Not on Our Watch (2 page)

Read Not on Our Watch Online

Authors: Don Cheadle,John Prendergast

BOOK: Not on Our Watch
11Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

Yet despite the many obstacles, there is good news coming out of Africa every day. There has been a move away from dictatorships toward democracy in many countries, and a commitment on the part of many African governments to fiscally responsible economic policies focused on alleviating poverty. Peace agreements have been forged in countries which only a few years earlier had been ripped apart by war and crimes against humanity. Witness the tragic tales of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, Mozambique, southern Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi, all of which had horrific civil wars that came to an end, laying the groundwork for huge positive changes.

So that is the point. If we can prevent and resolve these wars that lead to such devastation, one of the biggest reasons for Africa’s misery and dependence will be removed. By giving peace a chance, we give millions and millions of Africans a chance.

We have identified the Three Ps of ending genocide and other crimes against humanity: Protect the People, Punish the Perpetrators, and Promote the Peace. (We will describe these in detail in Chapter 9.) If the governments of the world’s leading powers, motivated by the will of their citizens, take the lead globally in doing these three things, crimes against humanity can come to an end.

The decisions we need to make to protect those who are suffering are clear, and the sooner we decide, the more lives will be saved.

That is our choice.

Overcoming Obstacles to Action

So if it is as easy as that, why don’t we do it? Mostly it is what we call the Four Horsemen Enabling the Apocalypse: apathy, indifference, ignorance, and policy inertia. Western governments simply don’t want to wade too deeply into the troubled waters of places like northern Uganda and Congo. The US did once, in Somalia, and the resulting tragedy of Black Hawk Down—when 18 American servicemen were killed in the streets of Mogadishu—made everyone nervous about recommitting any effort to African war zones we don’t fully understand.

As we all know by now, during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the world’s citizens—to the extent that they even heard about what was happening—largely averted their eyes, and as a result governments did nothing. Similar averting occurred during the 1975–1979 genocide in Cambodia, from 1992 to 1995 in Bosnia, and even during the Holocaust. As our friend Samantha Power documented in her book on genocide,
A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide
, this is the usual response to horrific crimes against humanity—disbelief in the totality of the horror and a genuine hope that the problem will go away.

Somalia’s Black Hawk Down actually provides the wrong lesson. Instead of running away from these crisis zones, we could protect many lives, and do so much good, if we gave a little more of our time, energy, and resources, in ways that understand the local context. In most cases, we don’t have to send an intervention force every time there is a problem, though working with other countries to apply military force is sometimes necessary. Diplomatic leadership in support of the Three Ps (Protection, Punishment, Peacemaking) is what it takes to make a substantial difference.

Beyond indifference and the ghosts of Somalia, responding to Darfur has an additional obstacle. Sudanese government officials, who were close to Osama bin Laden when he lived in that country from 1991 until 1996, are now cooperating with American counter-terrorism authorities. The regime in Khartoum rightly concluded that if they provided nuggets of information about al-Qaeda suspects and detainees to the Americans, the value of this information would outweigh outrage over their state-supported genocide. In other words, when US counter-terrorism objectives meet up with anti-genocide objectives, Sudanese officials had a hunch that counter-terrorism would win every time. These officials have been right in their calculations so far. As of this writing, near the end of 2006, the United States had done little to seriously confront the Sudanese regime over its policies.

In order to win the peace in Sudan, we must first win an ideological battle at home. We must show that combating crimes against humanity is as important as combating terrorism. Often, as in the case of Sudan, the pursuit of both objectives doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive. History has demonstrated that Sudanese government officials change their behaviour when they face genuine international diplomatic and economic pressure. If we worked to build strong international consensus for targeted punishments of these officials to meet both counter-terrorism and human rights objectives, they would comply.

The policy battle lines are clear. On the one hand are the forces of the status quo: officials from the United States and other governments, and the UN who are inclined to look the other way when the alarm bell sounds and simply send food and medicine to the victims. They believe that citizens around the world do not care enough to create a political cost for their inaction. These officials are allowed to remain bystanders because of complicit citizens who know about what is happening but do not speak out, giving the officials an excuse to do nothing.

