One of the most unfortunate aspects of the peace movement in the US has been the tendency against veterans. As I've said before in this forum, human civilization is evolving toward peace. We aren't there yet, and we need to work hard to progress. Sadly, we live in a time where many people have gone to war to defend noble things, and died in that pursuit. National leaders would do well to remember the human cost of violence before committing to war. But today, Memorial Day, is a day to remember those who have fought our wars.
Peaceful people may confuse the poor judgements made by leaders who have been aggressors, or have opted to turn to war when patience should have prevailed with those who served. This is not the day to discuss what wars may have been necessary to curb aggression, or to decry foolish wars. Regardless of the merit of reason, war creates hardship and tragedy. People who fight and die, whether for martial pride, patriotism, to escape poverty, or because of conscription, are people who left families, friends and communities behind. They were loved, and are fondly remembered.
I like Memorial Day, and how it is celebrated in the US. It is a day of rest, and starts the summer vacation season. It also allows us to pause and reflect over specific losses in our own hearts, or the loss suffered by everyone in the course of war.
The only thing that bothers me about Memorial Day is excessive jingoism. It is easy to recall the glory of war, and the patriotic fervor that accompanies military honor is too often an excuse to proclaim our march to war as righteous. I suppose it is just another reminder that there is a long road ahead to peace, and regardless of this aspect of honoring those who served, it is an important day to reflect.
I hope that everyone had a Memorial Day that afforded them the time to reflect on sacrifice and loss, and then perhaps have an enjoyable early summer holiday.
I wish you all blessings and peace.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Peace Update in Sudan
Bill McKenna © 2012
The news is quite good from Africa
today. Sudan and South Sudan are
resuming peace talks tomorrow in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in accordance with UN
Resolution 2046. The African Union is
mediating the talks, and former South African president Thabo Mbeki is the lead
mediator. Mbeki’s tenure as president in
South Africa is marred with some controversy, but his international experience
and high profile make him an excellent choice for this role. The issues to be discussed under resolution
2046 are all negotiable, and there is no reason that a comprehensive settlement
of grievances cannot be completed this summer
Sadly, there will be remaining
problems after the crisis is over. The most
intractable between the nations is distrust.
For peace to take hold there must be a mechanism for building
acceptance, then trust between the two governments. Remembering that this task is to take place
amidst the historic backdrop of terrible civil wars, the challenge is formidable. Nonetheless, both countries will be
participating in a business structure which will set a fee for South Sudan
transshipments of oil to the Red Sea.
Ideally the fee structure will be mutually fair and profitable to
everyone. This arrangement will both
require trust, and, ultimately, build trust.
The second long term challenge to
peace is the internal warfare that both nations are struggling with. Whether or not the one country is aiding
rebellions in the other is almost moot.
Given the insecurity of the border, it is almost certain that some of
Sudan’s rebels are coming from South Sudan, and vice versa. The important concept is to build a stable
peace where people can live and thrive.
The SPLM was the rebel group that successfully broke the south away from
the north, and is essentially the current government of South Sudan. The fact that there is now an SPLM-North
fighting in the Sudanese border provinces of South Kordofan and Blue Nile is
understandable, as the international boundary was drawn behind them. Nonetheless, the border, once settled must be
respected, and it is unrealistic to believe that Sudan will not defend its right
to that vast area. At the same time, the
SPLM-N should, peacefully, request that Sudan acknowledge these provinces as
culturally sub-Saharan, and Christian, and have the right to request
appropriate human rights as a disparate culture within a primarily Islamic,
Saharan state. The South Sudan
infighting is a bit more complex, as tensions run along tribal lines. The largest tribe, which is also the
predominant tribe of the government, is the Dinka. The Dinka people need to develop a
multi-tribal power sharing system to bring peace and all of its benefits, to
everyone. At this writing there are
reports of minority tribe civilians being killed in Jonglei province, near the
Ethiopian border, As the larger peace
process moves forward, it is important that internal strife is minimized, and that the surplus of weapons in the area
due to years of civil war are reduced.
Peace will result if negotiations
supersede violence, and the smaller issues are not pushed down the road. Peace should yield economic progress as well,
and generations of people who found that survival often required a rifle, will
now learn that a good life will require development and education.
Finally what about you and I, learning
about Sudan’s troubles mostly in developed western countries? I think there are several things we are
responsible for:
·
We need to be educated about the current state
of the world and what is being done to resolve conflict. The average US ignorance to international
news is unacceptable, and we need to improve our literacy in world affairs.
·
We need to follow the progress of Resolution
2046, and prepare for what may be in store for the Sudans if it fails, or,
hopefully, succeeds.
