Archive | March, 2022

Opportunity Beyond Uncertainty and Action Beyond Words: Reflections of an Afghan Student, Jamshid Mohammadi

27 Mar

Editor’s Note: Jamshid came to us this spring via Kandahar, Kabul and the Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program. While Jamshid is not the first Afghan intern we have had over the years, he is most likely the first intern from any source to have escaped from his home country prior to his tenure with us. As the UN continues to open up after two years of COVID restrictions, he is already experiencing the richness and frustration of UN policy environments. Jamshid is not the last young person to experience grave uncertainty due to conflict and political turmoil. We need to do more to accompany their difficult journeys.

One global trend today is a mismatch between what fragile governments can provide and what the citizens expect or rather need. Take the de facto state in Afghanistan as an example, where the cause of a growing mismatch is well beyond the ability of the state to resolve due to wide-ranging factors including but not limited to a lack of political will. As in other regions, a void has been created in Afghanistan and subsequently filled mostly with uncertainty which could ultimately be either disruptive or constructive depending on the models we adopt and the frameworks we construct around this uncertainty.

I grapple with a similar uncertainty on an individual level. I experience a growing mismatch between what I envisioned 2022 would look like what it is like today. I had assumed, as a Fulbright Semi-Finalist and a U.S. Embassy in Kabul alumnus, that my higher education was destined to be in the United States. I also assumed that I would go back to Afghanistan and tell the tales of Central Park to my friends who are obsessed with the “Friends” series, an American TV Show popular among young Afghan adults.

My country and I are facing many of the same questions: what lies beyond uncertainty and what lies beyond words (or beyond “work” as in meetings at the UN and elsewhere to discuss Afghanistan compared to taking actions that can make larger and more lasting differences)? As is the case with Afghanistan, my own growing mismatch is at some level caused by myself and our own people, and at some level caused by outsiders.

As a kid who went to high school in Kandahar, Afghanistan, I had to work so hard to be able to debate global issues with my fellow exchange students who came from Europe, the Americas and Eastern Asia to join the Bard Globalization and International Affairs Program where I now study. My country had gone through so much in order to rise from having almost no functioning institutions to having a recognized state apparatus, albeit corrupt and largely ineffective. For my own part, I admit that I could do better and work harder, and my country also acknowledges that some elite Afghans could do better and do more to finally end the longstanding suffering of the Afghan people. Surely I should not have missed my classes to sometimes join soccer matches to satisfy my personal desires. Corrupt elites (often with dual citizenship) do as I did but on a much larger scale, prioritizing personal gains over the national interest.

I want to ask those who are reading this personal post alongside Dr. Zuber’s thoughtful pieces: is it now unfair of my country or myself for that matter to seek a more stable, less uncertain life?

As I unpack my things here in New York and plan for my future, I still see commonalities between my country and me. I see opportunity beyond uncertainty, but to make that happen I need to go beyond planning. Some perhaps disagree, but I believe that there is also opportunity beyond uncertainty for Afghanistan. But to grasp that opportunity, we must go beyond meetings and discussions of issues affecting Afghanistan and risk more specific, tangible actions on the ground.

As a sovereign actor, the burden of my future falls solely on me. However, there are obvious impediments to realizing opportunity in the case of Afghanistan, including an international structure designed and based largely on neoliberal ideals that can compromise and even undermine the sovereignty of fragile states by large global powers or even by supra-national organizations such as the UN, IMF and World Bank.  For Afghanistan the involvement of large states and institutions has been a mixed blessing, a source of assistance but also a collective burden.

We must remind ourselves that the quantity of assistance to Afghanistan is not as important as effective aid management.  We must also do more for ourselves, to open educational opportunity for all and ensure that our economy and politics are fully inclusive.  In this regard, the recent reversal by the Taliban of a decision to allow girls in school is a major setback for the future of Afghanistan.  And yet there is hope that the recent, welcome renewal of the UNAMA mandate, including its human rights monitoring, will help ensure that the Taliban will keep its promises and meet its international obligations.

