United to End Genocide Blog

ICC Prosecutor Requests Additional Action on DRC

05/16/12

By Fabrice Musoni

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

The international criminal court (ICC) has taken a stand on rape used as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced on Monday that he is seeking new charges against Congolese rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda, as well as an arrest warrant for Sylvestre Mudacumura the head of a Rwandan rebel group, both of whom are allegedly responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the DRC.

Ntaganda has been wanted by the Court since 2006 for recruiting child soldiers and using children under 15 to participate actively in hostilities in the eastern province of Ituri between 2002 and 2003. Thomas Lubanga, Ntaganda’s former boss, was arrested and found guilty of these crimes but Ntaganda is still at large.

Prosecutor Ocampo wants to expand these charges to include murder, persecution based on ethnic grounds, rape, sexual slavery, attacking civilians and pillaging. The additional charges reflect the maturity of the court to tackle a major human rights abuse that has plagued eastern DRC—rape as a weapon of war.

This is a timely intervention by the Court and comes in the wake of a statement made by Margot Wallström, the Secretary-General’s special representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, who voiced her concern about the latest wave of fighting in the east—especially in areas that have previously witnessed sexual violence committed against civilians by members of armed groups.

Wallström called “on all parties to immediately refrain from any acts of violence and urge the Government of DRC to ensure the protection of civilians, including from sexual violence,” sending a warning message that the world is watching and that the fight against impunity will continue.

The Court filed another arrest warrant application, against a leader of one of the most active militia in the Kivu provinces, Sylvestre Mudacumura, the Supreme Commander of the FDLR-FOCA. The FLDR-FOCA is an armed group created by people allegedly involved in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 who fled Rwanda and relocated in eastern DRC.

Mudacumura is charged with five counts of crimes against humanity: murder, inhumane acts, rape, torture and persecution and nine counts of war crimes: attacks against civilian population, murder or willful killing, mutilation, cruel treatment, rape, torture, destruction of property, pillaging, and outrage upon personal dignity. The alleged crimes were committed by the FDLR-FOCA between January 20, 2009 and August 31, 2010, in North and South Kivu Provinces.

By issuing new arrest warrants, the Court has done its part to curb the culture of impunity that has evolved in eastern DRC following years of conflict. But it is up to the Congolese government to enforce the arrest these individuals, which is no small feat given that Mudacumura and Ntaganda command support from hundreds of fighters capable to challenge Congolese troops.

Read More

Is Aung San Suu Kyi Calling for the U.S. to Lift Sanctions?

05/15/12

By Bama Athreya

Let’s set the record straight: the news media got this one dead wrong. Aung San Suu Kyi’s own words contradict what is being reported. Here is a transcript of Aung San Suu Kyi’s comments at today’s video broadcast at the George W. Bush Institute, with grateful thanks to our friends at US Campaign for Burma:

“I just heard from a news podcast this morning that Senator McCain is thinking of the suspension of sanctions, rather than the lifting of sanctions, this is a possible first step. I think that something similar to what has been done by the EU, that is to suspend sanctions but not lift all together. That is a way of sending a strong message that we will try to help the process of democratization, but if this is not maintained then we will have to think of other ways of making sure that the aspirations of the people of Burma for democracy is respected. I am not against suspension of sanctions as long as the people of the United States think that it is the right thing to do at the moment. I do advocate caution though, I sometimes feel that people are too optimistic about the scene in Burma. You have to remember that the democratization process in Burma is not irreversible. I have said openly that we can never look upon it as irreversible until such time that the military commits itself to democratization solidly and efficiently.” (emphasis added)

At United to End Genocide, we continue to receive frequent reports from our friends in the ethnic minority regions about continued violence by the Burmese military. Just last week, the United Nationalities Federal Council, an association of representatives from all the ethnic minority regions, put out a statement calling on the international community to maintain sanctions on Burma while this violence is ongoing.  They said:

“It is necessary for the international community to oppose and pressure Bamah Tatmadaw [Burmese army] for its wrong actions. Accordingly, we would like to request the international community not to suspend or lift the remaining political, military, financial and economic sanctions but to wait and see, if the Bamah Tatmadaw does not stop its transgression and military offensives in Kachin State by June 10, 2012.”

