Chasing The Flame

Remembering and Looking Forward

Today marks the inauguration of World Humanitarian Day and the sixth anniversary of the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad which killed 22 people – including Sergio.  Though that bombing marked the first time that the U.N. was the direct target of a violent attack, the loss of aid workers is sadly not a rare occurrence – according to Michael Bear at Change.org, 81 have been killed this year alone.

In the Huffington Post, Navi Pillay, head of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, used the anniversary to make a strong argument for supporting human rights in the midst of humanitarian crises, stating, “It is very often abuse of human rights that causes humanitarian crises in the first place…Similarly, if human rights are ignored during a humanitarian crisis, the crisis will often deepen.”  And Mark Leon Goldberg of the UN Dispatch posted a moving PSA as well as a link to an op-ed by Samantha Power from a year ago today.

Tragically, today will also be marked by one of the worst days of violence in Baghdad since June, with multiple explosions across the city, and the U.N. is reporting that two civilian employees of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan were among those killed in the attack on Kabul yesterday.  This occurs just a little over a week after the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to renew their mission in Iraq for another year.  We previously reported that Staffan de Mistura was stepping down as chief of that mission, and we wish his successor, Ad Melkert of the Netherlands, previously an associate administrator of the U.N. Development Program, the very best in moving forward.  As CARE asks in their World Humanitarian Day Post, we all must take a serious look at why aid workers are being targeted more frequently and what we can do to ensure their safety.

China and Diamonds

Today Mark Leon Goldberg of the UN Dispatch pointed out two important anniversaries.  China and diamonds are the traditional anniversary gifts respectfully for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified 20 years ago, and the Geneva Conventions, signed 60 year ago today.  However, instead of running off to Bloomingdale's, the United States might want to consider a more thoughtful gift.  While we have started to reconsider the consequences that our “War on Terror” has had on the humanitarian principals behind international conflicts, it might be time to take another look at the Convention on the Rights of the Child – one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation aimed at helping children – and almost universally ratified, except by the U.S.

Darfur: Are we willing to hold our elected officials responsible for inaction?

This week’s congressional hearings on Darfur and the quest for peace in Sudan could provide the necessary momentum for a shift in the Obama administration’s policy on the region which is currently under review.  Witnesses at the hearings included UN Ambassador Susan Rice, former U.S. Envoy to Sudan Richard Williamson,  Roger Winter, former special representative for Sudan to the deputy secretary of State, and John Prendergast and John Norris of Enough.

Winter, Williamson and Prendergast, who have been working on or in Sudan for decades, urged Congress to take a leadership position, to stand up and stand for the principles that they and many in the Obama administration upheld as they campaigned for their current positions.  They also argued that Congress had a critical role to play as the Obama administration struggled to translate the signals coming from Khartoum.  Winter, Williamson and Prendergast urged the representatives to not be fooled by these signals and to better understand how Khartoum has effectively used the international community as it has continued to wreak havoc on the people of Darfuran d the wider region.  They also urged Congress to take a leadership role in demanding a comprehensive plan for the region, to recognize that the stop, start, piecemeal work was not only not working but was playing into Khartoum’s hands.

It seems clear that the Obama administration is split on its interpretation of events in Sudan and on the best course of action to take in the region.  U.S. Special Envoy Scott Gration continues to argue for incentives (carrots) and to question whether in fact genocide is taking place in Darfur. UN Ambassador Rice takes a much firmer stand on Sudan believing, like many of the other witnesses, that sticks should be used instead and that Sudan has not earned any incentives. She also did not publicly question the legitimacy of the genocide charge. As more of these internal debates come to light, so did the stumbling of the Obama administration’s spokespeople.  If Samantha Power were to update "A Problem from Hell," there is little doubt that she would include the exchange between the press and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs PJ Crowley. Watch it here, and, as you do, reflect on this exchange between the press and State Department Spokesperson Christine Shelley shown in the first few seconds of this clip. .

This infamous exchange has now appeared in books, articles, and documentaries.  It was this response to Rwanda that set the world on fire years later---as they read Philip Gourevitch’s "We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be Killed with Our Families," Samantha Power’s "A Problem from Hell," and watched Frontline’s Triumph of Evil, Greg Barker’s "Ghosts of Rwanda," and Terry George’s feature film, "Hotel Rwanda."  It was the shock, sadness, shame and desire to not stand by while innocent people were raped, murdered and forced from their homes that inspired thousands of people — and many men and women running for office — to dare to say, “never again, not on my watch.”  Indeed, it was their belief that something could and should be done that inspired them, us, to say it.  Power was correct in her analysis: there is no political cost for standing by, for doing little or nothing, but there should be. There should be more than a moral cost, there should be a political one. But, that is up to us, the voters, and this is where the need for leadership comes in again---it's not just that Congressional leaders need to emerge and speak out, that leaders within the National Security Council need to emerge and speak out, leaders within the Obama administration need to emerge and speak out, it’s that we do.  The only cost that will matter is a political cost and that only matters if we are willing to demand payment.

