Laura Heaton's blog

Printer-friendly version

Loading...

Podcast: Improving U.S. Strategy for Africa’s Two Biggest Wars

Clinton in Congo (AP)

The Brookings Institution has published a podcast from last week’s event about Africa’s two biggest wars – Congo and Sudan. Brookings senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon moderated a panel featuring Enough’s John Prendergast, Congo expert Tony Gambino, and Mwangi Kimenyi of Brookings’ Africa Growth Initiative. Listen to the full event here.

Below we’ve summed up some of the key takeaways from the speakers.

The event started off with John Prendergast’s remarks on Sudan, with an emphasis on the Obama administration’s current handling of the Darfur peace process and negotiations on North-South issues. He described the current efforts underway – coordinated by African Union and United Nations mediators – to build a peace process for Darfur and work with the northern and southern governments to prepare for the referendum in the South and make post-referendum arrangements to ensure that the two sides do not slide back to full-scale war. The U.S. government has surprisingly taken a back-seat role, even though the history of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement provides evidence of the value of having the United States lead a group of countries willing to exert pressure on the Sudanese parties. Here’s that explanation:

We have a successful model in peacemaking in Sudan and that is the CPA, the 2005 North/South deal in which African nations led the peace process with a single mediator who had the confidence of the parties, a general from Kenya, and the United States and a few other countries provided very, very close diplomatic support on the ground 24/7 for a 3-year peace process. This doesn’t happen – you know, people fly in for three days and think they can make any kind of progress. You’ve got to be on the ground, on the ground for a long period of time to get gradual shifts in the tectonic plates that are required to align for the possibility of a peace deal. And so, we don’t have any of that. We’re walking away from the one successful model that exists for peacemaking in Sudan.

Prendergast went on to describe an alternate approach, which hinges on high-level engagement from key Obama administration officials.

Tony Gambino, a longtime Congo expert and former USAID mission director there, took the stage next and discussed the increased instability and violence since Congo’s landmark election in 2006. A number of missteps by the international community, carried out by the U.N. peacekeeping force, have not only failed to curb atrocities by armed militia groups; with tacit U.S. support, U.N. peacekeepers backed the Congolese army in a military operation that resulted in the death and displacement of thousands of civilians. The Congolese army itself is as “notoriously abusive” as the armed groups that Congolese soldiers are meant to target, Gambino said. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for one has spoken out about these abuses by the Congolese army, but “nothing has changed.” He highlighted the lack of follow-through shown by the Obama administration:

U.S. policy today towards the Congo badly needs focus. Since [Secretary Clinton’s] trip [last August], the U.S. has sent team after team after team after team of Americans to the Congo to look at what to do. This has resulted in a tremendous amount of activity and things to report on, but is it making much of a difference? I have to say the pithiest critique I have found of the U.S. approach comes from a now-deceased college basketball coach. The legendary John Wooden was known for his aphorisms and I think this one captures the flaw in U.S. policy. “Never mistake activity for achievement.” We’ve seen lots and lots of activity, but we have very, very little to show in terms of any real, measurable, important achievements.

Mwangi Kimenyi commented on the regional implications of the conflicts in Sudan and Congo and suggested that these longstanding conflicts will leave a mark on President Obama’s legacy, in the way that Rwanda haunted President Clinton’s. But he emphasized the role that African countries must themselves play in resolving conflicts.

[Y]ou cannot win the wars in Congo or in Sudan with the United States. Even if the United States was going to enter there with all the military might, that’s not going to be winnable. You would have to work with the African Union, but particularly facilitating the United Nations.

I think where we have seen – and if you compare – look at the case of Liberia, for example. It’s really interventions by the African Union the Nigerian forces supported through the A.U. and U.N., and then through the U.N. itself. So, we have to get the African countries more committed to peace in their region (...)

Mike O’Hanlon’s follow-up questions and remarks from the audience led to other insightful remarks, so the full podcast is worth a listen.

 

Photo: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in eastern Congo, August 2009 (AP)

On Wave of Financial Reform, Congo Captures Headlines

Working for an organization that has focused since its inception on drawing attention to conflicts that remain obscure to many Americans – despite being some of the world’s deadliest – it was remarkable to see Congo in so many prominent headlines recently.