Our actions in solidarity with the people of Burma will be heard and noticed. Please join our action to send messages to the U.S. government to keep the spotlight on the violence and human rights violations in Burma and to push for more progress toward peace.

Read More

Keep Sanctions on Burma

05/15/12

By Miriam Young

United to End Genocide has learned that the Obama Administration is likely to lift the investment ban on Burma this week. We agree that the United States should reward political reform in Burma but the when and the how are extremely important. This rush to reward the Burmese government is happening too soon!

We need to act now to tell Assistant Secretary Campbell at the State Department to slow down the lifting of the investment ban. Can you call his office today at 202-647-9596 and make the following points:

  •  If the United States rushes in it will lose all its leverage. It needs to move carefully and gradually, with benchmarks and conditions, in order to maintain our leadership on protection of human rights.
  • People’s lives are still in danger in Burma. The military has not ceased attacks on civilians in Kachin or other ethnic nationality states. (In fact, we received reports just last week that the Burmese military has moved 2,000 troops to the town of Laiza in Kachin State, which is home to thousands of displaced people, sparking fears that a major assault is imminent.) We can’t reward the Burmese government while these attacks are escalating .
  • It’s too soon to tell how real the reforms are and they certainly aren’t reaching any of the people in the ethnic areas.
  • The State Department needs to take more time, and consult with the ethnic nationality leaders, before making an irreversible move to allow U.S. investment into Burma.

You can leave a phone message for Assistant Secretary Campbell at the State Department at 202-647-9596.  Please call today and let him know that we will continue to sound the alarm about ongoing violence in Burma.

Read More

Caught by the Army: The Fate of Burma’s Missing

05/14/12

By Allyson Neville-Morgan

On October 28, 2012, Dau Lum was harvesting corn with his wife and father when the Burmese army came. At gunpoint, they were forced to carry their crops up a mountain to the army camp and hand over their food.

They were then bound and held captive. Fortunately, Dau and his father were able to undo their restraints. They ran from the camp, dodging bullets, as the Burmese army gave chase. They reached safety only when they fell down a ravine and could no longer be pursued.

Dau’s wife was not as fortunate. She remained a prisoner of the army.

Two days later Dau traveled to a location from which the army camp could be viewed safely. He saw his wife at the camp wearing a Burmese army uniform. He has not seen her since. Her fate remains unknown.

Dau holds out hope that he will one day be reunited with his wife. He is now taking care of their 21-month-old baby with the help of his sister-in-law.

Abductions by the Burmese army happen all too often. The army often forces civilians — including children — to porter for the soldiers. Captured civilians risk being tortured and even killed. There are also reports of women being used as sex slaves and children being forced to fight with the army.

Read More

Bosco Ntaganda: Congo’s Most Wanted Man

05/11/12

By Fabrice Musoni

The international community and the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) rarely agree on an issue. But in the case of General Bosco “The Terminator” Ntaganda there is a clear consensus that he should be apprehended and held accountable for his actions.

Ntaganda has been wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) since 2006 for allegedly recruiting child soldiers during Congo’s five-year civil war. Until recently, his arrest had been resisted by Congolese President Joseph Kabila who saw cooperation with him essential for peace.

That changed in April when Ntaganda defected and launched a rebellion against the government from Masisi, his stronghold in eastern Congo. The Congolese army appears to be closing in on Ntaganda after regaining control of key towns in Masisi and fighting is ongoing. Reports indicate that he has been replaced as the leader of the rebellion, which suggest that his days could be numbered.