A Disappointing Stance from Sergio’s Homeland

Human Rights Watch reported today that Brazil is using its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council to argue for the sovereignty of nations over the need to address human rights violations.  From abstaining on a vote to condemn the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of Congo to co-sponsoring a resolution affirming the principle of non-interference in Sri Lanka despite allegations that the government as well as the rebel LTTE committed war crimes, Brazil is seemingly aligning itself with China, Cuba, Pakistan, and other countries less committed to human rights.

"Brazil's support for abusive governments is undermining the Human Rights Council's performance," said Julie de Rivero, Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights = Good Foreign Policy

Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent reports that human rights groups in Iran are pleased with Obama’s focus on human rights after the recent elections.  Apparently, support for any one side would only fuel suggestions that Ahmadinejad’s opposition is taking orders from the United Sates.

For a more detailed look at how the elections worked and how power is actually wielded in Iran, check out Good’s handy flow chart and explanation.

Twitter once again is serving as the final bastion of political protest.  The last mode of communication shut down in China during the lead-up to the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, it remains one of the only forms of current updates from civilians in Iran.

Unilateralism in Darfur?

Sunday's New York Times Magazine included an interesting Q & A with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  (One of the gems is Ambassador Chris Hill's advice that Americans consider how our advice is taken globally, particularly with respect to democracy promotion.)  The Q & A is worth a full read, but one thing struck me, and I'd be grateful if anyone could shed some light on what Rice had in mind.  She is quoted as saying, "I have regrets about Darfur, real regrets. I don’t know that there were other answers. The president considered trying to do something unilaterally — very difficult to do."  I have done a little bit of searching to figure out just what unilateral act(s) the president considered, and I've come up empty.  Military?  Economic?  If you understand the reference, please respond in the comments.  And how serious was the consideration of doing something unilaterally?

Meanwhile, see former SYG Kofi Annan's remarks in today's IHT, which concludes thus:

Responding to a claim by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for example, who said Washington had worked "day and night" to end human rights violations in Darfur, Annan smiled before remarking: "I don't know about day and night. It depends how long your days and your nights are."

"The world could not give them 18 helicopters," he said. "We could have done more - and should."

How to Report the Unthinkable

Increasingly, worldwide, rape and other forms of sexual violence are being recognized as serious human rights violations.  In situations of armed conflict and in fragile post-conflict countries, sexual violence is systematically employed to harm and demoralize individuals, break families apart and terrorize communities.

At the IRC, I have interviewed several humanitarian colleagues who work to combat sexual violence and provide care to survivors.  Some operate in cultures where rape entails such disgrace for a woman, clinical and psychosocial outreach must happen in secret; others in more open societies where reform is happening and perpetrators are even brought to task.

And then there is the eastern Congo, where spiraling rape is terrorizing thousands of women and girls.  I have never visited Congo, but read about and watch what is happening there in an attempt to process these horrifying acts. It is almost impossible to comprehend.

The stories of rape, mutilation and murder are unthinkable.  Women and girls are walking targets, left physically damaged and emotionally terrorized.  Accounts of what is happening are so horrendous -- so gruesomely specific -- it's almost impossible to believe.  We are told what is happening -- but why is it happening?

The reporters covering the Congo crisis today join those journalists who, in the wake of the Balkan wars and the Rwandan genocide, exposed the systematic rape that was perpetrated.  In translating the untranslatable, those journalists spurred the world to acknowledge the grave human rights violation sexual violence was.  Today, New York Times’ columnist Nick Kristof calls eastern Congo "the rape capital of the world."

For some journalists -- and for all humanitarians -- continuing to remind the world is a full-time job.  This week, as horrors raged in Congo, I had the honor of participating in a training course for 25 senior sexual violence humanitarian professionals.  The course was organized by the International Centre for Reproductive Health and the United Nations Population Fund and took place in Ghent, Belgium.  Participants included local and international NGO staff members, UN, government and academic representatives from 17 countries including East Timor, Liberia, Pakistan, Sudan, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, among others.

For a little while, far from the desperate regions they serve, these 25 humanitarians learned new techniques for responding to sexual violence.  My role:  to help them communicate with the media more effectively...  or, as my new friend Lillian Kona, a coordinator of sexual violence interventions with the UN Population Fund in Northern Uganda, put it, to "get the press on our side."

To that end, we practiced messaging, speaking with conviction and navigating the sensitivities involved when reporters want to interview rape survivors.  As part of my session, I showed a recent 60 Minutes piece hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper entitled “The War Against Women.”  Subject:  sexual violence in the Congo.  Airdate:  January 2008…nearly a year before the current horrors began.

When the piece was over, I resumed my place in front of the class.  Looking out at the men and women who spend their waking hours serving women just like those portrayed in the clip, I couldn’t help marveling that even they were silenced.  Silenced by the magnitude of the horrors taking place there.  For these brave humanitarians, responding to sexual violence is obviously so much more than a job.  

