I’m sure after watching something like that you are both disturbed and filled with questions. What can we do about these atrocities that our consumerism obviously help finance!? The clearest, and what I believe is the most immediate and self-disciplined answer, is curb our individual consumption. All to often in ‘developed’ countries that are distant from the toil, production, and environmental impact of our goods, we think it is okay to purchase recklessly because it ‘boosts the economy.’ This insatiable habit for consumption is not only likely to get us into serious trouble in the future as resources diminish, but is having deadly effects now, today, in countries across the globe. Take a look at this report on the effects of factories in Lesotho. Levi-Gap Factories Pollute Rivers and Damage Health in Lesotho.

We are not taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions. We want to open up markets and turn everyone into ‘effective consumers,’ yet we can not even mitigate the effects of our own actions. We blame the corporations and call for corporate social responsibility (CSR), when it is in fact our demand that fueled that irresponsibility in the first place. This is not to say that CSR is not crucial, it is, but the answer is two-fold and addressing and controlling our spending is also a necessary part. We can also pressure our officials, our corporations, our NGO’s, whoever will listen, to create a better system of product line accountability. Indeed efforts like this have already been put into motion, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, http://eiti.org. But then we must use it! If the demand is there then supply will follow, we know this all too well. And if laws don’t come first let’s create a normative movement, entreating people to join PTEP: People for the Ethical Treatment of People!

Paul Farmer is famously quoted in Tracy Kidder’s book Mountains Beyond Mountains for saying “I love WL’s (white liberals), love ‘em to death. They’re on our side. But WL’s think all the world’s problems can be fixed without any cost to themselves. We (PIH) don’t believe that. There’s a lot to be said for sacrifice, remorse, even pity. It’s what separates us from roaches” (Kidder, 40). I recognize this is a very touchy subject, and it often makes people uncomfortable. My response to this… good! Maybe that discomfort will entice some sort of action, rather than compliance; and besides, this discomfort hardly begins to grasp the inhumanity our brothers and sisters in Lesotho and the DRC face.

As I was reading about the SDC, I found myself relating everything in the report to many class discussions in my class, Networks as Capacities for Peace. In particular, our discussions regarding the viability, effectiveness, strengths/weaknesses and such of networks (for example three we examined were the African National Congress in South Africa, the Zimbabwe diaspora, and the Cordoba Initiative), in which we asked many questions about the implications and potential of different elements of networks, such as leadership and the possible necessity of a “critical yeast” (key leadership figures or critical events that propel a movement/network forward), membership and the positives/negatives about plurality or diversity, advocacy and the role of media/social media, etc. The SDC appears to have effectively addressed each of these different needs or elements.

The SDC is a coalition of more than 190 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations with over 1 million (!) activists and 100’s of communities committed to ending the genocide in Darfur (they report a total of 130 million people represented by the coalition- this is massive membership or partnership #s!). The report mentions how the SDC is able to use everyone’s collective abilities for expertise and resources, ie. they are successfully leveraging the social capital of all members of this massive coalition. The various ways the SDC does this is, 1) the creation of various programs such as the Communities United to Save Darfur program, 2) a huge and effective online forum and online advocacy (particularly social media-Facebook, Twitter, Youtube), 4) strong media relations made effective by a clearly formulated and communicated media and advocacy strategy, 3) in-person opportunities to strategize, build capacity, and create effective advocacy (through their Darfur A! ctivist Leaders and most notably the participation and strategic influence on policy and strategies of the Darfuri diaspora, ie. the Darfuri Leaders Network), and 4) not only strong domestic advocacy (pressuring and influencing US political leaders and Congress), but also advocacy within the international community (UN, NATO, EU, AU, Arab League). At the end of the report they even list all the coalition partners, the Board of Directors (which appears to be an interfaith and interethnic mix–notably, their Chairperson is Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D., My Sister’s Keeper…which could be another discussion along the lines of the one brought up during the Cordoba Initiative presentation regarding who the leader of the network is and how that effects its functioning/perception…), and their statement of activities/revenue and expenses–>supporting an image of the SDC as transparent and accountable as well.

The mission (THEORY OF CHANGE) of the SDC is to raise public awareness and mobilize a massive response to the atrocities in Darfur…which it seems to be effectively acheiving.

Overall, the Save Darfur Coalition really stood out to me, in light of all the questions about networks we’ve discussed in our class, as a good model for an effective network. One that is successfully and effectively leveraging the social capital of its members and partners, its ability to bridge such a wide variety of actors and other networks (190+; coalition partners notably also include the National Council of Churches, and Catholic, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic networks and organizations), its multitrack efforts to advocate with community, national, regional and international leaders and organizations, and effectively utilizing the media, especially social media to advocate its cause.

