What Exactly Does Michael Kleinman Think We Should Do About Darfur?
by Kevin Jon Heller
Two genocide bloggers at Change.org, Michelle F. and Michael Bear Kleinman, have been engaged for the past couple of weeks in an impassioned debate over the ICC’s arrest warrant for Bashir. (See here and here, for the most recent installments.) Michelle, though certainly not unaware of its dangers, supports the warrant. Kleinman opposes it, blaming the ICC — like many ICC critics — for Bashir’s decision to expel humanitarian aid agencies from Darfur.
The debate ratcheted up a few notches in the past few days, following Kleiman’s particularly nasty attack on Nicholas Kristof for having the temerity to suggest, in an editorial in the New York Times last Wednesday, that Obama should pressure the Chinese to stop selling weapons to the Sudanese government and might even consider destroying a Sudanese military aircraft on the ground the next time the government violates the UN ban on offensive military flights (read: bombings) over Darfur. Kleinman’s post, entitled “Ground Control to Nicholas Kristof” accused Kristof of writing like Jack Handey (of Saturday Night Live fame, soon of the US Senate) and claimed that he “just doesn’t get it.”
Michelle finally had enough of Kleinman’s constant criticism (which included an equally nasty attack on the anti-genocide group ENOUGH). So she issued the following challenge:
Ok, then, what would you have us do? Nothing? You either shoot down or disregard every option presented without coming up with an alternative of your own — and you assume that no one is fleshing out the list of hypothetical consequences for any particular action, but that’s all it is: An assumption. And speaking from the perspective of someone who works on the issues everyday, I can tell you, with authority, that it’s a baseless one.
Kleinman’s response is illuminating. Would he have us do nothing? Actually, yes:
I think the US, the UK and France should work with the Arab League, the AU and China to broker a deal - the Security Council suspends the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Bashir, and Sudan allows the expelled aid agencies to resume work.
That’s it. That is Kleinman’s “solution.”
In the short term, of course, deferring the warrant would be better for a significant number of Darfuris. No one, not even the most fervent defender of the ICC, denies that there are immediate costs — very real, very human costs — to the arrest warrant. But what about in the long-term? As one of the contributors to Alex de Waal’s blog Making Sense of Darfur pointed out yesterday, the massive amount of humanitarian aid poured into Darfur over the past three decades may have alleviated suffering, but it has done nothing to eliminate that suffering’s root causes:
The first impulse of the media and international community has been to focus on the urgent need for aid to continue. But I think many people should consider why aid needs to continue so desperately, despite years of work and billions of dollars invested. How can it be that after 28 years of being there (as one organisation proudly states), 2.2 million people are dependent on international aid agencies for basic needs? For me, this is the real tragedy.
We know, of course, what has caused the suffering of millions of Darfuris for the past 20 years: Bashir’s murderous government. Bashir has never seriously negotiated peace — not even when he knew that an arrest warrant was a very real possibility. Michelle again:
Bashir had over SEVEN MONTHS to show the international community that he was committed to peace, but as he went on an international media charm campaign to push for a suspension of the ICC investigation, he was busy escalating violence in Darfur — from attacking IDP camps to violating his own ceasefire two days after it was announced. This is not a man known for sticking to his word. Even more, the conflict was escalating and the humanitarian situation was deteriorating even before the ICC drama began in July, with no apparent opening for any kind of way out, messy or otherwise.
This recent history explains why Kleinman’s response to Michelle’s question was a non-answer: she was asking him to explain his long-term solution for Darfur, not his short-term solution. And his response was… silence.
That is an unacceptable position for someone who so savagely criticizes anyone who dares support the arrest warrant. Does Kleinman really believe that this time — unlike all the others — Bashir will pursue peace and help the Darfuris if the international community leaves him alone? If so, he should say so openly. But if not — if he doesn’t believe that doing nothing is enough — I think it behooves him to (1) tell us what actions the international community should take instead of pursuing Bashir’s arrest, and (2) explain to us why those actions will be more likely to influence Bashir’s behavior.
I would be very curious to see Kleinman’s answers, especially to the second question. Suggesting that the international community do nothing seems hopelessly naive to me — equivalent to Charlie Brown’s unwavering belief that one day Lucy will stop pulling the football away, to borrow a metaphor from Becky Tinsley, the director of Waging Peace, a human-rights group — but at least it has the virtue of consistency. The same cannot be said, however, of any more aggressive solution. If the international community gives in to Bashir’s blackmail over the arrest warrant because of (understandable) humanitarian concerns, why would Bashir ever take seriously any other threat? All he would have to do is threaten to expel the humanitarian aid agencies again for the chorus to start anew: “keeping the aid flowing is more important than neutralizing or eliminating the regime that makes the aid necessary.” Bashir remains in power, the aid keeps flowing, and nothing ever gets better — it just doesn’t get any worse. Maybe that is enough for Kleinman. It’s not enough for me.
In his attack on Kristof, Kleinman wrote that “what’s delusional — if not dishonest — is the refusal to admit that perhaps [the arrest warrant] wouldn’t work.” I would suggest that what is equally delusional, if not equally dishonest, is for Kleinman to refuse to admit that doing nothing won’t work, either.