·
We ought to keep our noses out of the
business. Contrary to some attitudes, we
are not the world’s policeman, and past actions have left much of the west in
disrepute. Trust them to build their own
future, unless the lives and human rights of the people there are in danger by
our inaction.
·
Finally, it is my understanding that South Sudan
football (i.e. soccer) was accepted by the international federation (FIFA) this
week. Cheer them on a bit. A little bit of non-military pride will go a
long way.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
The role of NGO's
I intend this to be a brief post, but in my final posting about the Huffington Post article about Sudan by Don Golden, I want to address his assertion that NGO's need to perform their roles in the peace process.
First, let me cast no shadow here - I agree with Mr. Golden. Non-governmental organizations are typically the representatives of the kindness and wellwishes of the world made into human and material resource to relieve suffering. The impulse to intervene in this kind of way is often an example of humanity at its best. Don Golden's own NGO, World Relief, is a good example of an NGO that knows its business, particularly in East Africa, and works toward a future of peace, which goes beyongd resetting the agendas of the people with armies and weapons, and looks at communities and helps figure out how that peace might be sustained through humanitarian assistance when needed and economic growth when possile.
Of course it's never as simple as it forst sounds. It is a sad fact that belligerent governments, particularly in the Sudan and South Sudan, will always try to redirect or limit the deployment of NGO's. The allowance offrree movement and unfettered access to people in need is sadly a weapon used by powerful people. The NGO's need to be able to use their own diplomatic leverage, and sometimes the diplomatic leverage of nations to counter the 'pawn' effect. Sometimes it works, but it alweays seems like climbing a cliff.
Another peril facing NGO's is the idea of aid 'with strings attached'. NGO's are often sponsored from wealthy (western??) countries. The recipients of the aid may feel that the largesse offered is done at the behest of US and European powers, which sadly have used muck of their goodwill in imperialist and post-imperialist endeavors. The NGO must be able to convince its aid receipients that it is not simply another western power exerting control. Established groups with local ties do better in these situations, and again I see World Relief in the fore in East Africa.
The other 'strings attached' concern, is the makeup and mission of the NGO itself. Is the mission of the group simply to build peace, or is there a cultural, moral or religious backdrop that serve as another motive, real or imagined by the recipient population? Again, using World Relief as a test case, we see that it is a US based group formed by and supported by evangelical churches. It is easy to imagine that wary recipients may feel that there is a price to pay for th largesse received. Again, World Relief gets good marks here, as the often prove themselves as true to their word in sponsoring aid, without an overt pro-US message, or an overwhelming christian missionary component. The fact the World Relief may in fact act as an ambassador for the better angels of US citizens, or as exemplary Christians shouldn't be a disqualifier in participating in the imprving chances of peace for people who need it. But a careful line between showing who the NGO's are and the advancement of a noisome side agenda can be a tricky balance. A group like World Relief should be well received in South Sudan, where the largely Christian population with no overt anti-American bias, should make them as welcome as seasonal rain. In majority Muslim Sudan, however, the US/Christian label may represent, perhaps unfairly, a new type of cultural imperialism.
The final caveat about NGO's is that it is sometimes difficult to separate independant NGO's from state sponsored aid. USAID is a truly worthwhile organization, which, particularly after President Obama's comments this week, promise to bring great relief to Africa. USAID, however is a tool of the US State Department, and exists to promote the interests of the US government. Those interests could be the same pure interests of many NGO's; to feed, heal and revive war-weary people; there may be less atruistic aims from a USAID perspective too, such as a counter to Chinese goodwill in a resource rich region, or isolation of a 'bad actor' in the US governments view. T othis, I would plea with my own government to answer the cries of those in need, and avoid the traps of imperialism.
First, let me cast no shadow here - I agree with Mr. Golden. Non-governmental organizations are typically the representatives of the kindness and wellwishes of the world made into human and material resource to relieve suffering. The impulse to intervene in this kind of way is often an example of humanity at its best. Don Golden's own NGO, World Relief, is a good example of an NGO that knows its business, particularly in East Africa, and works toward a future of peace, which goes beyongd resetting the agendas of the people with armies and weapons, and looks at communities and helps figure out how that peace might be sustained through humanitarian assistance when needed and economic growth when possile.
Of course it's never as simple as it forst sounds. It is a sad fact that belligerent governments, particularly in the Sudan and South Sudan, will always try to redirect or limit the deployment of NGO's. The allowance offrree movement and unfettered access to people in need is sadly a weapon used by powerful people. The NGO's need to be able to use their own diplomatic leverage, and sometimes the diplomatic leverage of nations to counter the 'pawn' effect. Sometimes it works, but it alweays seems like climbing a cliff.