A good place to go from here would be to question how its methods could be replicated or what lessons can be drawn from the SDC that can be applied to other networks? I think the SDC is an effective network, however, I wonder what role the specific nature of their campaign and theory of change (the atrocity of genocide) has on its huge success at motivating mass advocacy and activism? As well as what role or influence who it has on its Board and supporting it in Congress has on its success?

Is the SDC a good model as a network? If so, can (should) it be replicated or used to remodel other less effective networks and campaigns for other global issues just as pertinent? Any thoughts?

In other news, last week, a five-week legal battle between oil trader Trafigura and the UK’s Guardian newspaper came to a close when Trafigura ended a secret injunction with the news organization. How did this all start?

In 2006, a scientific study eventually called the Minton Report began to collect evidence that Trafigura was dumping toxic waste in the waters of the Cote d’Ivoire. The report was commissioned when hundreds of people in the Cote d’Ivoire claimed to have been poisoned and flooded the hospitals. In more detail:

The Minton report – though it was preliminary in nature – made dismaying reading for Claude Dauphin, the Trafigura director in charge of oil preparations. It said the process had been so amateurish that it had probably left a high quantity of noxious sulphur compounds in the vast quantity of stinking black waste.

Minton went on to list half a dozen potentially unstable chemical compounds which could burn or poison people who came into contact with them. Some of them could also generate the killer gas hydrogen sulphide in certain conditions.

Minton said such waste could never have been dumped legally on a landfill in Europe and ought to have received specialist and expensive chemical treatment called “wet air oxidation” to make it safe. None of this had happened.

Among the effects of the sludge, Minton listed: severe burns to the skin and to the lungs; permanent ulceration; corneal damage; vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of consciousness and death. One of the chemicals was branded “very toxic to humans and dangerous to the environment”.

About a month ago, The Guardian got word of this report. Trafigura, claiming the report’s evidence was preliminary and inaccurate, went to lengths to file an injunction on The Guardian effectively prohibiting them from publishing the content and findings of the Minton Report. And not only that, but they also filed what has become known as a “super injunction” – a gag order banning The Guardian from even disclosing that they were under an injunction. News of the Minton Report still got out in cyberspace, particularly in Wikileaks, and was circulated madly on Twitter. (For a full story of how the news leaked all over the Internet, refer to the Online Journalism Blog).

But finally, largely under pressure by social media networks and blogging communities, Trafigura released The Guardian from the injunction, and the super injunction. They even admitted that the waste could have caused a “range of short term low level flu like symptoms and anxiety.”

The obvious takeaway – in a social media world, important news is becoming even tougher to suppress. But this is still food for thought about the current state of press freedom – even in the UK – and of course, about the role of companies like Trafigura and their environmental responsibility.

Related Links:

The Minton Report, in full

The Guardian’s clause-by-clause analysis of the super injunction

June started off with a plane crash of an Airbus flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. President Obama went to Cairo to make a speech about Muslims and the U.S — some people thought it was pretty good while others had more measured reactions. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, widely reported to be sickly with cancer, tapped his youngest son Jong Un as successor, and his sushi chef said he’s just like his dad. Palau decided to accept a few of the Uighur Guantanamo detainees, and a few of them were also taken in by Bermuda. The Bermudans, however, weren’t so happy about how that happened. A little later, Iran had a Presidential election. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won under most likely fraudulent circumstances because more people voted in some towns than existed there. People protested, and Twittered, and protested some more, with violent repercussions. New York Times reporter David Rohde escaped after 7 months of being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In a seemingly pro-feminist move (but actually to the chagrin of many feminists), Nicolas Sarkozy supported a ban of the burqa in France. In Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a coup, and the U.S. military finally withdrew troops from Iraq to focus more instead on efforts to curb Taliban influence in Afghanistan.

In Urumqi, China, riots broke out between the majority Han Chinese and the minority Uighurs, and ethnic tension has remained heightened since, including recent claims that Uighurs are attacking Han Chinese with HIV infected needles. Two hotels were bombed in Jakarta, Indonesia. Hillary Clinton went to the Congo and brought attention to the use of rape and sexual violence as a tool of war (against men, too). Bill Clinton flew to North Korea and saved journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who had been captured in March and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. It was a good week to be a Clinton.