On the other hand are a growing group of people, a ragtag band of citizen activists all over the world who want the phrase ‘Never Again’ to mean something. They want the first genocide of the 21st century, Darfur, to be the last. In the US these are led principally by Jewish, Christian, African-American, and student groups, they have slowly begun to organise. Yet far more needs to be done to overcome the institutional inertia in US policy circles. These groups are joined by an even smaller but determined core of citizen activists in other countries who are trying to build a global civil society alliance to confront crimes against humanity.

Who wins this battle will determine the fate of millions of people in Darfur and other killing fields.

That is our mission.

A Citizens’ Movement to Confront Mass Atrocity Crimes

Our friend Nicholas Kristof of the
New York Times
has written about a ‘citizens’ army fighting to save’ millions of lives in Darfur. After describing some of the extraordinary efforts of ordinary citizens around the US, including fund-raising by young American kids, Nick wrote, ‘I don’t know whether to be sad or inspired that we can turn for moral guidance to 12-year-olds.’
[7]

Well, we are inspired.

Samantha Power has written about the ‘bystanders’ who do nothing when genocide occurs and the ‘upstanders’ who act or speak out in an effort to stop the atrocities from continuing. Her book highlights the ‘upstanders’ and ‘bystanders’ of the last century. We all have the capacity to be ‘upstanders.’ The more of us there are, the better the chances that these kinds of crimes will not be allowed to occur in the 21st century.

It is up to us.

For us, Don first got interested in these issues through the movie he made, then through connecting up with John, who had gone through his own process of growing awareness and discovering a whole universe of Americans who are getting involved and trying to make a difference. We want to show that it is possible to care enough to change things. We want to remove all excuses and impediments to individual action, because such actions—collectively—do make a difference.

Throughout American history, social movements have helped shape our government’s policy on a variety of issues. Often in the beginning, their appearance was not widely recognised as much of a movement. We believe we are witnessing the birth of a small but significant grassroots movement to confront genocide and—we hope, over time—all crimes against humanity wherever they occur. A campaign like ENOUGH is but one manifestation of that effort, and we describe many others later in the book.

The ENOUGH Project was founded by a small group of friends and colleagues who had grown weary of watching the world reinvent the wheel every time mass atrocities lurched onto the world’s television screens. There is no reason that we collectively cannot do far better and save countless thousands of lives in the process. ENOUGH seeks to strengthen the efforts of grassroots activists, policy makers, advocates, concerned journalists, and others by giving them up-to-date information from on the ground in countries of concern and offering practical pressure points to end the violence. The initial efforts focus on a trio of countries: Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the situation in northern Uganda. To learn more go to www.enoughproject.org.

Student groups are forming on hundreds of college campuses (and hundreds more schools) in the US, specifically to raise awareness and undertake activities in response to the genocide. Synagogues and churches are holding forums and starting letter-writing campaigns all over the country. National organisations—some faith-based, some African-American, some human rights–related—are running campaigns in every city. Celebrities are getting involved, taking trips and speaking out against the genocide. After all of the hollow pledges of ‘Never Again’ dutifully made by politicians and pundits, networks of concerned Americans and people throughout the world are taking matters into their own hands and demanding policy makers do more to end the crisis in Sudan.

In the US, one of the best things about this growing movement is that it is non-partisan. So much of the venom that marks Washington these days—the red state/blue state divide—has been set aside. We always hear how politics makes strange bedfellows. How strange it must have been for some of the conservative evangelical members of Congress to find themselves agreeing with some of the most liberal members the Congress has ever seen!

How the world responds to genocide and other mass atrocity crimes represents one of the greatest moral tests of our lifetime. In the face of genocide halfway around the globe, can citizens—acting individually and in groups—possibly aid in stopping these atrocities?

Absolutely
!