Another peril facing NGO's is the idea of aid 'with strings attached'. NGO's are often sponsored from wealthy (western??) countries. The recipients of the aid may feel that the largesse offered is done at the behest of US and European powers, which sadly have used muck of their goodwill in imperialist and post-imperialist endeavors. The NGO must be able to convince its aid receipients that it is not simply another western power exerting control. Established groups with local ties do better in these situations, and again I see World Relief in the fore in East Africa.
The other 'strings attached' concern, is the makeup and mission of the NGO itself. Is the mission of the group simply to build peace, or is there a cultural, moral or religious backdrop that serve as another motive, real or imagined by the recipient population? Again, using World Relief as a test case, we see that it is a US based group formed by and supported by evangelical churches. It is easy to imagine that wary recipients may feel that there is a price to pay for th largesse received. Again, World Relief gets good marks here, as the often prove themselves as true to their word in sponsoring aid, without an overt pro-US message, or an overwhelming christian missionary component. The fact the World Relief may in fact act as an ambassador for the better angels of US citizens, or as exemplary Christians shouldn't be a disqualifier in participating in the imprving chances of peace for people who need it. But a careful line between showing who the NGO's are and the advancement of a noisome side agenda can be a tricky balance. A group like World Relief should be well received in South Sudan, where the largely Christian population with no overt anti-American bias, should make them as welcome as seasonal rain. In majority Muslim Sudan, however, the US/Christian label may represent, perhaps unfairly, a new type of cultural imperialism.
The final caveat about NGO's is that it is sometimes difficult to separate independant NGO's from state sponsored aid. USAID is a truly worthwhile organization, which, particularly after President Obama's comments this week, promise to bring great relief to Africa. USAID, however is a tool of the US State Department, and exists to promote the interests of the US government. Those interests could be the same pure interests of many NGO's; to feed, heal and revive war-weary people; there may be less atruistic aims from a USAID perspective too, such as a counter to Chinese goodwill in a resource rich region, or isolation of a 'bad actor' in the US governments view. T othis, I would plea with my own government to answer the cries of those in need, and avoid the traps of imperialism.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
The African Union
Continuing on my analysis of the Golden article from the Huffington Post, I have come to the role that the African Union should play in resolving the Sudan-South Sudan disputes. When I started my research on this particular aspect, I wasn't that interested, but the more I found out the more intrigued I became.
This is a real good news/bad news situation, and if you've been following my posts you know that the optimist in me will start with the good news.
That good news is that the AU is really coming of age, and showing itself to be a real force in promoting the welfare of Africa. To any skeptical readers I will only ask that they do some research of what the AU is doing now, and forget its past reputation as a weak, corrupt or compromised body. The AU today shows signs of becoming what it should be, and although it is premature to hand out laurels, the progess of the AU is nearly miraculous since 2002, given the scope of the challenge in raising Africa to its proper place in the world. Both Sudan and South Sudan are members, and the AU could be a real partner in the peace process.
The bad news is that the AU is not a neutral player. Please remember that the goal is peace between Sudan and South Sudan. You should also recall that Omar el-Bashir is notorious for his role in the Darfur crisis and the South Sudan civil war. It is difficult to see el-Bashir as a peacemaker. It is incumbent on the process, however, to not stigmatize him. The AU has been a key partner in bringing the Darfur crisis to a level of stability, which, though far from peace, is far better than it was several years ago. In the process, the AU was forced into a role of confrontational negotiations with el-Bashir. Further, the AU may be perceived to have a sub-Saharan bias, hence favoring South Sudan, at least arguably.
The other regional group in the area is the Arab League. In their case, Sudan is a member, while South Sudan is not. Further, there is a much better argument that the Arab League has a bias in the conflict toward Sudan. Nonetheless, they may have a role as a counterweight to the AU. In fact, given the personal acrimony between el-Bashir and Kiir, both organiztions may be able to aid negotiations as proxies, although that may be asking too much, admittedly.
My conclusion is that the AU can be quite effective in supporting peace efforts, along with other regional players. The situation is a good reminder that we should be very careful before villifying or labeling. The fact that Sudan has been labelled as a state that has supported terrorism by the US, and that el-Bashir has ben accused of war crimes by the UN make the 'west' largely ineffective in the process, in addition to the old but festering wounds of imperialism. Of course, you must realize by now that everyone needs to act as peacemakers, so the discredited western powers need to mend fences, and humbly apply themselves to the peace process in Sudan. In that spirit of humility, we don't need to bow before evil, however you may think that evil manifests itself, as is so obviously has in East Africa, but stopping the shedding of blood must be a higher priority than preemptive justice.
This is a real good news/bad news situation, and if you've been following my posts you know that the optimist in me will start with the good news.
