The Congolese Atrocity and its Preventable Apprentice

For most of us, Halloween has just passed, and we’ve slowly sobered up and regained our humanity. We’re leaving a season with reverence for the dead, where ours and many other cultures around the world celebrate life and ancestry through feasts, goodwill, tricks, and general debauchery. Blissfully, we play with the idea of death and the dead and walk around in mobs that smile and cheer to each other. All the while, as we stumble down Carlotta and stare at all the bare flesh, some people across the world are stumbling and half naked for an entirely different reason.

Doubtlessly this Halloween season, you’ve seen countless doctors, especially with the Grey’s Anatomy crazy, but if you were in Geti, Goma, Kikwit, or many other cities in Congo, then you’d be hard pressed to find a doctor even in their hospitals. Looted, burned, and bullet-ridden, they stand as mausoleums, haunted houses of their own. People come and go, looking for a glimpse of hope, realizing that they must continue on to search for it. This is the Congo, where the war officially ended in 2002. At the end of this summer, an estimated four million people have died in the Congo since 1998, and according to the International Rescue Committee, half of these people were children under five. By the end of this year, twice as many people will die in the Congo as have died in the entire conflict in Darfur, which began in 2003.

The conflict in the Congo arose after the genocide in Rwanda, a shadow of death creeping over the land. The Hutus, responsible for the genocide in Rwanda, fled to Congo, which was at that time known as Zaire. Those who regained power in Rwanda followed, seeking their pound of flesh. Rwanda and Uganda entrenched themselves in Congo and began a slaughter to rival that which took place in Rwanda.

At this point, the world took a step back and let this happen. No country took a real effort to step in, which is perhaps because they were all too embarrassed over allowing the Rwandan genocide to occur. “A lot of the killings and horrors were in large part overlooked, either deliberately or not” says Anneke Van Woudenberg, a researcher with Human Rights Watch for Congo. She sets the mood very well. Even right now, as these people are dying and struggling to democratically elect their leaders for the first time since 1965, we are mostly ignoring their plight and deaths.

As I write this, the elections are going on. As you read this, they have passed and the world has noted a leader or at least a run-off between two viable candidates will be set. Throughout the campaigning for the first election, tension mounted at every single event because of ethnic slurs and racial epithet coming from all sides. Groups, such as the Human Rights Watch, are calling for an end to these slurs because they have only lead to death and destruction in the past. Abdoulaye Yerodia, one of the Congo’s four vice-presidents, used this tactic in 1998 when he used such language to entice violence against the Tutsi. He made a series of speeches that resulted in the murder of hundreds of Tutsi and the injuring of many more. In all hope, the Congolese people will elect a leader they can be proud of and agree on. In all hope, they will have chosen someone to unite them and someone the rest of the world can back. If not, there is a great possibility that the many rivaling groups will continue with their violence and the world will look on, unaware and unsure of whom to support. If this happens, then we might still be in the dark about the situations and about the death and destruction that continues. The Congo will not be in the news if violence continues, but Darfur will stay in our headlines for the time being.

We’re taking a look at Darfur, because, as Lydia Polgreen put it, Darfur comes with a magic word: “genocide”. Darfur presents us with a moral high ground, a way to clearly define the right and wrong parties, the human and the inhumane. While local militias and guerillas from other states have joined in the war in Congo, Darfur remains mostly isolated to the Arab government and the non-Arab tribes that rebelled in 2003. The Sudanese government’s military actions, aided by other arabic militias called janjaweed, have forced about 2.5 million from their homes and killed hundreds of thousands so far. You’ve seen the commercials, so you know of the mass rape and pillaging narrated by famous voices. However, their charities are still far short of cash.

The world is looking at Darfur, acting concerned and publicly denouncing it as a horrible crime against humanity, but we’re sitting on our hands. The UN is having trouble sending aid and military forces to Sudan and the surrounding area. The National Redemption Front, the rebels’ new name, is claiming large victories. It also claims that since it is a new organization, it is not bound to any previous cease-fire agreements or negotiations, according to Adam Shogar, a spokesman for the National Redemption Front. “It is all-out war,” Shogar proclaims, “there are no agreements.”

The conflict of Darfur has spilled across the border into Chad recently. Refugees from Darfur have been seeking shelter there in camps, but now they are mounting counterattacks against the Sudanese government from camps and from locations near these camps. The National Redemption Front even makes statements out of a headquarters in N’djamena, the capital of Chad. As they become a unified rebellion, they add in other countries, militias, and motivations for waging war. In response, the Sudanese government will need to hire and rely more on the janjaweed, which presents another group with other desires to add to the pillaging and murder. This conflict is a war that is rapidly deteriorating into multiple factions all vying for power, a goal that they seek to achieve through murdering their enemy entirely. Commercials and politicians have spouted this conflict for months, saying we need to act before it becomes another Rwanda. I urge us to act before it becomes another Congo.