Former President of the Philippines Corazon Aquino died. RIP, Cory. In Taiwan, there was a really big typhoon. Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial was held over the question of whether or not she violated the terms of her house arrest when a crazy American guy swam through a lake to visit her on a supposedly divine mission. She was found guilty. The American was freed (but remained crazy). Everybody found out that private contractor organization Blackwater (now Xe) was hired by the CIA to assassinate targets. Scotland allowed the one convicted Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya because he is dying of cancer. Everybody was really, really mad, especially because it was probably because of oil. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe came down with the H1N1 virus. The Darfur conflict was reported as coming to an end. Afghanistan held Presidential elections which showed incumbent Hamid Karzai leading, but like Iran, this was probably also fraud. Unlike Iran, they’re actually recounting votes and throwing out bad ones.

Hopefully, that’s refreshed your mind with a whirlwind of memories from the past three months. But here are a couple of things that perhaps you might have missed:

China reversed its one child policy, but only in Shanghai.

Cambodia set out to host a “Miss Landmine” pageant to challenge traditional beauty standards by promoting a pageant for landmine victims. The pageant was quickly banned.

A Ukranian polka band came up with this cover of Katy Perry’s “Hot n Cold.”

Some of the lawsuits over harmful pesticide effects made by Nicaraguan farmers for Dole Food Co. turned out to be fraudulent (involving faked sterility tests, among other indicators), effectively casting doubt on all the other farmers who might have actually been harmed by the pesticides.

China tried to use electroshock therapy to cure teens of Internet addiction. The practice was quickly banned.

Canada granted refugee status to a white man from South Africa who claimed he was being persecuted in his native country on the basis of his race.

An IT company in South Africa ran a test to see what could send data faster: South African Internet service or a carrier pigeon. The pigeon won.

Anything missing? Of course. Drop a comment to add in any other summer global affairs news that slipped through the cracks!

The situation in Darfur is bleak. At least 300,000 people have died and roughly 2.5 million have been displaced since the conflict started in 2003. The refugee camps are plagued by insecurity; there have been widespread reports of rapes of civilians, attacks on aid workers and other violence. There is strong evidence that government-backed militias known as the janjaweed are behind much of this brutality. So the supporters of the ICC’s case against Bashir—such as human rights groups and many Western nations—are more than justified in their desire to bring him to trial.

However, unless the international community is prepared to unilaterally send a substantial number of heavily armed troops to the region to quell the fighting and provide security for civilians—an extremely unlikely scenario—then the next best option is to engage the Sudanese government and the numerous rebel factions in peace talks, and to work on deploying in full the 26,000-member U.N.-AU peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID, authorized by the Security Council in 2007. The Sudanese government has made it clear that it will not support either initiative if Bashir is indicted, and has even threatened to increase violence against civilians, humanitarian workers and the 10,000 peacekeepers that have already been deployed.

Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, the current AU chairman and one of the continent’s most respected leaders, made a strong case for deferring Bashir’s case in his address to the U.N. General Assembly on September 23. He argued that an indictment would “complicate the deployment of UNAMID and the management of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.” He rejected the notion that deferment meant “condoning impunity,” asserting, “We are simply concerned with the best possible sequencing so that the most immediate matters of saving lives and easing the suffering of the people of Darfur are dealt with first. Getting the support and cooperation of the government of Sudan is a matter of essence.”

Delaying Bashir’s case does not mean that he will never face justice. Given the volatility of Sudanese politics, Bashir’s position will undoubtedly weaken—especially if he is not able to use the ICC case to drum up nationalistic support. Some may point out that past African despots were allowed to escape justice by going into exile. But this pattern is changing. The Liberian civil war ended when President Charles Taylor agreed to resign and take refuge in Nigeria in 2003. He spent three years in comfortable exile before being arrested and taken to The Hague for trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. His arrest came after Liberia was on track to peace and stability.

Convincing the Security Council to invoke Article 16 may not be as difficult as it appears. Among the permanent five, China and Russia have already expressed support for a deferment. France and Britain have indicated that they would vote in favor if Sudan makes certain concessions. South Africa and Libya have already declared their support, and it is reasonable to expect Vietnam to vote with China, and Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, to also back a delay. Ironically, the U.S., which has refused to become a party to the ICC, may be the most recalcitrant on this issue. It abstained from a July 31 vote on renewing UNAMID’s mandate due to language simply noting the AU’s objections to Bashir’s indictment.

Bashir’s case is not a question of justice versus peace. The priority in any conflict must be the security and well-being of civilians. The Security Council should consider carefully whether this priority is best served by indicting Bashir. There is a time for prosecuting the perpetrators of the crimes in Darfur, and that time will come when the fighting has stopped.