That good news is that the AU is really coming of age, and showing itself to be a real force in promoting the welfare of Africa. To any skeptical readers I will only ask that they do some research of what the AU is doing now, and forget its past reputation as a weak, corrupt or compromised body. The AU today shows signs of becoming what it should be, and although it is premature to hand out laurels, the progess of the AU is nearly miraculous since 2002, given the scope of the challenge in raising Africa to its proper place in the world. Both Sudan and South Sudan are members, and the AU could be a real partner in the peace process.
The bad news is that the AU is not a neutral player. Please remember that the goal is peace between Sudan and South Sudan. You should also recall that Omar el-Bashir is notorious for his role in the Darfur crisis and the South Sudan civil war. It is difficult to see el-Bashir as a peacemaker. It is incumbent on the process, however, to not stigmatize him. The AU has been a key partner in bringing the Darfur crisis to a level of stability, which, though far from peace, is far better than it was several years ago. In the process, the AU was forced into a role of confrontational negotiations with el-Bashir. Further, the AU may be perceived to have a sub-Saharan bias, hence favoring South Sudan, at least arguably.
The other regional group in the area is the Arab League. In their case, Sudan is a member, while South Sudan is not. Further, there is a much better argument that the Arab League has a bias in the conflict toward Sudan. Nonetheless, they may have a role as a counterweight to the AU. In fact, given the personal acrimony between el-Bashir and Kiir, both organiztions may be able to aid negotiations as proxies, although that may be asking too much, admittedly.
My conclusion is that the AU can be quite effective in supporting peace efforts, along with other regional players. The situation is a good reminder that we should be very careful before villifying or labeling. The fact that Sudan has been labelled as a state that has supported terrorism by the US, and that el-Bashir has ben accused of war crimes by the UN make the 'west' largely ineffective in the process, in addition to the old but festering wounds of imperialism. Of course, you must realize by now that everyone needs to act as peacemakers, so the discredited western powers need to mend fences, and humbly apply themselves to the peace process in Sudan. In that spirit of humility, we don't need to bow before evil, however you may think that evil manifests itself, as is so obviously has in East Africa, but stopping the shedding of blood must be a higher priority than preemptive justice.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
South Sudan and the UN
As noted in the Golden article (see 2 posts ago), The United Nations needs to rededicate itself to peace in Sudan. To this lever in providing peace, I couldn't agree more. In many ways the Sudan-South Sudan conflict in a perfect venue for the UN to work in. Many detractors find the UN to be a weak instrument, especially through the filter of the divided Security Council. This crisis is an example of when the UN can take a lead role in effectively promoting peace.
On May 2, the Security Council unanimously endorsed a resolution demanding both sides to end hostilities and resume negotiations, with appropriate measures leveled for failure to do so, in Resolution 2046 (2012) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10632.doc.htm
Specifically to cessation of hostilities, both sides are to unconditionally withdraw forces from the others' territory, place appropriate border security within a week, and cease hostile propaganda and inflammatory statements in the media.
The resumed negotiation portion of the request includes a timeline of three months to conclude negotiations on:
There are certainly foreseeable problems with accomplishing the steps 2046 recommends. Foremest of these is the high degree of animosity between the countries. The second is the damage done in the recent outbreak, particularly in Helgig. The third are the issues not addressed in 2046, specifically, the anti-government forces in South Sudan actively resisting, and perhaps receiving aid from Sudan, and the rebellions in South Khordofan and Blue Nile, Sudan provinces, perhaps receiving aid from South Sudan.
I feel that both countries would benefit by complying with Resolution 2046 as soon as practical. It is important to note, though, that this resolution merely ends current hostilities. Peace will be a lot tougher to find.
On May 2, the Security Council unanimously endorsed a resolution demanding both sides to end hostilities and resume negotiations, with appropriate measures leveled for failure to do so, in Resolution 2046 (2012) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/sc10632.doc.htm
Specifically to cessation of hostilities, both sides are to unconditionally withdraw forces from the others' territory, place appropriate border security within a week, and cease hostile propaganda and inflammatory statements in the media.
The resumed negotiation portion of the request includes a timeline of three months to conclude negotiations on:
- Oil and associated payments,
- The stautus of nationals of each side in the others country,
- resolution of border claims, and
- the final status of Abyei.
There are certainly foreseeable problems with accomplishing the steps 2046 recommends. Foremest of these is the high degree of animosity between the countries. The second is the damage done in the recent outbreak, particularly in Helgig. The third are the issues not addressed in 2046, specifically, the anti-government forces in South Sudan actively resisting, and perhaps receiving aid from Sudan, and the rebellions in South Khordofan and Blue Nile, Sudan provinces, perhaps receiving aid from South Sudan.
I feel that both countries would benefit by complying with Resolution 2046 as soon as practical. It is important to note, though, that this resolution merely ends current hostilities. Peace will be a lot tougher to find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)