Since Thomas Lubanga, Ntaganda’s former boss, became the first person to be convicted by the ICC in March, there has been mounting pressure for the arrest for his former deputy. The ICC’s prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo again urged Ntaganda’s arrest. In a letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a coalition of 142 Congolese and international human rights organizations called on the U.S to provide urgent diplomatic leadership supporting the governments of Congo and Rwanda in the arrest of Ntaganda. Identical letters were sent to Secretary Clinton’s diplomatic counterparts in Europe, urging those countries to also pressure the Congolese government to take steps toward ending impunity and bringing Ntaganda to justice.

There is a consensus that Ntaganda should be arrested but the location of his trial remains contentious. Although Kabila has indicated that he would like Ntaganda to face a military tribunal in Congo, it is crucial that Ntaganda is handed over to the ICC to face justice. The government referred the crimes committed in Congo to the ICC in 2004 and as state party to the ICC treaty, Congolese authorities are legally required to cooperate with the court and follow its procedure, including enforcing the ICC arrest warrant for Ntaganda. Should the Congolese government try Ntaganda in Congo, it would need to file a legal submission to the ICC judges challenging the admissibility of the case and demonstrating that the Congolese justice system is genuinely willing and able to prosecute such a high profile case in a fair and credible proceedings for the same crimes. This is unlikely at this stage because years of conflict has weakened the Congolese justice system.

The DRC’s military courts have often failed to meet the minimum international standards for a fair trial, especially as far as competence, independence and impartiality are concerned, and are prone to political manipulation. In numerous cases where suspects were convicted they have escaped from prison.

In the aftermath of botched presidential elections, Kabila is facing a challenge to consolidate his legitimacy in the eyes of the international community but also keep the fragile balance of power in the east. By sending Ntaganda to The Hague, Kabila would be reassuring both citizens and international community that he is committed to ending impunity.

Ntaganda’s arrest is by no means a silver bullet that will bring long-term stability and peace. It is however, a step in the right direction in curbing the culture of impunity, particularly among high ranking officers within the Congolese army who have committed gross human rights violations. With the international community and the DRC on the same side, “The Terminator’s” days are truly numbered.

Read More

Bridging the Genocide Prevention and Conflict Prevention Agendas

05/11/12

By Daniel Sullivan

Rwanda Genocide Memorial

Excerpts of Comments by United to End Genocide’s Daniel Sullivan at the Alliance for Peacebuilding Annual Conference

Genocide prevention and conflict prevention efforts are closely related but not always in synch and indeed at times butt directly against each other. At first glance they might be thought of as two agendas on the same continuum, one in which genocide represents the worst consequences of conflict and in which any conflict prevention efforts inherently also work to prevent genocide. But a closer look reveals that the two prevention efforts are more of a Venn diagram where they overlap almost completely, but are at direct odds in the small areas where they do not.

One area in which conflict prevention and genocide prevention efforts can be at odds is when the very pursuit of peace agreements sets up the conditions for atrocities. Retrospectively, it could be argued that this is what happened with the Arusha Accords ahead of the Rwanda genocide in 1994 and in Bosnia in the early nineties. Alex Bellamy makes this argument and also points out that conflict prevention activities may inadvertently create incentives to commit atrocities as rebels seek a seat at the negotiating table at times of transition.

Another area where the genocide and conflict prevention efforts can work against each other is in creating moral equivalency for the sake of ending conflict, but at the risk of ignoring ongoing atrocities. This is seen in Sudan today. When South Sudan took over the town of Heglig in Sudan the international community was quick to condemn the move as a dangerous violation of sovereignty. The United States, the African Union, the Arab League, and the United Nations Security Council all demanded that the South Sudanese army withdraw from Heglig and that both sides return to the table. In the context of a risk of return to war between the North and the South this was measured and necessary.

However, the international response ignored the greater context in Sudan which includes ongoing atrocities. Sudan has been bombing civilians and blocking food aid to two of its own states, South Kordofan and Blue Nile for almost a year and with only late and tepid international denunciation. President Obama should be credited for finally releasing a video that directly addressed the Government of Sudan calling for an end to bombings and access for humanitarian aid, but it is telling that this first direct address came only in the context of the North-South threat and many months after atrocities had begun. It can be argued that the very same dynamic was in play in 2003 and 2004 as the international community focused efforts on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and the South and failed to pay attention to the outbreak of atrocities in Darfur.