We continue to be convinced that the growing chorus of outrage, from Florida to California, can stop war crimes and reduce the cries of agony in places such as Darfur. World powers can take a leading role in stopping atrocities, in most cases without putting forces on the ground in large numbers. However, the only means by which US policy can change, and thus the only way mass atrocity crimes can end, is if citizens raise their voices loud enough to get the attention of politicians and force our governments to change their policy.

To encourage and embolden you, our readers, to join in this movement to bring an end to genocide around the world, we offer
Six Strategies for Effective Change
that you as an individual can employ to influence public policy and help save hundreds of thousands of lives:

- Raise awareness

- Raise funds

- Write letters

- Call for divestment

- Join an organisation

- Lobby the government

Ultimately, this book is about giving meaning to ‘Never Again’. In short, this is a handbook for everyone who thinks that one person cannot make a difference, for those who feel that what happens half a world away is not their responsibility, and for everyone who cares but doesn’t know where to start making a positive difference.

We want to tell that story.

First, though, in the interest of full disclosure and since it is, after all,
our
book, we will tell you
our
stories ...

[
1
] Paul was the manager of a hotel in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali. In 1994, an extremist government set in motion a plan to exterminate Rwandans who were ethnically Tutsi and non-Tutsis who sympathised with them. Paul was a member of Rwanda’s other main ethnic group, the Hutu. When genocide consumed Rwanda in 1994, Paul protected more than 1,000 Rwandans from near certain extermination at the hands of extremist Hutu militias.
Hotel Rwanda
tells his courageous story.

[
2
] Throughout this book, we will use the phrases
crimes against humanity
and
mass atrocity crimes
interchangeably, treating
genocide
as one particular extreme manifestation of such crimes. Whether the crimes against humanity committed in Darfur should be regarded as genocide has been the subject of some debate. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry and several reputable research and advocacy organisations—including the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International—do not use this description. They have a number of good arguments, perhaps best summed up by Gareth Evans, the President and CEO of the International Crisis Group and member of the UN Advisory Panel on Genocide Prevention, who argues that, here, as in a number of other cases, use of the term genocide can be unproductive, non-productive, and even counter-productive. Unproductive, because there are always lawyers’ arguments about whether the legal definition in the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has been satisfied, and this can be a real distraction from the immediate imperative of protecting the victims of what everyone agrees are crimes against humanity. (The Convention definition requires that certain acts be ‘committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group,’ and it is extremely hard to establish that element of specific intent to destroy non-Arab groups in Darfur.)

Non-productive, because, as the US response to Darfur illustrates, even when the term is invoked there is no legal obligation under the genocide convention for countries that use the term to actually do anything. And counterproductive when expectations are raised that a particular situation is genocide, but then lawyers’ arguments prevail that some necessary element is missing, as was the case with the UN commission in Darfur: in these circumstances the perpetrators of what are unquestionably mass atrocities or crimes against humanity achieve an utterly unearned propaganda victory. All of this demonstrates that right-thinking people can disagree about the use of the term genocide. What we and these organisations all totally agree on, however, is that mass atrocities are being committed in Darfur, as well as in the Congo and northern Uganda, and were being committed in the 1990s in southern Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola, and Burundi. In those last five countries, international and local efforts have combined to bring about an end to the atrocities and the wars that generated them, giving all of us hope that horrors in Darfur, northern Uganda, Congo, and Somalia can also soon be ended, and future catastrophes prevented.

[
3
] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

[
4
] Testimony before US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 9 September 2004.

[
5
] White House press releases, 9 September 2004.

[
6
]Despite how Africa is often portrayed in the mainstream media, there is much good news. The journalist Charlayne Hunter-Gault’s new book,
New News Out of Africa: Uncovering Africa’s Renaissance
(Oxford 2006) tells the other side of the story.

[
7
] ‘Heroes of Darfur,’
New York Times
, 7 May 2006.

Other books

Off Broadway by Watts, Janna
Archipelago N.Y.: Flynn by Todorov, Vladimir
How Like an Angel by Margaret Millar
Ice Runner by Viola Grace
Riveted by Meljean Brook
Lorraine Heath by Parting Gifts