———————————-
Further reading
Human Rights Watch. “D.R. Congo: Halt Growing Violence Ahead of Elections: Presidential Candidates Must Act to Reduce Tensions Ahead of October 29 Vote”
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/25/congo14441.htm

Polgreen, Lydia. “Grim New Turn Likely to Harden Darfur Conflict.”
The New York Times, October 20th, 2006.

The International Rescue Committee
Uganda website: http://www.theirc.org/where/the_irc_in_uganda.html
Sudan website: http://www.theirc.org/where/the_irc_in_sudan.html

Terrorism, More or Less - SFR issue 3 - Oct 11th

In April, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) entitled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States” was published. An NIE is a coordinated summation of the judgments of sixteen US Intelligence agencies, which is then approved by the Director of National Intelligence. This means it represents a unified assessment of a certain issue pertaining to national security.

NIEs are literally estimates which show a general trend in the current state of affairs in relation to the past. They tend to shy away from being strictly predictions, and usually serve more of an informational role with suggestions for the future. This NIE was partially declassified on September 26th by President Bush.

This might not seem like a rarity, but it truly is. Only about twenty of these reports are made a year, and according to the intelligence sources of CNN and FOX News, only three or four such reports have been partially declassified in the past fifteen to twenty years.

There has been a lot of debate on both sides about the details of the report and the reasons for President Bush to release part of the details of this report. The first major point of the release is that our counter-terrorism efforts have crippled the leadership of al-Qa’ida, and that it is no longer as centralized of an organization as it once was.
Al-Qa’ida is believed to pose the largest threat to the Homeland and U.S. foreign interests, and the global Jihadist movement, which includes al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, is spreading and slowly adapting to our counter-terrorism efforts. All our intelligence agencies, foreign and domestic, report that those identifying themselves as Jihadist are growing in number and geographical diversity.

While the report tells us that the Jihadist movement is gaining support, it also states that the movement lacks a central authority with a unified global network or strategy. New cells continue to grow and their lack of a central base will make them harder to root out. Threats from these kinds of groups will continue to grow and our foreign policy and actions are likely to change in a way that includes the concept of large threats from these groups in our country and abroad. These groups often view Europe as a good way to attack Western interests, as exhibited by the March 11, 2004 bombing in Madrid and in London on July 7, 2005.

The current Iraq conflict and the Iraq jihad serve as inspiration to new Jihadists, a catalyst for resentment towards the U.S. which is fueled by the feeling of success their movement is causing in terms of American causalities and fading support. The failure to capture Bin Ladin and al-Zarqawi continues to promulgate the ideology and the vision of victory for new Jihadists.

Three other underlying factors for the spread of the Jihadist movement are given: (1) a fear of Western dominance and thus a feeling of being humiliated and powerless; (2) the slow development of political, economic and social reforms of “Muslim majority nations”; (3) a general and pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims. These are generalizations made by the report to give an overview- it is information on a scale that encompasses too much for exceptions to be presented; they are meant to inform, not offend.

The report presents us with a few holes in the Jihadists’ armor. The first is that the conservative interpretation of a shari’a based government, is unpopular with the majority of Muslims. This idea is too much of a narrow, conservative path, and presenting this would most likely cause a divide between the Jihadists and their audience. Many Muslim clerics have spoken out and condemned acts of violence of the Jihadist nature. These clerics have been preaching political activism through the system itself via peaceful and meaningful routes. This mainstream Muslim ideology, if presented right, could prove to a powerful wedge. Some of this will be represented through democratic elections, which will simultaneously remove some of the Jihadist element from the public eye and present the Jihadists with new opportunities to exploit.

Sunni extremist organizations, such as Jemaah Islamiya, are also mentioned because they are beginning to expand their territories. They are not viewed to be as great a threat as the al-Qa’ida networks, but they will have a great variation in threat to our foreign and domestic interests, so it is a hard threat to judge.

The report states that improvised roadside bombings and suicide bombings will tend to be the most likely means of attack. Urban conflicts and counter attacks are also very likely. Former insurgents in Iraq are likely leaders of such conflicts and training for explosives. Groups will also be very inclined to continue kidnapping civilians. Even though Iran and Syria are considered to be the largest state sponsors of such activities, other states will either offer some support or be unable to prevent these kinds of attacks. This includes any non-Jihadist organizations that have an anti-US sentiment. We could start seeing these tactics used by any type of organization if they continue to prove successful.