In the end, conflict prevention and genocide prevention efforts are more alike than at odds, but a deeper look at those areas where they do diverge is important in bridging the two agendas. The discussions sponsored by the Alliance for Peacebuilding are an important start to that conversation and may very well lead to ways that both agendas can be enhanced.

Read More

Faith, Hope and Courage in Burma: A Mother’s Story

05/10/12

By Allyson Neville-Morgan

We had just returned from Myu Jat Aung’s funeral when we met Nang Bauk and her two youngest children: a 19-month-old wrapped on her back and a four-year-old hiding by her legs. She shared her story with us, fighting through tears as she spoke.

Nang Bauk explained that the Burmese army had attacked her village. Amid the gunfire, she and her husband had been forced to flee their home with seven children in tow.

As if the story wasn’t bad enough, her husband—a Baptist minister—had returned to the village get supplies in the aftermath of the violence. He was found by the Burmese army and captured.

Nang Bauk had not heard news of her husband in over a month, but hopes that he is alive and will be released soon. She now cares for their family in an internally displaced persons camp near the Chinese border. Given the close quarters and poor sanitation in the camp, she worries about disease and prays that her children will stay healthy.

Thanks to mothers from the surrounding community, a local humanitarian aid group has been organized to provide food and other services for displaced families like Nang Bauk’s. But, the Burmese government has largely prevented international aid groups from entering the region and the global community is paying very little attention to the attacks on innocent men, women and children in Kachin State.

While we were there, the Burmese army was escalating its troop presence in the area, causing further alarm to those who have already been through so much. However, even amid the fear of Burmese army attacks, the amazing courage and strength of Nang Bauk and the other Kachin mothers was clear. In this time of great turmoil, they are pulling together—for their neighbors, their families and, most of all, their children.

Make a gift to United to End Genocide so we can fight for Nang Bauk and mothers everywhere struggling to protect their families amidst violence and uncertain futures. Thank you for your support.

Read More

Senator Webb is (still) wrong on Burma

05/10/12

By Tom Andrews

The following was originally posted on The Hill’s Congress Blog.

Senator Webb, perennially oblivious to the brutality of the Burmese military government, has always opposed United States economic sanctions on the junta. Despite his attempts to gut them, U.S. sanctions were not only maintained but strengthened and are beginning to produce important results.

Now, in a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, Senator Webb is attempting to use the progress made in the April 1 elections as a pretext for repeating his call. In other words, he was first against them because they were supposedly not working and now he is against them because they are. This, despite clear evidence that the regime continues to make war on many of its citizens, recently attacking and killing ethnic minorities in Kachin State.

It’s certainly promising that some advances toward a more democratic Burma have been made. This progress should be encouraged. However, there is so much yet to be accomplished and we must recognize that this is the beginning of the road, not the end. The small steps forward on democracy can easily be undone and there are still ongoing and widespread atrocities being perpetrated by the army in Burma’s ethnic national states.

I just returned from one such state, Kachin, where I witnessed the escalation of Burmese troops and spoke with families fleeing the army’s attacks. The situation there continues to worsen. I met people like Nang Bauk, whose village had been attacked and husband captured, and the family of an elderly man who had been shot by the army while tending to his crops.

Recent reports indicate that 2,000 troops had moved in on the town of Laiza, which is home to thousands of displaced people, sparking fears that a major assault is imminent. Is this the type of behavior that should be encouraged?

Being cautious when easing restrictions on the Burmese regime isn’t just about maintaining consequences for ongoing bad behavior. It’s recognizing that years of pressure have encouraged a desire for progress. We must exercise prudence in removing this pressure by gradually rolling back sanctions in exchange for verifiable changes on the ground. The United States should also be clear about what it considers to be the benchmarks of progress.