Relpy to both Michelle and Michale's blogs.

Great points made Michelle. I agree!!!! We can't sit by and shoot down every idea. We can't wait for someone who is known for lies to stick to his word. We can't not stop making suggestions on what to do. We can NOT give up. Also, I agree that this should have been done a LONG time ago. It makes me sad that people want to just give up and walk away. These people need us more now then ever. Things may look endless right now but we will see things change if we stick together and fight together. I for one will not give up.
Posted by Andrea Mckeeby on 03/06/2009 @ 07:45PM PST

Michelle,

Thanks for this -- will post a response later today, in more detail, but you're right; simply carping from the sidelines isn't particularly constructive. So, my suggestion, bow to Bashir's demands and suspend the prosecution. And yes, I do understand the consequences, but right now I think resuming aid is far more important. Michael

Posted by Michael Bear Kleinman on 03/08/2009 @ 12:38PM PST

Michael, So your suggestion is to "bow to Bashir's demands and suspend the prosecution"? How might I ask will this do any good at all? He's very well known for not keeping his word over and over. What's to say he will if they do "bow to his wishes"? Very unlikely that he would allow Aid Workers back and then where are we???? Worse then ever. So I have to ask is it a matter of either don't do anything at all or do what he wants and hope he keeps his word? Now I have to point to Michelle's blog " If we give Bashir what he wants --- a suspension of the ICC indictment --- what makes you so sure that he will suddenly become more cooperative? Bashir had over SEVEN MONTHS to show the international community that he was committed to peace, but as he went on an international media charm campaign to push for a suspension of the ICC investigation, he was busy escalating violence in Darfur --- from attacking IDP camps to violating his own ceasefire two days after it was announced. This is not a man known for sticking to his word. Even more, the conflict was escalating and the humanitarian situation was deteriorating even before the ICC drama began in July, with no apparent opening for any kind of way out, messy or otherwise".To think he would do otherwise is naive. If we don't remove him now things are going to get far worse (if possible). I personally don't see any other way.
Posted by Andrea Mckeeby on 03/08/2009 @ 07:15PM PST

Andrea and others,Excellent points - I think we're in a situation of weighing and deciding between the least-bad option. For my full response to Michelle, see:http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/blog/view/ahem_-_ground_control_to_michael_kleinmanBest,Michael
Posted by Michael Bear Kleinman on 03/09/2009 @ 09:16AM PST

My latest reply to Michael Post:

As you put it "consequences":
1. But doesn't this mean Bashir wins?
If you want to see it that way, yes.(Hasn't he already and has been for years? He's like a spoiled child. What do you do with a child that is having a temper tantrum? Give them what they want? I don't think so.)
2. But doesn't this undermine - perhaps fatally undermine - the ICC, and make it that much harder to deter genocidaires in the future?
Perhaps. Certainly a possibility.(Not only possible but a guaranty. Let one do this you will let all. Whole new can of worms. Undermining the ICC is the same as saying ok never mind we didn't want you to look into this. The ICC is here for a reason.)3. Why do you think that Bashir would even honor such an agreement? After all, he is a war criminal - not a group noted for keeping their word.
Tough one. A risk I'm willing to take.(So your willing to take a risk that means no Aid, no support, no hopes? We all know what Bashir is and that he's never kept his word. Why would you think he would now? How can you justify willing to take a risk?
"You can't have your cake and eat it, too. "(Is this not what your saying we should give Bashir?) Peace and justice don't always move hand-in-hand.Sometimes you have to make a choice as to which is most important, at least in terms of deciding what to do next.Try looking at this from the other side. What outcome do you want. Work your way back the the problem and see what ideas might just be possible. Sometime when we look at things as overwhelming, scary or feel hopeless its best to step back and look outside of the "box". For me giving into the mad mans fits and actions of (yes I will say it ) Genocide!!!! There is not a chance I'd believe he'd ever allow Aid back in even if we said pretty please with a cherry on-top. While everyone sits around thinking of what to do things grow worse each hour there. We need to act now and not tiptoe around his feelings.
Posted by Andrea Mckeeby on 03/09/2009 @ 08:01PM PST

