Genocide Arrest Warrant For Bashir

• ICC Genocide Warrant: What does it mean?
  What the ICC’s new arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir really means
• ICC Issues Arrest Warrant for Omar al-Bashir on Charge of Genocide
  The International Criminal Court’s Statement
• Reactions from the Sudanese Government
  Government of Sudan’s response
• US says Sudan’s president should go to Hague (AFP)
  U.S. State Department response
• Rights Groups Respond To New “Genocide” Arrest Warrant For President Bashir
  Save Darfur Coalition and partners response
• TAKE ACTION: Protect Civilians and Support Justice
  Tell the Obama Administration to prevent a repeat of last year’s merciless retaliation against civilians by the Khartoum regime

Referendum on Southern Secession

• Opinion: In Sudan, War Is Around the Corner (New York Times)
  Dave Eggers and John Prendergast write about the United States’ responsibility to prevent a return to war in South Sudan
• South Sudan religious leaders back independence (AFP)
  Christian and Muslim leaders in south Sudan call for people to choose independence in January’s referendum
• South Sudan Envoy Calls Talks With Khartoum ‘Peaceful Divorce’ (VOA)
  Voice of America on negotiations between the SPLM and GOS

Other Important Sudan Related News

• PROMISES, PROMISES: US fails to punish Sudan (AP)
  The Obama Administration’s response (or lack thereof) to Khartoum’s bad behavior
• Darfur violence kills 221 in June: peacekeepers (Reuters)
  Another deadly month in Darfur
• US, Britain, Norway ‘deeply concerned’ on Sudan (AFP)
  Sudan Troika express concern over the deteriorating security situation in Darfur and the repressive behavior of the Sudanese Government since April’s rigged elections.
• Sudan’s Army Says It Has Driven Rebels From New Darfur Base (Bloomberg)
  Sudan’s army claims to have driven JEM from their base in western Darfur
• Sudan to close border with Libya (BBC)
  Sudan shuts it’s border to “protect travelers from ‘rebels and outlaws’”
• Escalating Violence In Post-Election Sudan
  The situation in Darfur has rapidly deteriorated since Sudan’s April elections

The news broke online when the ICC issued a press release announcing its second arrest warrant against Omar al-Bashir, this time for three counts of genocide:

“[T]here are reasonable grounds to believe [Omar al-Bashir] responsible for three counts of genocide committed against the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups, that 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.”

Media Coverage:

After the ICC issued its press release, BBC News was among the first of the primary media outlets to report the story online. Traffic from those who took an early interest in the story made it one of the most frequently tweeted and posted internet sources for people looking for the essential information on Monday morning.

The Associated Press was also a frequently referenced information source among tweeters, bloggers, and Facebook users who wanted to spread the word about the warrant. In this article, AP reporter Mike Corder calls the three charges against al-Bashir “a move that will pile further diplomatic pressure on his isolated regime” and noted that this is the first time the ICC has issued charges of genocide.

CNN added commentary on the AU’s reaction to ICC charges against al-Bashir:

“The African Union this year urged the court to delay war crimes proceedings against Sudan’s president, saying a decision allowing genocide charges harms peace efforts. ‘The African Union has always emphasized its commitment to justice and its total rejection of impunity,’ it said in a statement in February. ‘At the same time, the AU reiterates that the search for justice should be pursued in a manner not detrimental to the search for peace. The latest decision by the ICC (International Criminal Court) runs in the opposite direction.’”

Reuters released a piece with statements from Sudanese officials later in the day:

“Bashir says the allegations made by the ICC, the world’s first permanent court for prosecuting war crimes, are part of a Western conspiracy. The ICC warrant was the first issued against a sitting head of state by the court.

Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem, Sudan’s ambassador to the United Nations, called the new arrest warrant a ‘malignant and desperate attempt’ to destabilize the country.

‘We condemn this move in strongest terms and we are confident that the Sudanese people and all peaceloving nations will ensure the demise of this criminal institution,’ Abdalhaleem said in a statement, referring to the ICC.”

Information from the UN:

The UN News Centre also covered the story and provided further information on the case against al-Bashir and how the UN Security Council has reacted to it:

“ICC’s pre-trial chamber at that time [of the first arrest warrant] rejected Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s application to charge Mr. al-Bashir with genocide, ruling that there was insufficient evidence. In February, the appeals chamber called for adding the charge of genocide to be reconsidered, finding the standard of proof set by the pre-trial chamber to be too demanding at the arrest warrant stage, amounting to an ‘error of law.’…In May, the ICC’s judges referred Sudan’s lack of cooperation in failing to arrest the Mr. al-Bashir and other indictees – including Ahmad Harun, a former national government minister of the interior – to the Security Council.”

Twitter:

Before noon, the following tweet by BreakingNews reached “Top Tweet” status:

“International Criminal Court charges Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with 3 counts of genocide in Darfur http://bit.ly/dC3lpa”

User robcrilly was among the first to offer criticism on Twitter:

“Campaigners will celebrate ICC warrant on genocide charges for Bashir #darfur. But ultimately meaningless. Just more grandstanding”

However, there were also expressions of optimism from users like elctrcityscape, who tweeted,

“Soon the victims of the #genocide in #darfur will have justice!”