As a starting point, the U.S. should require that the Burmese government end gross violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law; enter meaningful collective nationwide negotiations that lead to a political settlement with ethnic national groups; release all political prisoners and repeal laws that prohibit basic freedom including freedoms of assembly, speech, and press; implement constitutional changes that enable a civilian government to hold the military accountable; and establish the rule of law, including the creation of an independent judiciary.

What many people don’t know is that Burma is home to some of the longest running conflicts in the world. It has the highest number of child soldiers. There are decades of well-documented cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity, particularly against Burma’s ethnic national population. It’s going to take time and effort to address these challenges.

Even worse than rewarding the regime prematurely by rolling back sanctions, U.S. companies would actually be in a position to further exacerbate atrocities by rushing into Burma prematurely. At this point, the Burmese regime and its cronies still control the most lucrative sectors of the economy—including natural gas, gems, timber and mining—exploiting Burma’s natural resources at the expense of the people. These men with blood on their hands are exact same people that U.S. companies will be dealing with as they rush to invest.

In Kachin State—home to major dam projects and adjacent to the new Shwe oil and natural gas pipeline project—Chinese investment is fueling the current conflict.  With an eye to their economic interests, the Burmese army broke a 17-year ceasefire when they launched a military offensive last June. In less than a year, tens of thousands have been displaced from the homes because of the Burmese army’s attacks.

The attacks by the army in Kachin underscore two important points: first, the ongoing need for political agreements between the central government and each of Burma’s ethnic national groups and second, the Burmese army is still willing to employ the same brutal tactics today to target minorities that it has for decades.

The United States has led the international community in support of peace, human rights and democracy in Burma for years. Burma is at the beginning of a crossroads and U.S. leadership is being tested. By hastily removing sanctions the risk of reinforcing and exacerbating rights violations is great. By exercising patience and prudence, the U.S. can support real progress that lasts.

Read More

Sudan and South Sudan: On the Brink of War

05/09/12

By Shannon Orcutt

Bombing on April 23rd in Bentiu

After months of increasing tension and two weeks of outright fighting between Sudan and South Sudan, the international community has ramped up diplomatic efforts to avert a return to full-scale war between the two recently separated countries.

African Union & United Nations Respond

On April 24, the African Union (AU) passed a resolution calling for both parties to cease hostilities within 48 hours, withdraw their forces, enact a previously agreed upon border security mechanism, cease supporting rebel groups, end inflammatory speech, and redeploy forces from Abyei within two weeks.

The UN Security Council passed a similar resolution backing the AU communiqué, and threatening sanctions on both countries if they do not cease fighting and return to the negotiating table. This is a welcome step and particularly noteworthy given prior Chinese and Russian reluctance. Sudan and South Sudan have both agreed to the AU plan and have until May 16 to resume negotiations and 90 days to reach an agreement or face international arbitration.

Also in April, President Obama issued a video message to the people of Sudan and South Sudan. In the message, he called for a cessation of hostilities, humanitarian access and an end of support for armed groups.

Lack of Agreement on Oil Revenue Sharing Prove to be Significant Cause of Conflict

Tensions between Sudan and South Sudan reached a boiling point in April. Ground attacks from both sides and aerial bombardments from Sudan spilled across the shared border. While a return to war is in the interest of neither country, the failure to resolve several divisive post-independence issues such oil sharing, border demarcation and the disputed Abyei region make it unlikely that relations between Sudan and South Sudan will mend any time in the near future.

The increased efforts by the international community came after South Sudan took control of the oil producing region of Heglig. South Sudan’s ground attack came in response to an escalating aerial bombardment campaign by the Sudanese military. Since November, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s forces have bombed refugee areas, a United Nations compound, oil installations, and towns across the border in South Sudan. According to the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), bombing by Sudan has killed at least 16 civilians and injured an additional 34 in South Sudan’s Unity state during the month of April. While South Sudan has been incredibly patient given Sudan’s provocation, the invasion of Heglig on April 10 further escalated the situation and ultimately played into Bashir’s hands as the government has used the occupation to rally internal public support and international condemnation.