GENEVA – The U.N. human rights office will examine whether Sudan's decision to expel aid groups constitutes a breach of basic human rights and possibly a war crime, a spokesman said Friday.
Rupert Colville said the Sudanese decision to expel relief workers from 13 of the largest aid groups constitutes a "grievous dereliction" of duty, putting the lives of thousands at risk.
The World Food Program says some 1.1 million of the 2-3 million people it feeds each month are dependent on deliveries from the groups that have been expelled.
Sudan ordered the organizations out after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Darfur conflict. It has accused the groups such as CARE and Save the Children of cooperating with the court and giving false testimony. The groups deny the accusations.
"To knowingly and deliberately deprive such a huge group of civilians of means to survive is a deplorable act," said Colville, who speaks for U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay. "Humanitarian assistance has nothing to do with the ICC proceedings. To punish civilians because of a decision by the ICC is a grievous dereliction of the government's duty to protect its own people."
"This decision by the government could threaten the lives of thousands of civilians," living in camps in Darfur and elsewhere, he added.
A senior foreign ministry official in Khartoum, Mutrif Siddique, said the Sudanese humanitarian affairs ministry, which is responsible for the work of aid agencies, is aware the expulsion of these organizations will have an impact on people in Sudan.
"This ministry and authorities have made arrangements to avoid a food shortage or a medical crisis," he said. "There will be a partial effect and they (authorities) will work to avoid any shortage.'
Siddique claimed that major U.N. aid agencies were not affected by this expulsion decision and stressed that "hundreds of Sudanese NGO workers remain and work in Darfur."
The World Food Program questioned whether the remaining aid groups would be able to fill the gap.
"We simply don't have the capacity to carry out the life saving work of the NGOs," said the agency's spokeswoman in Geneva, Emilia Casella.
Under the Geneva Conventions it is illegal to intentionally starve people to death by blocking their access to food. The rule applies to international conflicts, but efforts have been made to incorporate it in customary international humanitarian law, which would carry weight in courts.
Other U.N. agencies also expressed concern about the consequences of losing their aid partners. The World Health Organization said it would tear a hole in the body's disease monitoring efforts that could lead to outbreaks of infectious diseases going unchecked.
"If they are not helping us do this very vital work, we may see the emergence of infectious diseases," said WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib.
There is currently an outbreak of meningitis in Nyala, the capital of South Darfur, she said. One of the groups, Medecins Sans Frontieres-Holland, was carrying out meningitis vaccinations in the area before it was expelled.
On Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Sudan's decision will cause "irrevocable damage" to humanitarian operations in Darfur and called on the government to urgently reconsider its decision.
At least 2.7 million people in the large, arid region of western Sudan have been driven from their homes in the war between Darfur rebels and the government since 2003. Ban said 4.7 million people in Darfur are receiving aid.
Sudan's foreign ministry official indicated that Khartoum might try to stem mounting tensions over the expulsion order by seeking a compromise with the aid groups.
Asked if there is a chance Sudan will reconsider the expulsion, Siddique said that "there is no such thinking" but that "alternatives remain open."
On the question of whether the expulsion could constitute a war crime, his answer was defensive.
"Their campaign against us continues," he said, without elaborating who "they" are but apparently referring to the ICC and anyone accusing Sudan of wrongdoing in Darfur.
"They are ignoring that the Sudanese government has diverted some of its oil revenues to provide for Darfur," Siddique said.
The U.N. has identified the NGOs expelled as Oxfam GB, CARE International, MSF-Holland, MSF-France, Mercy Corps, Save the Children Fund-UK, Save the Children Fund-US, the Norwegian Refugee Council, the International Rescue Committee, Action Contre La Faim, Solidarites, CHF International and PADCO.
Sudan's expulsion order removes 40 percent of the aid workers in Darfur, roughly 6,500 national and international staff, said Catherine Bragg, the U.N.'s deputy emergency relief coordinator. She said at U.N. headquarters that 76 NGOs had been operating in Darfur along with all major U.N. agencies.
The U.N. humanitarian coordination office says the global body will have a hard time making up for the loss of its aid partners.
Christophe Fournier, president of Medecins Sans Frontieres' umbrella group, MSF International, said there was "absolutely no way" the remaining aid workers would be able to meet the needs of the population in Darfur.