Activists have also used this social media platform to  urge the world to refocus on the crisis in Darfur. Many are using tags like #darfur and @statedept in their tweets to join the larger conversation to urge action regarding Darfur. Susan Morgan of Pax Communications tweeted,

“With news of Bashir’s warrant for #genocide, I ask @statedept to do all in its power to prevent retaliation against civilians in #Sudan.”

Others have retweeted statements from noted people involved with the crisis in Sudan. Within three hours, sixty five other users had retweeted the following tweet from Nicholas Kristof:

“Sudanese president Bashir indicted for genocide in Darfur. http://bit.ly/bLihc3 We need global pressure to arrest him.”

Facebook:

Kristof also took the story to Facebook, posting the following on his page:

“The ICC has just indicted Pres. Bashir of Sudan for genocide in Darfur, in addition to previous charges of crimes against humanity. Now the challenge is to see him delegitimized, ousted and brought to trial — a step toward ending impunity for dictators. But in the meantime, I fear he may unleash a new civil war in Sudan between north and south.”

Kristof has 163,522 users following his page, via the “like” feature. His Facebook page also has links to his blog, where he has previously covered Darfur.

There was also some commentary on the Save Darfur Coalition’s page, where users can find a direct link to the ICC Press Release. Comments on the posting included expressions of joy, but also of hesitance. For example, user Bridgette Hanning commented,

“Fantastic news . . . I hope the NGO’s have braced themselves.”

Blogs:

Many bloggers also offered their take on the news. Expressing her support for the latest move by the ICC, activist Mia Farrow wrote on her blog,

“It has long been obvious that his crimes against the people of Darfur meet the definition of genocide.”

On implications for the international community, Opalo’s Weblog noted,

“It is interesting to see how friends of Khartoum, and African states in particular, will react to this new charge. The African Union chose to back Bashir the last time the ICC called for his arrest.”

You can keep updated on reactions to the news of the second arrest warrant issued by the ICC against Omar al-Bashir by:

1. Check for regular updates on the Save Darfur Coalition’s blog
2. Follow discussions on Twitter by searching queries like #darfur or #genocide
3. Checking the latest press coverage on Google News
4. Following what people on Facebook are saying and posting

Sudanese Authorities Renew Use of Pre-Print Censorship to Suppress Political Opinion

Contact: Osman Hummaida, Executive Director
Phone: +44 7956095738
E-mail: osman@acjps.org

(20 May 2010) In the evening of Wednesday, 19 May, three National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) officers visited the offices of the newspaper Ajras Alhurria, which is perceived as aligned with the SPLM. The officers demanded to see the following day’s edition.

The officers ordered that six out of 12 of the pages of the newspaper be deleted. This material included regular columns, general news, and opinion pieces. Ajras Alhurria could not publish a newspaper on Thursday as so much content had been removed. After their tour of Ajras Alhurria’s offices, they similarly censored Alsahafa and Al Sudani newspapers prior to the publication of Thursday’s edition. At Alsahafa, NISS agents demanded to see editorial material and opinion columns. Its editor, Al-Nur Ahmed Al-Nur, stated that the censorship constituted “a step backwards in the democratic transformation of the country”.

Much of the material censored by NISS agents regarded commentary on the arrest of Dr. Hassan Al Turabi, leader of the opposition Popular Congress Party, and the closure of the Rai Alshaab newspaper and arrest of members of its staff. Other articles censored included news critical of the attack on civil liberties in Sudan and about Dr. Khalil Ibrahim, leader of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM).

At the time, both the NISS and the Press and Publications Council, the regulatory body governing the Press and Publications Act, stated that the NISS and the Council both have respect for the 2005 Sudan Interim National Constitution, and that the arrests and closure would not impact the overall process of democratic transformation and liberalisation of civil liberties in the country. Deputy editor of Ajras Alhurria newspaper Fayiz Silaik asserted that the “return of control and censorship confirms that the elections brought the fourth version of the Ingaz regime, and this new government does not respect the freedom of expression, as verified by the calls, interrogations, and trials of journalists. This is the fiercest attack on the Sudanese journalists in recent history”.

In late September 2009, President Bashir announced that the policy of pre-print censorship would be halted. However, statements issued afterwards warned journalists that they should avoid publishing “what leads to exceeding red lines and avoid mixing what is patriotic and what is destructive to the nation”. Aside from pre-publication censorship, there are a host of other mechanisms for Sudanese authorities to control publication of newspapers in Sudan through the Press and Publications Act of 2009.

The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies condemns the use of pre-publication censorship, which places severe constraints on freedom of expression, and the Sudanese public have little access to information. The practice violates freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 39 of the 2005 Interim National Constitution, Article 19 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ACJPS calls on the government of Sudan to reform the Press and Publications Act to include provisions to halt the use of pre-print censorship, an issue on which the Act is silent. The law must also further clarify and strictly delimit the exceptional circumstance in which concerns of “national security, order, and public health” may justify censorship.