The last point presented is that it is very likely for any and all of these groups to use the internet, and increasing shift functions to the internet for all aspects of their of communication and finance. All news stations talk of increased insurgents and Jihadist actions. Every general that comes on TV, or puts out a press release, talks about an increase in resentment towards their troops all across the Middle East. Pakistan and Israel are at each other like dogs, and President Bush’s hosting of President Musharraf and the Afghan leader Hamid Karzai did not seem to show us much ease in that tension.

So in September, before a big series of elections, President Bush has pulled out what some believe is a trump card. He took a classified report and gave it to the public. In one fell swoop, he showed that the government isn’t going to hide every piece of information they collect or try to get off your hard drive. The report itself is top notch, every intelligence leader puts his stamp on these. So not only have we just been told that al-Qa’ida is on the decline and decentralized, but we’re also being told this by the top dogs. This report presents us with a skewed view of both sides while also alluding to increase of anti-US sentiment, but quietly reminding us all the while that this increase is not as big a threat and is not as organized as it could have been if we would have not stepped in. It treats Iraq interestingly, because it shows that the idea of Iraq is a fuel to the fire of Jihadist thought, but also repeats that the majority of Muslims could easily be turned from this ideal.

Partial-Birth and the Supreme Court Oct 23rd - Issue 4

We all hear about late term abortions or as Charles Canady (R-Fla) coined in 1995 “partial birth abortions”. This November the 8th, the United States Supreme Court is going to be hearing a case where they will determine the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. This is an act “to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial-birth abortion”. They are looking at to see if the act is invalid because it “lacks a health exception”, which Congress determined unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, and then to see if it is unconstitutional for any other reasons that may arise. The cases presented are Gonzales, Attorney General, v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al; and Gonzales, Attorney General, v. Carhart, et al.

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), a companion ruling to Roe v. Wade, requires that a state’s restriction on abortions must include a health exception for women, and that it must include mental health as well as physical health in this exception. The Act of 2003 does not include an exception because the information shown to Congress convinced the Congress that, “the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman”, (Section 2.13) Here’s where it gets a little interesting, Congress when make its laws and passing act, even when they are so closely intertwined with the courts’ decisions, can choose to disregard any information and previous court rulings and reach its own factual findings independent of the courts. So while the Supreme Court must uphold previous decisions and take those into account, Congress can make decisions without information it defines as flawed or erroneous. In this case, Congress determined that such abortions are never necessary to save a woman’s life, which puts the bill in direct opposition to the ruling concerning Doe v. Bolton.

The CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health, on April 14th of this year, stated that a late term abortion, being defined as the pregnancy at 21 weeks or later, account for only 1.4% of all American abortions. Intact Dilation and Extraction abortions, where the fetus is removed via the cervix and is mostly intact, thus the “partial birth” status, account for about 15% of late term abortions. Annually, this is between 2,500 and 3,000 cases according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, but many estimates are significantly lower.

With this being such a small percentage of abortions, it is somewhat surprising to see this at the forefront of the abortion debate if you look strictly at the numbers. Think about the other 98.6% of cases, some of the numbers there are a little staggering, but you’ve heard more about partial birth abortions than any other kind. The reason this is probably at the height of the debate is the appearance of and the name “partial-birth” when it comes to these abortions. If you physically look at this procedure it does very closely resemble the initial process of birth, where all of the fetus besides the head is outside of the mother, which is highly disturbing. The fetus’s brain tissue is removed, and the fetus is then removed completely from the mother. It is a process you will never want to see. People on all sides of the political spectrum readily admit both this resemblance and its disturbing nature.

The key in this though is that it is a resemblance. In his State of the Union address of 2003, President Bush said this bill would “protect infants at the very hour of their birth.” Sorry Mr. President, but you’re about 15 to 20 weeks early. Partial birth abortions generally happen between the 20th and 24th, while a full term pregnancy is usually 40 weeks. At 20 weeks, a fetus is at right about a pound, and the National Center for Health Statistics says the survival rate for babies born weighing 1 pound 1 ounce is only about 14%. Though it is honestly hard to get past the visual and look at such numbers objectively.

The name “partial-birth” is to offend people, it is a political term to make people oppose it . The 2003 Act says that the “gruesome and inhumane nature of the partial-birth abortion procedure and its disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant promotes a complete disregard for infant human life”(Section 2.14-L). Even our laws in the case of abortion are emotionally and politically charged to make them seem like an act of complete barbarism. For a lot of people, that is exactly what they are. Abortion, whether it be partial-birth or abortion in general, is one of the larger issues in our society that has basically no middle ground. It is a decision that is heavily intertwined with your family, your religion, your personal beliefs, and your passion. Reserved debates on abortion are quite a rarity, because it is incredibly hard to separate your emotions in this case.