REPLY:

The only thing the U.N. is good for is whining when it comes to Darfur. They've said Bashir was behind the genocide back in '01 and where is he now? Thumbing his nose and sneering at all of us from his presidential stronghold. This is maddening and sick. What does it take for them or anyone to see the over all picture is GENOCIDE!!!!

Court issues war crimes warrant for Sudan's Bashir

Court issues war crimes warrant for Sudan's Bashir

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant Wednesday for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. He is the first sitting head of state the court has ordered arrested.
Al-Bashir's government denounced the warrant as part of a Western conspiracy aimed at destabilizing the vast oil-rich nation south of Egypt. The U.N. said Sudan had ordered the expulsion of six to 10 humanitarian groups from Darfur including Oxfam, Solidarities and Mercy Corps, and seized assets.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the move a "serious setback to lifesaving operations in Darfur."
Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo had accused Sudanese troops and the janjaweed Arab militia they support of murdering civilians and preying on them in refugee camps. He said the militia also waged a campaign of rape to drive women into the desert, where they die of starvation.
But the three-judge panel in The Hague said there was insufficient evidence to support charges of genocide in a war in which up to 300,000 people have died and 2.7 million have fled their homes.
"He is suspected of being criminally responsible ... for intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population of Darfur, Sudan, murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property," court spokeswoman Laurence Blairon said. If al-Bashir is brought to trial and prosecuted, he faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Blairon rejected accusations that the warrant was part of a political plot and said the decision was made purely on legal grounds.
But African and Arab nations fear the warrant will destabilize the whole region, bring even more conflict in Darfur and threaten the fragile peace deal that ended decades of civil war between northern and southern Sudan. China, which buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil, supports the African and Arab positions.
Some African nations reportedly threatened to pull out of the court in retaliation for a warrant. Thirty African countries are among the court's 108 member states.
In a show of defiance Tuesday in anticipation of the decision, al-Bashir told supporters at a rally, "We are telling them to immerse it in water and drink it," a common Arabic insult meant to show extreme disrespect.
Hundreds of Sudanese waving pictures of the president and denouncing the court quickly turned out in a rally at the Cabinet building in Khartoum. Security was increased around many embassies, and some diplomats and aid workers stayed home amid fears of retaliation against Westerners.
The U.N., which has a joint peacekeeping mission in Darfur with the African Union, will continue to deal with al-Bashir, U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said at U.N. headquarters in New York.
"President al-Bashir is the head of state of Sudan, and United Nations officials will continue to deal with president al-Bashir when they need to do so," Montas said.
Al-Bashir denies the war crimes accusations and refuses to deal with the court. Sudan does not recognize its jurisdiction and refuses to arrest suspects and there is currently no international mechanism to arrest al-Bashir. The main tool the court has is diplomatic pressure for countries to hand over suspects.
U.N. peacekeepers and other international agencies operating in Sudan have no mandate to implement the warrant, and Sudanese officials have warned them not to go outside their mandates.
The United States is not a member of the international court, but Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told The Associated Press, that "the United States supports the ICC action to hold accountable those who are responsible for the heinous crimes in Darfur."
"Those who committed atrocities in Sudan, including genocide, should be brought to justice," she said.
The EU welcomed the court's decision to issue an arrest warrant for al-Bashir and urged Khartoum to cooperate "fully and provide any necessary assistance to the Court."
Ocampo suggested al-Bashir could be arrested if he flies out of Sudan.
"As soon as Mr. al-Bashir travels in international airspace, his plane could be intercepted and he could be arrested. That is what I expect," the prosecutor said.
"Like Slobodan Milosevic or Charles Taylor, Omar al-Bashir's destiny is to face justice," Moreno Ocampo said referring to the former presidents of Yugoslavia and Liberia who were indicted while in office and ended up on trial in The Hague.
Asked why judges, in a 2-1 split decision, did not issue the warrant for genocide, Blairon explained that genocide requires a clear intent to destroy in part or as a whole a specific group.
"In this particular case, the pretrial chamber has not been able to find there were reasonable grounds to establish a genocidal intent," she said.
She said prosecutors could ask again for genocide charges to be added to the warrant if they can produce new evidence. Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo said he would study the ruling before deciding whether to keep pursuing genocide charges.
The war in Sudan's western Darfur region began in 2003, when rebel ethnic African groups, complaining of discrimination and neglect, took up arms against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum. In 2005, the U.N. Security Council asked Moreno Ocampo to investigate crimes in Darfur.
"With this arrest warrant, the International Criminal Court has made Omar al-Bashir a wanted man," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. "Not even presidents are guaranteed a free pass for horrific crimes. By ruling there is a case for President al-Bashir to answer for the horrors of Darfur, the warrant breaks through Khartoum's repeated denials of his responsibility."
The Rome statute that set up the International Criminal Court allows the Security Council to vote to defer or suspend for a year the investigation or prosecution of a case. It also gives the council authority to renew such a resolution.
The 52-member countries of the African Union and 26 states of the Arab League make up about a third of U.N. member states and they have said they would call for such a suspension.
But the council is sharply divided on suspending the case and is unlikely to take any action.