When we enter a new year, we tend to reflect on our gains and our losses from the previous year. In 2009, we accomplished much, but many factors have caused us to forget one very important issue that our country has passed by for many years now: Darfur. After almost seven years, genocide still continues to threaten the very existence of those in Darfur and all of Sudan.

Since 2003, an estimated 300,000 have perished in this violence and 2.7 million have been displaced or forced to leave their homes. This genocide is seen as the most atrocious humanitarian crisis occurring today. The U.S. called this murder, rape and torture genocide in 2004, yet our country hasn’t learned that actions speak louder than words.

As Holocaust survivor and novelist Elie Wiesel stated, “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” And Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

With the upcoming election in Sudan, there is little time to wait. We all need to begin this new year and the new decade fighting for the rights of those only allowed to whisper. With our strong words and strong actions, our voices scream. Let us honestly be able to say, “Never again.”

Thanks, Jessica! It is advocates like you that keep Darfur and Sudan in the media and on the minds of newsmakers and policy leaders.

Learn more about the Sudan Policy Review

The Journal writes that “the larger wonder is how [Monday's release of the policy review] can go down so smoothly with those in the human rights community who have championed Darfur and assailed the Bush administration for not doing enough.  Instead, they are congratulating President Obama…”

Anyone who read our public response to the strategy release, as well as my blog post later that day would be clear on the fact that we did not congratulate the Obama administration.  We were, without a doubt, pleased that the strategy review was finally completed and that it called for a balanced set of incentives and pressures to be used with the Government of Sudan.  We had been calling for such a plan for months (and over 100,000 activists asked President Obama to take up our plan).  Our brief criticism of the Bush Administration for pursuing normalization of relations with Sudan was due solely to a remark by then-Special Envoy Rich Williamson that the United States that led people to believe that the U.S. would be giving up that leverage without getting anything in return.  To his credit, Williamson clarified his remarks during a hearing before Congress that the United States was not considering any such plan, and that normalization would only be considered if Khartoum fulfilled its commitments.

We were not then, nor are we now, against holding out the promise of engagement for the regime in Khartoum.  If that is the best way to end the conflict in Darfur, fully implement the CPA, and ensure justice is done, then so be it.  What we have consistently been against is normalization for nothing.  The Sudan policy document states clearly that “assessments of progress and decisions regarding incentives and disincentives must…be based on verifiable changes in conditions on the ground.”

To call our support for the policy review congratulatory is deeply misleading.  We’re pleased that the review is out, that it contains strong words about the conditions in which incentives would be considered and efforts to build more multilateral disincentives to prod the Sudanese regime, but we realize they are just words.  As our president Jerry Fowler stated on Monday morning , the success of the plan will depend on its implementation — in particular the personal leadership of President Obama.  The policy won’t be worth the paper it’s written on if it’s not adhered to by Special Envoy Gration and other American interlocutors and if the President doesn’t make Sudan a higher priority on his agenda.

Finally, we take deep umbrage at the Journal’s reference to the movement as “less a moral cause than a partisan club.”  The Save Darfur Coalition represents over 180 human rights, faith-based, and advocacy organizations (which in turn represent over 130 million individuals), and about the only thing in common among these organizations is their outrage at the situation in Darfur and throughout Sudan.  The Coalition represents a wide range of disparate political views.  The movement represents an even broader array of views.  The Journal apparently disregards all the efforts on Sudan’s behalf that continue to be made by Republican leaders such as Congressman Frank Wolf, who said of the policy that “this…seems very positive.  Seems [the Obama administration is] going to take a more balanced approach.”

One thing the Journal said is correct, however.  Anyone CAN “put a ‘Save Darfur’ sticker on his bumper.’”  How fortunate for the Coalition and the movement that so many, from so many different backgrounds and political affiliations, have chosen to do so.

Ambassador Susan Rice

This Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice is doing an interview on Meet the Press.

This is a great opportunity to ask one of the President’s top advisers about important issues relating to Sudan. You can suggest questions for Ambassador Rice by emailing MTP or via twitter to @meetthepress or to host @davidgregory.

It is best if the questions are in your own words, but feel free to use or adapt these suggested questions:

1) Dr. Rice, this week the Washington Post published two articles that were of grave concern to the Darfur advocacy community.  The first article implied that the President’s Special Envoy favors normalization talks with the Government of Sudan and is not recognizing Khartoum’s past bad behavior.  How do you explain Special Envoy Gration’s remarks? What is the administration’s policy on Sudan?

2) The second article indicated that former Reagan administration staffer Bud McFarlane may be working to lobby government officials on behalf of the Sudanese government.  The White House acknowledged that both General Jones and Special Envoy Gration had spoken to Mr. McFarlane about Sudan. Can you tell us what kind of relationship the administration has with Mr. McFarlane and whether it is now reevaluating that relationship in light of the revelation that he may be receiving funds from the Sudanese government?

The upcoming United Nation’s General Assembly session in New York City and G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh offer two excellent opportunities to focus attention on the situation in Sudan. We’re creating this photo petition to make sure that the world leaders in attendance can’t ignore the people of Darfur. Can you help?