One of the leading stories last week was of course President Obama’s signing of the Wall Street reform bill. But several news outlets delved into the 2,300-page bill and highlighted the provision that addresses the role that U.S. companies play in funding atrocities carried out by militias in eastern Congo.

In a front page story in The Washington Post, reporter Mary Beth Sheridan wrote about the impact the new law could have on thousands of U.S. companies:

"This is one of those issues that is below the radar for about 99.9 percent of Americans. . . . Everyone has their cellphone up against their ear, nobody is thinking of Congo or conflict minerals. But everybody's got some, potentially, right next to their ear," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), speaking recently at the Center for American Progress.

Although little noticed by the public, the provision in the regulatory bill could have a broad impact. It applies not only to electronics companies, which are major users of Congolese tantalum, but also to all publicly traded U.S. firms that use tin and gold.

"This is a law that is going to affect virtually the entire U.S. manufacturing sector," said Rick Goss, vice president of environment at the Information Technology Industry Council.

CNN’s The Situation Room also picked up the story and aired this segment by Mary Snow that features an interview with Enough’s John Prendergast and the viral “I’m a Mac” video by actress and activist Brooke Smith for the RAISE Hope for Congo campaign. (By the way, the video spoof now has an astounding 570,000 views.) Here’s the full clip:

One other prominent article was this analysis piece out of Kigali and Kinshasa by Reuters. Quotes from industry and mining interest groups in the region help illustrate the challenge ahead to ensure that the regulations enacted by the Securities Exchange Commission, the agency charged with devising the plan to implement the law, aren’t weakened by interests who benefit from Congo’s unregulated trade in minerals. Many of those groups seem to have quickly adopted the tactic of crying foul on behalf of the miners whose livelihoods depend on the minerals industry in eastern Congo.

On that point: In reality, of course, the well-being of miners in Congo is forefront on the minds of proponents of this new law. Across the board, from Congress, to advocacy organizations, to U.S. government agencies, to the Congolese government, people pushing for regulation of the mining industry in eastern Congo emphasize the importance of creating alternate employment opportunities and of working closely with industry leaders to ensure that the law doesn’t lead to a boycott. The status quo is far from defensible. The new law won’t be a silver bullet that ends the war in eastern Congo, but it is an important step that confronts some key components perpetuating the conflict: funding for armed groups and lack of Congolese government oversight.

The blogosphere too was abuzz with posts about the new conflict minerals law, culminating today with a post by Congo expert Jason Stearns. He summed up the various points of criticism raised in recent posts by writers critical of the law, and addressed them one by one. Stearns pointed out that while many issues need to be addressed to end the conflict in eastern Congo, regulating the supply chain for conflict minerals doesn’t preclude action on the host of other issues. He wrote:

Yes, I wish we could have greater engagement in strengthening the Congolese judiciary and police. I wish there could be meaningful land reform and that disputes over farming rights could be settled by expert mediators (UN Habitat is beginning to do this). I wish we could have transparent democratic institutions throughout the country. But none of those issues stand necessarily in contradiction with due diligence in the minerals trade. I can't tell you how often I have been in meetings with officials at the State Department, insisting that they help in security sector reform and in paying attention to the return of Congolese Tutsi refugees. Nothing much came of that. Now that we have a chance to help promote meaningful reform in the minerals trade, I think we should seize the opportunity.

Tune in Today for the Anti-Genocide Panel at Netroots Nation

After six years in existence, the U.S. anti-genocide movement that sprang up as a result of the outbreak of genocide in Darfur is valuable example of how a dedicated group of people can bring to light a serious social wrong -- even one obscure from the day-to-day lives of most Americans  -- and convince Americans to care and act.

The Enough Project, the Genocide Intervention Network, and Save Darfur Coalition are teaming up today at the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas to share the narrative of the anti-genocide movement and some lessons learned along the way. The movement literally put Darfur on the map for millions of Americans. Activists have turned out for rallies, sent emails and letters to their elected officials, organized events in their hometowns to raise awareness, and found other ways to creatively press for U.S. leadership to end the conflict in Darfur and promote peace in all of Sudan.

