Womens Work: In post-genocide Rwanda, women play an important role in development

I found a link to this video on my favorite blog, feministing.com. Check it out.

The Rwandan genocide took place in April 1994, when, famously, 800,000 people were massacred in 100 days. "Men were killed in greater numbers during the genocide...Out of necessity, women got more involved," the narrator of this documentary says. Women play an important role in the country now, as it develops post-genocide. This clip illustrates the long-term effect of the genocide on Rwandan society, which has in the past 14 years. It tells the story of a remarkable woman named Jeanette Nyirabaganwa, who lost her entire family in the genocide but who now runs a phenomenally productive coffee farm. It also discusses the importance of women in post-conflict development, something I am going to try to research more over the next few months (as time allows, since I'm finishing school). As Kai remarked on the blog Zuky, "There's some sort of strange, painful, twisted irony in Rwanda's rise from the horrors of post-colonial genocide to become one of the most visibly women-led countries in the world." (Emphasis mine).

I am not an expert on Rwanda nor on Darfur, but I think this model of women in post-genocide development will be central to rebuilding Darfur once the violence stops.

I've also posted this on Protect the Human and will continue to post my pieces about women in development on both blogs.

The Pope and the Holocaust

Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications of several Catholic bishops who have denied the Holocaust, according to an article from the BBC. The article quotes one of the bishops denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers:

Bishop Richard Williamson recently told Swedish TV: "I believe there were no gas chambers. I think that two to three hundred thousand Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers."

His position is less denying the Holocaust than it is minimizing it--we have records of gas chambers and the number I learned in high school was that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust, in addition to about 7 million Roma, homosexuals, and other marginalized groups. Minimizing the scale of the Holocaust, however, is equally dangerous because it lessens its importance as one of the greatest catastrophes of the last century and it disregards the lives of millions who died. In addition, the Pope is a figure much of the world looks to for guidance and he plays an important role in promoting harmony between religions. This action will likely affect Catholic-Jewish relations in the future.

Says Mordechai Lewy, quoted in the article:

We have no intention of interfering in the internal workings of the Catholic Church, however, the eagerness to bring a Holocaust denier back into the Church will cast a shadow on relations between Jews and the Catholic Church.

The lifting of these excommunications, the article noted, had nothing to do with the Holocaust denial and more to do with the politics of the church. There are repercussions, however, given the personal histories of these bishops, and perhaps this Holocaust denial should be addressed by the church. Certainly, driving a wedge between religions is less than conducive to promoting inter-religious tolerance, at the very least.

Zimbabwe's cholera epidemic "man-made"

Crossposted from Protect the Human.

An epidemic of cholera, a disease caused by bacteria from contaminated water, broke out in Zimbabwe in August. According to CNN, a report was released recently saying that the death toll has now reached upwards of 2,700 victims. This report prompted Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe's opposition leader, to comment.

Opposition party leader Morgan Tsvangirai, speaking to reporters, pointed a finger at the Mugabe government. "Cholera in Zimbabwe is a man-made crisis. The problem we have here is coupled with (the) fact of negligence on the part of government to provide the necessary facilities. It shows the collapse of the health delivery system," said Tsvangirai.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 2,755 people have died and 48,623 people may be infected with cholera.

See earlier post: Health care is a human right.

Faxes to end genocide

Obama's president now (that is sooooo awesome to say!) but it's still our job to ensure change really does come to Washington. Number one priority: end genocide in Darfur. Visit STAND's website for information on how to fax a "Checklist for Change" to the White House to encourage President Obama to end the genocide in Darfur. He talked about it a lot as a candidate and had a kick-ass record on supporting anti-genocide legislation as a senator. Let's make sure that, as president, ending genocide remains as important. We can't expect the impossible--you know, peace and prosperity overnight--but we can expect the possible: a real commitment to justice, human rights, and preventing mass atrocities.

Justice coming for Darfur...

I just found this post on the Amnesty International blog (Human Rights Now). It was published five days ago and talks about the possibility of justice, finally, in Darfur. In the upcoming weeks, the International Criminal Court (ICC) should indict Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. The writer, Denise Bell, warns however:

We need to be wary of using the possibility of International Criminal Court indictments as a carrot and stick in seeking to end the conflict in Darfur. Deferring the case of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir sets up a catastrophic precedent whereby politics dictates the course of justice. Amnesty International has advocated against such interference in the ICC from the court’s inception.

So, justice is more complicated than just handing over the indictment.... We knew that; it's just easier to get caught up in the fantasy that injustice might end. Bell's fear is that the ICC will recind the indictments if Bashir stops the killing. The post seems to raise the questions of what good is justice if the killing does not stop and what good is stopping the killing if there is no justice. Justice is important, she emphasizes, because the Darfuris, those directly affected by the six-year genocide, want it.

Health care is a human right.

