Nick Kristof summarized a memo Ambassador Richard Williamson, President Bush’s special envoy to Sudan, wrote to the president this fall. In brief, the steps Williamson outlined were 1) the United States could jam all communications—telephones, cell phones, Internet—in Khartoum for a period of time to demonstrate Sudan’s weakness; 2) the US could apply “progressive pressure” to Port Sudan by placing naval ships near the port, searching or turning back ships, and finally halting or quarantining oil exports from Sudan; and 3) the US could destroy Sudan’s military aircraft that flies on offensive missions in Darfur, in violation of the United Nation’s ban.

Kristof acknowledges that these actions are extreme but says “genocide is pretty serious, too.”

He also points out that if President-Elect Barack Obama has the political will—and given the size and intensity of the anti-genocide movement he has the popular support—we may be able to end the genocide. Bashir is afraid of the president-elect because he understands the gravity of genocide and the importance of international justice. Kristof writes, “If Mr. Obama and his aides can work with Europe, China and Qatar to keep the heat on—and to make clear that Sudan has no choice but to hand over President Bashir once the [International Criminal] court issues the arrest warrant—then we just might avert a new war and end the first genocide of the 21st century in the new year.”

Genocide Prevention Task Force: Marching orders for the next administration

Just when we thought genocide would disappear completely from the world's headlines, the United States Institute of Peace Genocide Prevention Task Force has issued its final report. It is a landmark for genocide prevention efforts, not least because the Task Force features genuine policy heavyweights, including former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former Defense Secretary William Cohen.

The report begins with welcome clarity: "People of conscience rightly demand: 'never again.' There is no doubt that genocide and mass atrocities exact a horrific human toll. They constitute a direct assault on universal human values, including, most fundamentally, the right to life."

Equally as important, however, is how the report frames genocide as an issue for US foreign policy:

"Genocide and mass atrocities also threaten core U.S. national interests.

They feed on and fuel other threats in weak and corrupt states, with dangerous spillover effects that know no boundaries. If the United States does not engage early in preventing these crimes, we inevitably bear greater costs—in feeding millions of refugees and trying to manage long-lasting regional crises.

In addition, U.S. credibility and leadership are compromised when we fail to work with international partners to prevent genocide and mass atrocities."

At last, the crux of the matter! Genocide isn't simply a moral atrocity, it is a geopolitical threat. Building on this conclusion, the report outlines several excellent and long-overdue suggestions to make genocide prevention- at last- a core object of American foreign policy. Most apposite to this blog's purposes are the recommendations to direct the Director of National Intelligence to prepare an annual, global analysis of the threat of genocide, and the creation of an interagency Atrocities Prevention task force to respond and prevent escalating situations of mass violence.

Even in an age of climate change, economic collapse, and war, these are inspired recommendations that ought to be on the top of the pile for the next administration. This won't be easy, as The Economist reports. But in dealing with genocide, that should deter no one, for as the Task Force report make clear, the costs of genocide, both moral and geopolitical, are greater than any of us can bear.

STANDfast against genocide!

  December 3 is fast approaching and with it STANDfast.  STANDfast is an annual fundraiser STAND: A Student Anti-Genocide Coalition created in order to raise money to protect the civilians in Darfur and eastern Burma.  By registering today and encouraging your friends and family to do the same, you can help protect the vicitms of these humanitarian crises.  It does not take much to make a difference; a donation of $3 can help a woman safely collect firewood for one week and $5 helps send warnings of attack to villages in eastern Burma.  

Click here to register for STANDfast. 

A Not So New Development

There isn't really much to say - Sudan's President, in the wake of genocide charges is offering a new ceasefire in Darfur. The rebel groups do not trust him, after having been disappointed in the past, and reject the offer without seeing action.

See for yourself -

Cease-fire Offer

Rejection of the Offer

Of Candidates and Conflict

With the economy in a tail-spin and a dire global security situation, America's voters have plenty to consider as they vote for their next President. In the face of such immediate concerns, it's naive to think that the candidates' stance on genocide prevention and ethnic conflict will be an issue of any significance to the outcome on November 4. But it's not immaterial, either, even to those voters who don't consider themselves part of the "anti-genocide constituency." The candidates' views on Darfur and other conflict-ridden areas sheds light not only on issues of conscience, but also on the orientation of foreign policy.

Genocide and ethnic conflict is stoked by instability, which the US government has also recognized fosters terrorism. By recognizing that the same socio-political instability that leads to genocide threatens US national security generally, Presidential candidates display a nuanced understanding of foreign policy. It's a welcome sign, then, that Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain all signed a May 2008 letter pledging their "unstinting resolve" to ensure "peace and security for the people of Sudan." Senators Obama and McCain, the eventual major-party candidates for the Presidency, also both expressed a willingness to intervene to stop genocide in their second debate.

Nevertheless, one candidate is clearly better poised to address the instability that threatens both future genocides and future threats to US national security: Barack Obama. Senator Obama's chief qualification in this regard is that he would immediately bring much higher political capital to the global stage. In a Bush-weary world, Mr. Obama would represent welcome change to European and African governments, all crucial allies in the fight against extremism in all its forms. Of course, popularity will not sustain a robust foreign policy. But throughout the campaign, Senator Obama and his advisers have repeatedly stressed the importance of the non-military ("non-kinetic") dimensions of national security, suggesting that such dimensions will assume prominence in an Obama foreign policy. The non-profit Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS), moreover, notes that Obama has received an "A" for his work on Darfur in the Senate, while McCain has been slapped with a "C." "Senator Barack Obama," concludes CGS, "has a firmer grip on the conditions of the Sudanese people and action desperately needed to make the end of genocide in Darfur a reality."

Whatever the election's outcome, though, the next president can take a number of steps to reduce the threats posed by socio-economic instability. The next administration should instruct the Pentagon's new Africa Command to serve as a model for military-civil cooperation in intelligence, economic development, and civil society enhancement. The possibility of a United Nations-sponsored "rapid deployment force," designed to enable UN-sanctioned humanitarian interventions, should be explored. Most of all, the next administration should take the opportunity to reintroduce itself to the world as guarantor of global stability, security, and prosperity. America's conscience, and it's long-term interest, do not permit it to be otherwise- something that the past eight years have proven at such cost.

Introducing A Matter of Conscience

As America votes, we inaugurate A Matter of Conscience, a blog devoted to identifying the precursors of genocide- and helping to ensure that it never happens again.

This blog originated with former members of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's Student Genocide Prevention Board. But it is for all of us- all of us who believe that preventing the next genocide is simply A Matter of Conscience.

Whether it's to highlight ethic violence, express solidarity with its victims, or simply to follow along, we invite you to visit often.

--The founders.