We hope that the conversation will give bloggers here in Vegas and the viewers who tune in via the live stream ideas about how to build a national movement around a niche issue, make U.S. foreign policy accessible to a broad audience, and involve people across the country in policy-making. Here’s the line-up:

-- John Prendergast, Enough Project
-- Martha Bixby, Save Darfur Coalition
-- Janessa Goldbeck, Genocide Intervention Network
-- Omer Ismail, Enough Project
-- Laura Heaton, Enough Project

Help us encourage bloggers to turn out for our panel today! Tweet to #NN10 and tell the more than 2,000 participants here to come to Zero2Sixty today at 4:30 p.m. PT in room Miranda 1/2.

You can tune in from afar at this live stream channel: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nn10-miranda-1-2

Obama Signs Financial Reform, Ushering in New Law on Conflict Minerals

With President Obama’s signature, the highly anticipated bill on financial reform became law today, and with it, the United States also took a significant step to address the mineral trade fueling conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The financial regulation bill includes a provision requiring U.S. companies that import products containing certain minerals to file an annual report declaring whether they source their minerals from Congo or one of the nine surrounding countries, since much of Congo’s mineral wealth is smuggled out of the region through its neighbors. If a company declares that its supply chain passes through the region, it will have to report what steps it is taking to trace the origin of the minerals and ensure that its purchases don’t fund armed groups responsible for atrocities in eastern Congo.

While the provision doesn’t ban companies from importing conflict minerals into the United States, companies will have to publish this information on their websites. Consumers will then be able to choose which products to buy based on a company’s track record in Congo, not to mention give advocacy groups information to organize around.

“The consequence is a market-driven one. Consumers can make their choices,” said Rory Anderson of World Vision, quoted today in a front page story in The Washington Post. “Do they want their electronic products to be funding gang rape in central Africa? I don’t think most Americans would want that,” she said.

One of the key Congressional champions of conflict minerals legislation is Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA). The Conflict Minerals Trade Act, which he co-sponsored last year with Virginia Congressman Frank Wolf (R), was a precursor to today’s law. “Making something like this happen in Washington, D.C. in this climate (…) you don’t understand how difficult it is (to do) what we were trying to do,” said McDermott this morning at an event he hosted for advocacy organizations, to recognize the success made possible by the collective effort of advocates in Congress and in the grassroots movement active across the country. Both the congressman and Enough’s John Prendergast, who spoke at the gathering, praised the indispensable work of activists who kept up the pressure on their elected officials to move the bill through Congress. Here’s a clip:

Congressman McDermott is one of a bipartisan group of representatives and senators who pushed Congress to take action on an important element driving the decade-long war in Congo that is marked by atrocious human rights crimes, including an epidemic of rape. Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Russ Feingold (D-WI), Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA), and Donald Payne (D-NJ), and Chairmen Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Barney Frank (D-MA), who ushered the bill through both houses of Congress deserve special praise for taking a major step to ending the neglected conflict in eastern Congo.

With the news last week that the Senate had passed the financial reform bill, sending it to President Obama’s desk, the Congolese government issued a statement commending the U.S. Congress for its effort to help Congo tackle an issue that has long plagued its eastern region. Translated from its original French version, the statement said that the bill helps address the sensitive topic of blood minerals “while reinforcing our commitment to develop responsible business practices that allow our people to make real dividends from resources in the soil and below the ground of the Republic.”

Now that the bill is signed, the Securities and Exchange Commission has nine months to devise the regulations to implement the law. Industry groups attempted to gut the conflict minerals language from the draft bill, and they will surely fight hard to water down the provision at this stage.

There’s a long road ahead, no doubt littered with ploys by those who currently benefit from the trade in conflict minerals. But consensus is clearly building around the belief that cutting off militias in eastern Congo from a key source of funding is good not just for Congolese civilians and the Congolese government, but also for U.S. consumers and companies that prioritize social responsibility.

What Do Darfurians Think about Peace in Darfur?

Fighting in Darfur has gone on for over seven years now, forcing nearly three million people from their homes. Rarely do we hear more than anecdotal remarks from the displaced people themselves, often quoted by journalists who haven’t even been permitted to set foot inside Darfur, about what should be done to end the conflict.

The release this past week of the first-ever survey of Darfuri refugees on the topics of peace and justice thankfully changed this situation somewhat. The survey, which provides valuable insights into the Darfuri refugee community living over the border in eastern Chad, reveals remarkably high rates of consensus on such controversial topics as the Darfur peace process, the ICC arrest warrant for President Bashir, and what it will take for peace to come to the region (read: so many things that many think it may not be possible) – all of which should be taken into account by mediators and policy makers as they move forward with peace efforts for Darfur.