My personal views on abortion aren’t important for a few reasons. The first is that, as it stands right now, partial-birth abortions are illegal under federal law. Equally as important is that we seem to need pro-life and pro-choice citizens in this debate. I would over joyously prefer the number of abortions to go down because our citizens had smarter and safer sex which could allow stricter regulations on abortion cases, but at the same time I never want to see a bill passed on abortion that says there will never be a moment where this is life saving to the mother. As much as we know about the human body, I do not feel that we know enough to limit our options when it comes to the possibility of saving a life. With the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, I’m not trying to rattle the cage and overturn all abortion laws and let them run rampant in the streets, the point of this was to get the whole issue out there and simply ask why not put in a simple clause that says they’re okay if the mother’s life is at risk.

Dictionary Terrorists - Sept 24, SFR issue 2

If you haven’t heard about terrorism and terrorists nonstop for a few years, then you’ve been under a pretty big rock. We hear about it everyday: wars on terror, roadside bombings and insurgents keep our 24-7 news cycle running. With all this going on, what defines a terrorist and why are some called terrorists and others just scare us.
The United States Code, Title 18, Section 2231 sets out definitions for forms of terrorism, international and domestic, and sets up a definition for who terrorism effects. The most in-depth definition involves international terrorism; understanding this definition will consequently make domestic terrorism easier to grasp.

International terrorism means activities that -
• Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.
• Appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.

The UN has yet to agree on an official definition of terrorism, but they do have a general academic consensus on the matter. This is very similar to our Code but it also specifically extends terrorism to propaganda and acts that incur collateral damage.
This definition is broad, unspecified, and easily applicable. Many groups fit this idea of terrorism but are not in the forefront of our minds when it comes the thought of terrorism. American’s most prevalent thought of terrorism begins with the loss of our World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon. Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad predominate our ideas of terrorists with AK-47s and religious garb. We must also remember the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, the Nagaland Rebels (a Christian group responsible for many bombings in India in 2004), the Aryan Nation, and the genocidal Army for the Liberation of Rwanda.
Terrorism and terrorists are products of hate. We must not limit ourselves and our perspectives to a certain group, this gives them strength. If we put our energy into going against only one enemy, we strengthen the resolve of that group and all their sympathizers, while ignoring other atrocities going on in our world.
While the definitions of these acts help give scope when our leaders speak of terrorists and acts of terror, they leave open the problem of ambiguity. Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of the Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania, presents an uncomfortable position concerning the definition in Section 2231 that calls terrorism activities those that influence government “by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” Ambassador Peck said, “[One] can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.”
Even the UN seems to agree on this problem of ambiguity, with their web site admitting: “Cynics have often commented that one state’s ‘terrorist’ is another state’s ‘freedom fighter’.” In no way am I implying that our state or Israel are terrorist nations, but Peck’s statement shows that terrorism depends on foreign policy, foreign allies, and the tendency to classify ‘terrorists’ and ‘terrorism’ as something brutal, sadistic, and so inhumane that the country who defines it keeps itself out of the definition through this type of mindset.
President George W. Bush first used the term “Axis of Evil” in his Jan. 2002 State of the Union Address, which was a reference to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Under previous administrations, these countries- along with Afghanistan, Libya, Syria- were called rogue states or states of concern. These labels are used for countries we feel to be a threat to the world’s peace. The criteria most often contains the act of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, sponsoring or harboring terrorists and their organizations, mass disregard for human rights of its citizens, and a stance of hostility towards our country. These are just the basics; every country is reviewed and defined as a threat on very specific terms.
These terms and their definitions are not endorsed universally. People on all sides of the issue throw them around quite often and seem to take offense to them as a misuse just as often. It is hard to take an objective look that is all encompassing. It is hard to understand what parts of a classification make one more of a threat than another. It is also hard to get past the news, movies and television specials that shove a certain idea of terrorism and a certain person as terrorist in our face day after day.
We must be aware of ourselves, our world, and take the time to view a terrorist by their actions, not by the color of their skin or their faith. All people have the capacity for good and we must not lose that faith.

Further reading:

Blum, William. Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. 2000.
Goodman, Amy. “Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah Talks With Former US Diplomats on Israel, Prisoners and Hezbollah’s Founding.” Democracy NOW. 28 July 2006.
United Nations Department Office on Drugs and Crime. Online. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html.