In response to the occupation of Heglig, President Bashir threatened to liberate the southern citizens from South Sudan’s ruling party stating that he will “eliminate this insect completely.” Sudan’s bombing campaign against South Sudan is just the latest act of violence against civilians and over the past year the Sudanese military have continued attacks in Darfur, invaded the disputed Abyei region, and instigated a brutal campaign against civilians in South Kordofan and Blue Nile.

Role of the International Community as Atrocities Continue and the Humanitarian Situation Worsens

The international community cannot let the resumption of fighting along the border distract from ongoing attacks in Darfur, the government of Sudan’s continued atrocities in South Kordofan and Blue Nile, or the worsening humanitarian situation. The international community, including the United States, should also refrain from portraying Sudan and South Sudan as morally equivalent. While both have broken international law, Sudan’s provocations and targeting of civilian areas cannot be justified and should be regarded as serious violations. Attacks by the Sudanese government on civilian areas along the border have created a refugee and humanitarian crisis which cannot be overlooked.

The United States must take action to de-escalate the conflict and address the humanitarian crisis. The U.S. government should lead the UN Security Council in holding perpetrators of violence against civilians in Sudan and South Sudan accountable and by working with members of the international community — such as China, the Arab League, and African Union — to exert a concerted and coordinated effort to pressure both sides to immediately cease hostilities and launch a robust effort to encourage a solution through political negotiation.

Read More

Congo Conflict Minerals Legislation Becomes Law in Maryland

05/07/12

By Rebecca Dennis

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signs the Maryland State Procurement and Congo Conflict Minerals Bill into law (Photo credit: Chloe Christman/Enough Project)

Maryland Becomes the Second State to Pass Legislation on Congo Conflict Minerals

Last Thursday, the state of Maryland took a definitive step toward curtailing the use and trade of conflict minerals when Governor Martin O’Malley signed the Maryland State Procurement and Congo Conflict Minerals Bill into law. Maryland is now the second state to adopt legislation. California passed a similar bill in September and Massachusetts is also considering legislation.

Under the new law, which was introduced last January by Delegate Shane Robinson, the State of Maryland is prohibited from doing business with companies that do not comply with federal disclosure requirements on conflict minerals. The federal requirements address the need for greater transparency in product supply chains. Companies must report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) the use of any mineral materials from Democratic Republic of Congo or neighboring states, and whether or not the procurement of those minerals is in way financing the ongoing violent conflict in the region.

United to End Genocide applauds Delegate Robinson, his colleagues and the people of Maryland for taking a strong stand against the funding of mass atrocities through the trading of conflict minerals.

What are Conflict Minerals?

The Democratic Republic of Congo is an extremely mineral rich country that includes deposits of gold and the ores used to produce tin, tantalum and tungsten (commonly used to create important components of popular electronic products such as cell phones, mp3 players and tablet computers). However, the profits from the mining and sale of minerals are rarely invested back into the communities from which they are mined. Instead, the sale of these minerals serves to fund various armed groups responsible for the ongoing violent conflict and mass human rights violations that have plagued Eastern Congo since the mid 1990s.

Delays Hamper Implementation of Federal Disclosure Requirements

The passage of the conflict mineral bill in Maryland is a strong show for the federal conflict mineral legislation. Although Dodd-Frank passed in 2010, many of the bill’s provisions have been highly criticized by some corporations, politicians and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as too costly and difficult to implement. The SEC, which is responsible for releasing the rules that would allow the provision to be implemented, has massively delayed the process. The delay has been a source of frustration for human rights activists, who closely follow the ongoing atrocities in Congo and are worried that the final rules of the provision may be watered down. Concerns over the perceived cost and consequences of the federal conflict minerals measure (known as Section 1502) will be the topic of debate at a Congressional hearing on May 10.

Read More