From April to July 2009, the New York-based organization 24 Hours for Darfur conducted interviews with 2,152 refugees, including some rebels, living in the 12 camps in eastern Chad. Their findings help explain what many refugees feel are the “necessary conditions for a just peace in Darfur.” It’s important to keep in mind that the responses illustrate the views of refugees, not the 2.7 million internally displaced people still living in Darfur. This latter, larger group may have divergent views on immediate needs, threats, and the means to address both. More than anything, this limitation should be viewed as further evidence of the very tenuous nature of the conflict – surveyors viewed it as unfeasible from an access and security standpoint to collect responses from the affected communities inside Sudan’s borders.

The report was particularly timely as news broke that the International Criminal Court would issue a second arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – this time for genocide in Darfur. The news churned up the ongoing debate about whether calling for the apprehension of the Sudanese president will help or hinder peace efforts in the region. Darfuri refugees interviewed in the survey overwhelmingly support the ICC’s action toward Bashir; most of those interviewed cited apprehension and prosecution of Bashir as the most important condition for achieving peace. Notably, only a small percentage (13 percent) said that they felt pursuing justice now through the ICC would endanger prospects for peace, contradicting a concern often voiced by critics of the court.

Interestingly, the vast majority of respondents (92 percent of men and 72 percent of women) said they had heard of the ICC, and nearly all (98 percent) said they think that Bashir should face the ICC. Asked about traditional justice mechanisms, most of those interviewed said that while traditional methods would be useful for helping Darfurians reconcile, these mechanisms would be inadequate, given the gravity of the crimes committed. “If the problem were between the tribes of Darfur themselves, then yes, traditional justice would work,” said one rebel leader. “But the problem comes from the government. The government created this and therefore it needs to go to the ICC.”

In light of these beliefs, it is not entirely surprising that most of the refugees who had heard about the peace talks taking place in Doha said that they aren’t optimistic that the negotiations would meet their needs and bring peace to Darfur. Among those who had heard of the Doha peace talks, 18 percent of men and 22 percent of women said that they believe peace will come from these talks. Furthermore, most respondents said they do not have faith that the Sudanese government, the African Union, the Arab League, and the Qatari government – who is hosting the current round of peace talks – are “committed to peace.” By contrast, over 90 percent of respondents said they believe that the United Nations, United States, and the European Union are committed to peace. Despite these low expectations about the prospects in Doha, there was broad consensus that all rebel groups should attend the talks. “Without a unified voice, negotiations won't bring peace,” said a rebel leader interviewed by the survey team. “One rebel group will only represent its own personal interests; we need all voices represented.”

Reflecting on past negotiations, nearly all respondents (98 percent) said that their own interests had not been represented.

However, the practical challenge of getting everyone’s interests represented at the negotiation table was clearly illustrated by the divergent responses to a question put to each interviewee about which leaders should be present at peace talks to ensure that his or her own needs were taken into consideration. Overall, refugees mentioned exiled leader Abdel Wahid most often, at 46 percent of the time. Since February, Abdel Wahid has refused to join talks in Doha. Tellingly, when asked in a separate question who respondents felt would best represent their interests if an election were held the next day, the most common answer was “no one.” 

Regardless of what happens with the fragile Doha talks, international mediators, Sudanese leaders, and policy makers would do well to give the findings of this report considerable weight as they work to find a lasting solution that addresses political concerns, root causes of the conflict, reparations for victims, and accountability. Perceptions on the ground in Chad and Darfur itself will arguably be one of the strongest forces tipping the scale toward peace or ongoing war. Indeed, as seven long years of failed attempts to end the conflict prove, peace efforts that do not put the needs of Darfur’s people front and center are doomed to fail. At long last, we have a survey that quantifies the perceptions of some of those most affected by the conflict, and we can easily read it as a vote of no confidence in the efforts thus far.

Congo Gold Episode of ‘60 Minutes’ Nominated for Emmy

Nominations are out for the 62nd annual Emmy Awards, and Enough is thrilled and honored to learn that the Congo Gold episode of CBS’ “60 Minutes” was nominated for television’s biggest award of the year. The Enough team in Washington and in Africa’s Great Lakes region collaborated with “60 Minutes” producers Solly Granatstein and Nicole Young and correspondent Scott Pelley to research and shoot the documentary. Enough Co-founder John Prendergast and our newest addition to the field team – eastern Congo researcher Fidel Bafilemba – both appear in the piece.