Rightly focused now on the situation in Ukraine, the international community must also strive to maintain its practical attention on other conflict settings. When it fails to do so, this implies that ending such conflicts is merely a means for protecting strategic interests rather than ending human suffering. My internship at Global Action to Prevent War and Armed conflict, providing me the opportunity to write and reflect alongside Dr. Robert Zuber, has given me a chance to scrutinize UN meetings on Afghanistan but also to keep appraised of other conflict settings in global regions where opportunity is being compromised.  

To keep Afghan opportunity in focus, the United Nations ought to reform much of its policies toward Afghanistan. For me, beyond uncertainty is the opportunity to go to a decent graduate school and use this time to prepare to contribute to a more stable and inclusive Afghanistan. For UN and other international partners, the goal must be to enable a viable pathway towards a self-sustaining Afghanistan: The opportunity to put modern labor forces together with the agricultural base of Afghan communities to gradually develop a self-sustaining economy.  The opportunity to democratize Afghanistan by integrating inclusive governance models which already exist which align with the realities of Afghanistan. The opportunity to pressure the de facto authorities to, among other things, respect the promise of general amnesty, uphold the rights of all, open schools to girls, and end corrupt practices, trafficking and threats from terror groups. 

There is so much more to be done.  I am grateful for this opportunity to prepare to help my country turn the current period of uncertainty into a longer period of opportunity. 

 

Tags: , ,

Sudan: Between Coups, Resistance and Repression, by Moshibudi Motimele

20 Mar

Editor’s Note: We were pleased to be part of a recent seminar on Sudan organized by our good colleague, Hussein Solomon of South Africa. Sudan is one of the places which is experiencing a multitude of challenges emanating from the October coup and climate-related threats to agriculture and water; from refugees coming from Tigray and unresolved justice for victims of violence in Darfur; and much more. We and others have been reminding the international community that, alongside the gravity of events in Ukraine, other sites of conflict, injustice and deprivation must remain in global focus, from Afghanistan to El Salvador, from Yemen to Sudan. We are most grateful for this summary of proceedings by Moshibudi Motimele in support of our ongoing accompaniment of Sudan.

On the 15th March 2022, the Politics and Governance Department at the University of the Free State hosted a virtual seminar titled, ‘Sudan: Between Coups, Resistance and Repression’. The panel of speakers included Eiman Seifeldin, a human rights and women and children’s rights activist and Environmental Sciences lecturer; Mutassim Ali, a lawyer and former director of the African Refugee Development Centre; Dr. Sheldon Gellar, an Africa Democracy and Development Consultant Researcher and Dr. Robert Zuber, Director of the UN-based Global Action to Prevent War and Armed Conflict. The purpose of the webinar was to keep attention on the plight of the Sudanese people, particularly after the latest military coup of October 25, 2021, which has resulted in worsening socio-economic conditions and human rights abuses in the country.

Origins of Current Conflict

The roots of the current conflict were identified as the political and cultural dominance of one ethnicity, continued military rule, genocide, economic instability, and widespread civilian strife. Since Sudanese independence in 1956, the country has been marked by much contestation between those who support the imposition of Islamic law  and military leadership and those who are fighting for civil rule and a more secular state. The first Prime Minister of independent Sudan, Ismail al-Azhari, was removed by a military coup de tat in 1969. Subsequently military coups have occurred consistently in Sudan including in 1971, 1989 and most recently on the 25 October 2021.

Eiman Seifeldin highlighted the fact that the continuous military coups have been characterized by high levels of sexual violence and the use of rape as a weapon to subdue both Sudanese men and women. This has resulted in a large part of the people’s revolution being led and supported by women who find that their bodies continue to be used as sites of violence and repression. Seifeldin almost made reference to the March 14th rape of an 18-year-old student in Khartoum by officers of the military force which is just the most recent incident in the systematic use of sexual violence as a method of suppressing participation in protests.