I'll say it again but in more detail:

Somewhat it gives me hope that things will be changing but only time will tell. I'm glad that the ICC and the U.N. has taken steps to establish what they deem to be going on even if it's war crimes and crimes against humanity ( better known as Genocide but deemed to hard to prove ) but it's one thing to talk the talk and another to walk the walk. With other countries turning their backs on what is happening in Darfur we have to make sure we hold the US,UN and ICC accountable for what it has promised and not allow them just to give him a slap on the hand. I truly hope that this is a start to the end of the nightmare these poor people have been living.

Truth be told there has never been a leader that has still been in power that has had these charges brought against him. With a mass of support from peoples this is a matter that will most likely see more terror before he's taken down and even when/if we do detain him the people that stood behind him are still going to rage war and terror. It maybe a start to an end but its far from over. My hope is that we haven't hit a hornets nest with a stone. The backlash could be far worse. "Al-Bashir denies the war crimes accusations and refuses to deal with the court. Sudan does not recognize its jurisdiction and refuses to arrest suspects and there is currently no international mechanism to arrest al-Bashir. The main tool the court has is diplomatic pressure for countries to hand over suspects".

It is a double edge sword here. These people (Darfur) need to see peace and an end to what has happened that never should have been. The fact it took so long to finally do something has made this much worse seeing as how his power got much stronger and his following larger. They are already starting to show that they won't give up power easily. Only time will tell what will happen next. I am glad however that Darfur is being heard now!!!!

PEACE ELUSIVE AS SECURITY WORSENS

The United Nations has described Sudan's western Darfur region as one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
Over 2.9 million uprooted
World's biggest relief operation
2006 peace deal failed to improve security
The conflict flared in 2003 when rebels in Darfur took up arms, accusing the government of neglecting the region.
Since then, civilians have come under attack from government troops, nomadic militia and rebel groups. The United Nations says as many as 300,000 people may have died. Khartoum puts the figure at 10,000.
The violence has also forced some 2.9 million people - mostly farmers and villagers from non-Arab groups - to flee their homes.
Khartoum denies accusations it has used Arab militias, known as Janjaweed, to crush the revolt.
But the International Criminal Court's prosecutor has charged Sudan's president with masterminding a campaign of genocide in Darfur.
The government and one rebel faction signed a peace deal in May 2006, but two others refused, and many new rebel groups have since formed. Relief agencies say the violence makes it difficult to deliver aid in parts of Darfur.
A combined United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force began deploying in 2008, taking over from a small, overstretched AU force. The deployment follows protracted wrangling between the international community and Khartoum.
The conflict has also spilled over Sudan's borders into Chad and Central African Republic.

KEY FACTS:

(Unless otherwise stated, data is for October 2008, taken from the Darfur Humanitarian Profile series issued by the United Nations)
Total no. of people affected by conflict in Darfur:
4.7 million
No. of internally displaced people in Darfur:
2.7 million
No. of Darfur refugees in Chad:
240,000 (UNHCR, December 2007)
Residential population affected by conflict:
2 million
No. of people receiving food aid:
3.4 million
Percentage of affected population accessible according to U.N. security standards:
65 percent
No. of humanitarians on the ground (national and international):
16,370
No. of humanitarian agencies supporting Darfur population:
85 NGOs (including Red Cross/Red Crescent); 16 U.N. agencies
Malnutrition (acute):
16.1 percent (2007) (U.N. report, Jan 2008)
Mortality:
0.29 per 10,000 people per day (2007) (U.N. report, Nov 2007)