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote a graphic article, published today, bluntly titled "Zimbabwe Is Dying." Not having much background on the subject of health care or the history and current situation in Zimbabwe, I can't offer much analysis, but the article is too important not to post. Herbert writes that Zimbabwe's life expectancy for men is now 37; for women it is 34--the lowest in the world for both men and women. There is an epidemic of cholera and people have contracted anthrax after eating meat from animals who have died of it. Pointing to the political and economic turmoil in Zimbabwe and Mugabe's brutality, Herbert writes that the health care system is basically falling apart.

The decline in health services over the past year has been staggering. An international team of doctors that conducted an “emergency assessment” of the state of medical care last month seemed stunned by the catastrophe they witnessed. The team was sponsored by Physicians for Human Rights. In their report, released this week, the doctors said:

“The collapse of Zimbabwe’s health system in 2008 is unprecedented in scale and scope. Public-sector hospitals have been shuttered since November 2008. The basic infrastructure for the maintenance of public health, particularly water and sanitation services, have abruptly deteriorated in the worsening political and economic climate.”

(Emphasis mine).

The deterioration of the health care system seems to be both a result of the economic/political crisis in Zimbabwe but with a collapsed infrastructure, the situation won't improve quickly or easily.

Organizations working on this issue include Physicians for Human Rights, Doctors Without Borders, and UNICEF.

Obama shining a spotlight on human rights

I'm going to deviate from our anti-genocide theme for a post and write about another human rights issue that I've been involved with for about three years: Guantanamo Bay. The prison has been in the news a lot lately, as President-elect Barack Obama's transition team tries to figure out a way to close it. According to the New York Times, Obama will announce a plan for closing the prison on January 21, his first full day in office. This announcement raises a host of other questions, many discussed on the NYTs' blog "Room for Debate," including what to do with the prisoners and how to define/redefine detention laws. I'm really skeptical about what he's going to be able to do on his first day in office. Does announcing a plan of action necessarily mean action? If he's too hasty, it might end up being more of an empty, merely symbolic gesture rather than an actual solution to the problem and redefinition of US detention laws.

Despite my skepticism as to Obama's timeline, I don't doubt that he will close the prison and ban torture. I think it is important that his transition team is discussing closing the prison as one of the first acts of his presidency because it signifies that human rights, be it in the form of anti-torture laws or anti-genocide laws, will be central to his policies.

Visit Amnesty International to help ensure that Obama makes closing Guantanamo a priority during his first 100 days in office. In these last five days of darkness, let's all work to keep shining that light on human rights!

Vote or [people in Darfur] die

Please take 30 seconds to vote to make the people of Darfur a priority for the new Obama administration:

VOTE FOR CHANGE!

Making human rights a priority in Obama's cabinet

I just got an e-mail from Amnesty International directing me to call my senator to ask him to bring up specific questions in Hillary Rodham Clinton's Secretary of State confirmation hearing. Check if your senator's name is on the list and to find her or his contact information.

Resources for your Blog

Check out the site linked to by the image below. You can watch President-elect Obama's speech on his position on Darfur and get resources for your own blog.

Be a voice for Darfur

President-elect Barack Obama will begin his term in the oval office in less than 15 days. Although we are seeing much less about Darfur in the news these days, the genocide is still going on and it is our responsibility to ensure that our new president makes good on his promise to end the violence. As senator from Illinois, Obama had an excellent record on anti-genocide legislation and if saving Darfur remains a priority, he'll be able to make a difference. He also spoke a great deal about Darfur during his presidential campaign, which you can read about here.

Be a voice for Darfur by filling out an online postcard that will be sent to the President-elect reminding him of his commitment to ending genocide in 2009.

A Parting Shot at Darfur from the Bush Administration

For all its failings, the Bush Administration has pursued some notable humanitarian causes, including the President's Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The Administration's recent announcement that it will airlift vehicles and equipment to bolster the fledgling United Nations-African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur may well be its final such act. As reported by The New York Times, President Bush ordered the emergency military action ahead of a meeting with Sudan's First Vice President.

The airlift is of course too little too late. A large-scale airlift of supplies early on could have both reduced humanitarian suffering and bolstered the peacekeeping force from the start, rather than attempting to rescue it now, would have been vastly preferable. But having said that, the airlift is a welcome sign of commitment from an Administration heading into its final hours, and a good example for its successor.

President-elect Obama has signaled that he wants to do more in Darfur, and providing sustained US logistical support for the peacekeeping force is a good way to start. US communications, intelligence, and logistics capabilities far outstrip what is available to the force in Darfur, hobbling its effectiveness. If America's new president earnestly wants to do more in Darfur, he could begin by making Bush's 11th-hour airlift a regular endeavor, perhaps complemented by American advisers. Humanity should include among its New Year's resolutions a pledge not to forget the long-suffering people of Darfur.

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.