In particular, the 2019 Revolution was identified as being a key moment in Sudan’s history where revolts were organized by grassroots groups, social organisations and the general public, not the military or political parties as had been the case previously. Responding to dissatisfaction with the continued torture and brutal imprisonment of civilians alongside widespread economic challenges such as extreme hunger, government corruption and unemployment, the Sudanese people were able to end the almost 30-year rule of former President Omar al-Bashir. This resulted in the birth of the transitional period through the signing in of a Constitutional hybrid government with civil groups and military groups.

Crisis of National Identity

According to Mutassim Ali, the root cause of Sudanese suffering is a crisis of national identity that has persisted since independence. The lack of racial and cultural homogeneity within Sudan has meant that the imposition of Arab cultural identity and Islamic law results in continuous protests and revolt that have generated genocides and human rights abuses. He identifies more than 35 attempted coups and insurgencies in areas such as Darfur, South Sudan and the Nuba mountains with very short-lived moments of quasi-democracy in between. Therefore, for Sudanese civilians, violence and instability has marked their daily lives.

It is also important to bear in mind that throughout these epochs of violence and suffering, civilian groups have exhausted all tools to resist the government peacefully. Therefore, the use of more violent strategies should be read within the context of increasing desperation to end military rule which does not hesitate to mete out violence against suspected dissenters and innocent civilians. The revolt that began in December 2018 can be seen as the end point of an accumulative revolution that united many factions of the Sudanese people who have been involved in a more fragmented longer trajectory of resistance against the government. Although this revolution achieved success through the removal of al-Bashir, the cost of activism in Sudan is deadly with many losing lives to all the de facto regimes.

In addition, the subsequent military regimes that have ruled over Sudan, for many represent a continuation of the Bashir time of rule as many of the military leaders guilty of current crimes were part of Bashir’s government. They insist to remain a part of the current regime, at all costs, because they fear the accountability that they will be forced to take for human rights abuses if they are ousted from government. This has an impact on the legitimacy possible for current power-sharing deals with many civilians rightly refusing to accept any form of military rule particularly by those complicit in long histories of violation and repression.

External factors constraining the impact of Revolution

Dr Sheldon Gellar questioned why it is that the revolution had lasted so long when 80% of the population is united against military rule. The predominant external factors that he identified were the political and financial support that Sudanese military leaders receive from particularly Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. In exchange for access to and control of gold mines as well as the protection of human trafficking routes, these foreign governments and transnational actors are willing to turn a blind eye to internal brutality and strife.  Not forgetting as well all the Sudanese mercenaries that continue to be deployed in Yemen and Libya. He notes that the Bashir government was a recipient of up to seven billion dollars from Sunni Arab states including Qatar and Turkey through their shared connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. None of these states, then, have openly condemned the coups and military rule. Instead, they all make statements in which they highlight the fact that they support dialogue, a dialogue which is based on capitulation.

Russia, through the Wagner Group, has been complicit in assisting the Sudanese government in shutting down resistance to the tyrannous regime. This has included the use of Russian planes to kill people. Furthermore, through the Wagner Group, Russia has been responsible for much instability in the region including in Mali and the Central African Republic. At the root of Russian declarations of support is the consideration of Russian interests and strategic relationships, not a concern for the Sudanese people. On the other spectrum, China can be seen to have supported the military government politically by abstaining to condemn them publicly. The same can be said for the African Union, South Africa and Chad who have been seen to subtly support the military regimes by refusing condemnation. This is extremely unfortunate considering the West’s failure to deliver on its promises to protect the Sudanese people from Jihadists and to deliver basic services. However, there is hope to be taken from the continent as well. Burkina Faso, which has an extremely poor economy, has managed to successfully remove a dictator peacefully. As with civilian groups in Sudan, organisation has predominantly been non-violent.