In consultation with Enough and Human Rights Watch, the “60 Minutes” crew investigated the trail of Congo’s conflict gold from rebel-held mines through Uganda and on to U.S. consumers. They also captured footage illustrating the conditions in gold mines, where children as young as 11 work to pull the valuable metal out of the earth. Watch the segment:
 

CBS also featured an extended interview with John Prendergast and this collection of photos by Enough consultant Sasha Lezhnev.

Since it aired last November, the Congo Gold segment has proved to be an important resource for spreading the word about the conflict in eastern Congo and the role of the minerals trade in fueling the fighting. It helped galvanize the growing movement of Congo advocates across the United States, and provided a valuable illustration of the problem to members of Congress, who succeeded in including a landmark provision about conflict minerals in the financial reform legislation passed yesterday.

We wish our friends at “60 Minutes” the very best at the award ceremony on July 31.

5 Best Stories You Might Have Missed This Week

Here at Enough, we often swap emails with interesting articles and feature stories that we come across in our favorite publications and on our favorite websites. We wanted to share some of these stories with you as part of our effort to keep you up to date on what you need to know in the world of anti-genocide and crimes against humanity work.

NYT columnist Nick Kristof recently took a series of questions from readers and responded via YouTube. One question in particular generated numerous blog posts and comments. Jason Stearns at Congo Siasa wrote a thoughtful post about Kristof’s response to a question about why, from the reader’s perspective, Kristof’s columns often portray “black Africans as victims” and “white foreigners as saviors.” Stearns related the topic back to conflict minerals from Congo, taking some issue with what he views as Kristof’s inadequate attention to political details.

Curious if the timing was just a coincidence… The New York Times released a video from Kristof’s recent trip to southern Sudan, where he traveled to the town of Marial Bai. He accompanied Valentino Achak Deng – of Dave Eggers’ What is the What fame – on a homecoming visit to highlight the secondary school built by Valentino’s foundation. Set against images of children swarming to see him, Valentino reflected on the celebrity welcome he receives during his visits: “And I keep thinking, what I’m I going to do with these kids? (…) And in the little way I am doing, I’m going to make sure something is done.”

International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, followed up the Court’s second arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – this time for genocide in Darfur – with an op-ed in the Guardian. He writes:

“As the prosecutor of the ICC, my mandate is to ensure justice for these Darfuris, the victims of genocide. Our evidence and our conclusions should be taken into consideration by the United Nations security council. (…) The council, which extensively reviewed its failure to act in Rwanda, should grab this opportunity.”

For Global Voices, Rebekah Heacock drew together numerous posts from bloggers in Uganda reacting to the bombings in the capital of Kampala last weekend. The excerpts and photos are personalized, political, angry, confused, and raw.

With the closing of Africa’s first World Cup, the bombings in Uganda suggesting signs of a spillover of the conflict in Somalia, and the ICC’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president for genocide, it was an eventful week. The South African Broadcasting Corporation had a field day with its exclusive interview with President Obama, asking him to react to these stories one by one – and then some. The Johannesburg-based Daily Maverick published this interesting round-up and commentary
from the president’s remarks.

M. Browning, A. Sweet, S. Virk, and A. Fisher contributed to this post.

Sudan Activist Call TODAY

Interested to hear how news of the ICC warrant calling for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is playing out in Sudan? Curious about how activists are responding to this development? Heard about the genocide prevention resolution in Congress and want to know more? Join a call TODAY at 4:30 EST for more background about the ICC in Sudan, specifics about the warrant issued this week, and to find out how to get involved in the latest advocacy efforts. The call features a full line-up of advocates:

  • Megan Fleming, Save Darfur Coalition
  • Martha Bixby, Save Darfur Coalition
  • Omer Ismail, Enough Project
  • Katie Jay-Scott and Gabriel Stauring, iAct
  • Naama Haviv, Jewish World Watch
  • Allyson Neville, Genocide Intervention Network
  • Alex Meixner, Save Darfur Coalition
  • A.J. Fay, Activist

Conference dial-in number: (712) 432-0075
Participant access code: 
236841

Tune in for an informative conversation and get your questions answered.