Bidding goodbye to my new friends, who would soon return to countries where social norms have been disrupted, where gender inequalities have been exacerbated and where -- in some cases -- rape is right now being used as a weapon of war, I couldn't help marveling at the juxtaposition.  All that time, effort and care the organizers of the course had spent teaching these humanitarian professionals new skills…all the time, effort and dedication these individuals had devoted to learning them…all that time, effort and commitment made so women and girls who have been shown an absolute lack of humanity are served better.  It's really something.

"Nobody Wants Another Rwanda"

Commenting on the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a diplomat from the African Union said, “nobody wants another Rwanda.”  To be sure, the DRC has not been consumed by 100 days of genocide.  Instead, its people have struggled through a decade of war, unimaginable violence, including rape with the intent to infect with HIV.  Millions of people have died in this hell and millions have fled their homes for some semblance of safety. The fact that nobody wants another  Rwanda is good news. As is the fact that various leaders including British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner,  and Washington's top diplomat for Africa, Jendayi Frazer, were all due in Kinshasa and Goma and then to attend a meeting with Rwandan President Paul Kagame, DRC President Joseph Kabila and representatives of the AU and UN in Nairobi, Kenya.  Hopefully, this emergency summit will lead to a political solution that prevents another genocide in the Great Lakes Region.

Rwanda woke some of the world up to what happens when you stand by in the face of massive human rights violations. Unfortunately, the world is still asleep at the wheel when it comes to prevention.

Rwanda was not a great mystery in the years, then months, then weeks, then days and finally hours leading to the genocide.  People like Human Rights Watch’s Alison Des Forges,  long-time scholars of the region Catherine and David Newbury, and Rwandan based human rights workers like Richard Nsanzabaganwa (who I wrote about in August) all were writing, speaking, screaming this news.  They gave us more than clues. Likewise, the conflict in the DRC has been well documented as has the lead up to this recent explosion.  Check out these sites for more information: here, and here.

Another Rwanda? Talk about low expectations.  We have to get to a place where prevention matters.  We need to attend to human rights violations before they become “massive.”  This means that our perspective has to shift. We need to pay attention to the many steps that precede forced removal, killing, and rape.  These small steps should inspire crisis summits---and crisis summits with muscle.  Those leaders who take foreign aid, for example, should know that the money they receive has conditions and those conditions include the safety and security of all of their people.  The US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Committee on Conscience and ENOUGH highlight countries at various stages of crisis.  They are aiming for prevention, but they still have to start with a pretty high threshold for a country to make it to their alert status.  I’m not asking for a chicken little policy where every country sits on some imagined verge of exploding.  I’m hoping for--dreaming of--a lower level of tolerance, a higher standard of living. Criteria for this already exists, but we have to enforce it.

Talking Human Rights with On Day One

Along with our friends at UN Dispatch, the team at On Day One has invited three of our bloggers to take part in the latest in their series of online "salons." This week, they're tackling the area of human rights and democracy. Members of their community are submitting questions, and our bloggers (and a few others) are providing some answers.

We'll be cross posting some of the content here at Chasing the Flame. In the meantime, use the banner above to check out the conversation, subscribe to the feed, learn about the bloggers - and react to what the experts are saying.

More on the Miracle

Eight years ago, I visited South Africa to study the country’s Truth & Reconciliation Commission, the TRC.  I was writing my college thesis and fascinated by the miracle nation, and the stunning agency tasked with arighting South Africa’s historical record and promoting reconciliation.

Truth commissions help countries that have suffered massive human rights abuses deal with their pasts and work toward more unified futures.  Although mandates vary, truth commissions generally do this by investigating human rights violations, brokering amnesty deals, drafting policy recommendations, and issuing fact-finding publications.

The most successful truth commission to date was and remains South Africa’s TRC.  And in 2000, it was preparing to close its doors.  Inspired by a comparative study of fifteen truth commissions written by Priscilla Hayner, director of the Peace and Justice Program at International Center for Transitional Justice, I embarked on a paper about the TRC’s legacy of my own.  What were its successes?  Its shortcomings?  What would the next few years hold for South Africa?

The Importance of Intelligent Empathy

By Jonathan Prentice

The lesson we might try to take from Sergio's life (note he is a passive actor in this; we each extract from him, and magnify, that which we want), is the paramount importance of empathy, of attempting truly to understand how others might feel in a given situation. As important as this capacity is individually, I am talking about professional empathy – empathy as intrinsic to engaging in "smarter foreign policy".

This is not necessarily the most apparent quality to draw from a man who could appear quite patrician. But is there any more stark counterpoint to the rose-strewn-streets-of-Baghdad-naivety than Sergio's quietly visceral comment that he would hate – elementally so – to see foreign tanks on the streets of his hometown, Rio, irrespective of how they came to be there? In that comment there is a subtle understanding of others – of appreciating that how certain people feel might be in stark contrast to the "logical" assumptions drawn by others – that merits more than a little reflection.

In other words, we need to think afresh of ways to get serious about our rhetorical commitment to victims and marginalised groups – to empathise with them in a way that is meaningful and to hold ourselves accountable before their judgement.