In the West, though many states have openly criticized military rule in Sudan, this criticism has not been followed through with the imposition of real sanctions. The threat of sanctions is often made and international and American aid is reduced but this does not have much impact. Mostly, because Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have millions of dollars to give to cover this shortfall and don’t require any socio-political guarantees with regards to civilians and human rights in exchange. In essence, there are no actual consequences for continued military coups in Sudan. The orchestrators of these coups lose nothing and are not held accountable.

Concluding remarks – “Justice is not the sacrifice at the alter of stability”

All of the speakers agreed that the crisis in Sudan has occupied less and less of the international imagination and global media attention in recent times despite conditions worsening consistently. The current conflict in Ukraine and its monopolization of global indignation and concern has left very little space for recognition and intervention into urgent crisis in Sudan, and other countries in the region. For the millions of Sudanese civilians, the goal is a just and democratic system of governance where open contestation is permitted. The international community, however, has seemed to priorities stability which has continuously meant acknowledging perpetrators of extreme violence as legitimate sharers of government. Civilian groups in Sudan are clear, they will not acknowledge any agreement that allows military leadership to remain in power as legitimate. Furthermore, a transitional government cannot be successful without peace. The military leadership in Sudan has been equally clear, it has no intention in allowing the transition process to end in democratic elections and the legitimation of a democratic government. This lack of security and trust has created an extremely fragile state of affairs in Sudan which has dire consequences for not only the Sudanese people but the entire Sahelian area which includes Mali, Niger, Central African Republic, Burkina Faso and Chad.

The international community has largely failed the Sudanese people on multiple fronts. They have failed to: renew and effectively implement economic sanctions, successfully bring many military generals to account in the International Criminal Court (ICC) including those who remain in governance today, effectively implement the arms embargo which continues to be breached without consequence and to assist with the operationalization of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Therefore, in essence there is no international community that is in solidarity with Sudan in a substantive matter. The West’s prime material concerns with power, wealth and hedonism has meant that it is not willing to make the necessary sacrifices to force Sudanese militants to relinquish power.

As the June 3rd deadline of UNITAMS draws closer, it’s clear that the future of a possibly democratic Sudan remains in the hands of the Sudanese people who continue to display an unwavering commitment to secular civilian rule. The solutions and proposals that can adequately deal with the complexities of the crisis in Sudan can only emerge from those who live the reality of that crisis daily. Fundamentally there needs to be a respect for one another regardless of ethnic and religious affiliation as well as the political will to build a real movement towards democracy.

Tags: , , ,

Attention Deficits: Moments of Decision for the Global Community, Dr. Robert Zuber

13 Mar

Sand was dribbling out of the bag of her attention, faster and faster. Sarah Blake

Let us not focus on the chink in the canvas of the darkness but look at the light piercing through it. Erik Pevernagie

Where your attention goes, your time goes. Idowu Koyenikan,

A single moment with that empty spot causes excruciating pain. That’s why we run from distraction to distraction—and from attachment to attachment. Yasmin Mogahed

It seems as if people were worn out on the way to great thoughts and can never enjoy them because they are too tired. George Eliot

If our state were really happy, we should not need to take our minds off it in order to make ourselves happy.  Blaise Pascal

You understand absolutely nothing about modern civilization unless you first admit that it is a universal conspiracy against all interior life.  Georges Bernanos

I’m sitting in my living room early on a chilly Sunday morning having already woven a tapestry of distraction even before the sun rises on this first day of daylight savings.   I make coffee; I arrange the compost to take to the Farmer’s Market; I check the sports scores and the late-winter weather; I write short notes to some people whom I have neglected or to whom I have been unresponsive; I check my bank-balance to remind myself yet again of the perils of not having a salary; I obsess over what it will be like to re-enter UN headquarters after a two-year absence.   The sand of my attention has been steadily “dribbling out of the bag” and the sun hasn’t even graced the horizon yet. It’s not a pretty picture.

But of course, given our work in the world, my computer is open to the latest from Ukraine, a conflict which for a variety of reasons has sucked the oxygen out of the wider range of conflicts and controversies to which we attempt to focus policy attention.  From Afghanistan and Sudan to Myanmar and Yemen, so much of the conflict and climate-impacted misery facing millions in our fragile global community receives scant attention now as the Russian invasion moves into a third week and the justifications for the civilian-targeted violence are becoming increasingly absurd, calculated distractions rather than honest suggestions for resetting regional security arrangements.