ICC Calls for Arrest of Sudan’s Bashir for Genocide

News broke today that the International Criminal Court had issued a second arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir – this time for genocide. In a statement from The Hague, the Court announced that its pre-trial chamber considered there were reasonable grounds to believe President Bashir is responsible for three counts of genocide against the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa groups in Darfur.

The three counts include genocide by killing, genocide by causing serious bodily or mental harm, and genocide by deliberately inflicting on each target group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.

In the daily press briefing at the State Department, spokesman Philip Crowley reacted to the news by saying, "Everyone is entitled to a day in court, and we think the sooner that President Bashir presents himself to that court, the better."

A statement  issued by Enough, Genocide Intervention Network, the Save Darfur Coalition, and the American Jewish World Service recognized the Sudanese government’s responsibility to hand over President Bashir to the ICC but noted, “Barring this unlikely cooperation, the United States and the international community should work together to ensure Bashir’s swift arrest.” (Read the full statement for reactions from leaders of each group.)

Today’s news settles a question left open ever since the ICC filed its initial charges against the first sitting head of state in March 2009. The pre-trial chamber originally issued arrest warrants for Bashir and two top Sudanese officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but it rejected the genocide charge, prompting the ICC chief prosecutor to file an appeal. In February, the Court re-opened the possibility that the genocide charge would come when it decided that the pre-trial chamber had used an inappropriately high burden of proof to evaluate whether there was reason to believe Bashir could be tried for genocide. (We boiled down that decision in this blog post at the time.) Today’s decision paves the way for the Court to try Bashir for genocide once he is delivered to The Hague.

Focus quickly shifted from this breaking news alert to expressions of concern about how the news would be received by the ruling party in Sudan. When the first round of arrest warrants was issued in March 2009, the Sudanese government expelled 16 international and Sudanese aid groups from Darfur, leaving an estimated one million people who were dependent on aid vulnerable. In a region where three million people are displaced, any interruption in distribution can leave civilians at great risk. Emergency contingency plans enabled remaining aid groups to fill gaps in basic services, but the few groups who have been able to investigate on the ground report that treatment for survivors of sexual violence has still not been restored, more than a year later.

“President Obama should make abundantly clear his unequivocal support for peace rooted in justice in Sudan by sending the message that consequences will result from any retaliation against Sudanese civilians as a result of this warrant, and by building stronger international support for this warrant,” Enough’s John Prendergast said.

It was already afternoon in Sudan when the news broke today, so we’ll continue to watch this story as it unfolds.

 

Photo: Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir at his inauguration in May (AP)

Activists Abused, Newspapers Closed As Sudan Counts Down to Referendum

Girifna demonstration

This post originally appeared on Change.org's Human Rights blog.

A tense two days fortunately ended with the release of three Sudanese activists detained and beaten by the notorious security forces in Khartoum this week. The activists were stopped on Tuesday while distributing the first edition of a magazine published by the human rights group Girifna, which rose to prominence in the lead-up to the April elections in Sudan.

In a post on Girifna’s website, the group reported that the security officers said it was a situation that “does not involve the police.” When Girifna’s lawyers tried to get involved, they were told that instructions for handling the activists were “coming from a higher authority.”

The three activists — Hassan Ishag, Azzi Eldine Al-anssari and Mohammed Khiri — were released on Wednesday without charge and in good health after being beaten, threatened, and terrorized, the group said. Girifna also reported that their houses had been searched. A source familiar with the situation suggested that the security services sought to convince the activists to become informants.

Not exactly a rousing affirmation of the “progress made so far to expand democratic space in Sudan” that the U.S., U.K., and Norway declared following the Sudanese election. (To be fair, they recognized the observers’ assessment that the elections “failed to meet international standards,” but they mostly chalked up this failing to technical and logistical issues.)

No, clearly any space for journalists and civil society that opened up prior to the election has snapped closed since the international spotlight turned off and President Bashir was declared the victor.

A report by Human Rights Watch last week documented the state-sponsored abuses that occurred prior to, during, and after the April elections. In sum, Human Rights Watch found that "the elections were supposed to help expand democracy in Sudan, but they have had the opposite effect." Events that have transpired in the past week further underscore this damning conclusion.

Click here to continue reading.

 

Photo: Activists with Girifna (courtesy of Girifna)