The Russian invasion has been anything but surgical.  Russian troops seem largely unmotivated, resistance has been much more formidable than expected, and Russian leadership is clearly in over its head, a worrisome development given Russia’s “on alert” nuclear arsenal and its position as one of the primary guardians of a Charter-based order which it now flaunts with presumptions of impunity.   Russia is hardly the only large power which has used its coercion and position to expand its geopolitical influence, often in the face of massive international opposition, but that such unilateral coercive measures of choice continue to be rationalized is a testament to how fragile our vaunted “rules-based international order” has often been and remains until the present.

Consistent with other large-power disruptions to the prevailing global order, Russia has responded to the current tsunami of opposition with statements within and beyond the Security Council which continue to place the blame for its own actions on the actions of others – from NATO expansionism to allegations of biological weapons labs developed by the US and the presumed revival of Nazism within Ukraine itself.  Much of this blaming of course is also a strategy to create distraction – an attempt to confine discussions to the topic of who broke the proverbial dishes in the kitchen while ignoring the larger reality that one of the parties to the dishes dispute had no business being in the kitchen in the first instance.

And there is another factor here for those of us who spend much of our time discerning and assessing threats to the peace beyond Euro-centric theaters of conflict, assessing both particularities and commonalities of conflict and deprivation, but also the will and capacity of the international community to effect lasting relief, our propensity for making more promises than we honor, including the promise to remain seized of threats to peace and security whether or not they come to dominate the front pages of western media and their global colleagues. 

For while a needless war in Ukraine rages, so do manifold and even existential threats from climate change and biodiversity loss.  So do grave challenges to the millions worldwide who have had their lives and livelihoods turned upside down by unwelcome regime change in states from Afghanistan to Sudan.   So do impediments to health from vaccine inequity and fresh water supplies which are increasingly tainted and inaccessible. So do the development of weapons systems which allow us to kill many at a distance with only limited strands of accountability.

We in the policy world have many promises to global constituents over many years, promises to prevent conflict and promote development, promises to improve governance and narrow economic and social inequalities, promises to promote respect for rights and laws in tandem with those we seek to serve.

These promises require sustained interest and attention from the international community, indeed from all of us in policy, attention even more important in light of the current conflict in Ukraine.  Many of us are tired to be sure, tired of crises of choice, tired of having multi-lateral efficacy betrayed by narrow, partisan national interests.  But the stakes are high now, higher than they have been in some time, especially so for those legions of weary conflict victims in all global regions.  As we begin to assess the carnage multiplying now in Ukraine, we will also be tasked with assessing damage, yet again, to the UN’s battered reputation as its large powers refuse to play by the rules they liberally compel for others.  It is time for us to deepen attachments, but to broaden them also; to chide those who refuse to honor their responsibilities and to find and share the glimmers of light piercing still through these dark times.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has rightly set off many, well-worn alarm bells, including the bell which tolls for the looming threat to any pretense of shared commitments by states to a cleaner, safer, more peaceful, more equitable world.   When the erstwhile, Charter-mandated guardians of multilateralism demonstrate that national interest is still the primary catalyst for national action, the fear is that additional smaller states will also choose to line up to challenge international law obligations once they are confident of escaping consequences from ignoring Charter values.

To our mind, the one thing the UN needs to be discussing now is how to broker a cease fire in Ukraine followed by the swift withdrawal of Russian forces; and then to discern how best to repair this latest rupture to the shroud of credibility still covering parts of our multilateral system, a rupture with grave implications for the millions living with violence, rights abuses and food insecurity in conflict settings within and far beyond Ukraine.

All the rest, all of the recrimination and phony rationalizations, all of that is mere distraction.  We can’t afford the indulgence.

Tags: , ,