Darfur

An examination of the international community's response to the crisis in Darfur between 2004 and 2007 reveals two contradictory developments regarding the responsibilities of sovereign statehood. On one hand, the vast majority of states within the Security Council readily endorse the notion that sovereignty entails a responsibility to protect populations. On the other hand, a few states, including two of the permanent-five, continue to insist that the international community cannot legitimately intervene in the affairs of a functioning state, even when the sovereign has manifestly failed to carry out its responsibilities, unless sovereign consent is granted. While important developments have been made in holding sovereigns to account over the last two decades, this continued assertion of the necessity of consent strikes at the heart of the notion that sovereignty entails responsibility. If consent is required before the international community can act, the notion that the sovereign state is responsible and accountable not only to its own people but also to the international community loses much of its meaning. The enjoyment of sovereign rights can only be understood to be truly conditional upon the observance of sovereign responsibilities if the international community can legitimately breach these rights in the absence of sovereign consent.

This paper analyzes the impact of the international community’s failure to punish Sudan as a means to bring an end to ongoing conflict in its western region of Darfur. Focusing on the actions and rhetoric of the United Nations Security Council with respect to its recent adoption of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, it is claimed that the Council has emphasized the importance of its collective responsibility to protect innocents to the detriment of holding failed states accountable for their role in fermenting and/or exacerbating intrastate violence. While recognizing as legitimate the multiple factors responsible for the shift in international practice from imposing punitive measures against norm violating states to international and individual accountability, it is argued that all have resulted in the unintended consequence of vastly expanding an environment of impunity in which individual conflicts may eventually be arrested but the conditions allowing the outbreak of such violence remain unaffected. Moreover, this deferral of state-targeted punishment by the Security Council has ramifications beyond the individual case’s borders such that failed states may no longer be held to account for their actions. This has resulted in the reinforcement of orthodox normative understandings and practical respect of sovereignty inappropriate to post-Cold War security realities further impairing the ability of the Council to ensure the preservation of international peace and security. As such, it is critical that the international community re-recognize the importance of state-targeted coercion as an instrument of multilateral diplomacy and as a legitimate means to maintain international order.

Diplomatic and peacekeeping initiatives by the international community in emerging cultures in conflict have failed to stem the violence and resolve the underlying conditions. Based primarily on political analysis, such initiatives do not address the underlying causes of the civil war at the individual, family, and tribal levels. This paper examines the psychological and sociological motivations for the violence within and between the Arab and African tribes of Darfur, to include motivation exploration of ethnic defections, failing cultural identity markers, and the effects of cognitive dissonance of the personal and social identities of the Darfur tribes. Research suggests that the identities of the African and Arab tribes are deeply contested over ethnicity, tribalism, religion, race and the generational memory that historical narratives provide. This fundamental identity conflict is overlaid by decades of violent physical, psychological and emotional assault upon the population. The result is a fundamental change of the psycho-sociology of tribal life and threatens disintegration and disestablishment of large group identity. The resulting societal and leadership breakdown of and within the tribes creates conditions of warlord-ism commonly found in ungoverned states such as Somalia. The paper concludes that the international community will ultimately fail unless measures are taken to create conditions for survival of the tribes physically, psychologically and sociologically.

Article on Zamzam internally displaced persons (IDP) camp in Darfur. Part of the Informal Market Worlds Atlas.

The Atlas details 72 case studies – from Kabul’s post-conflict Bush Bazaar to Arizona’s Snow Birds hipster markets. The book also tracks the powers, currents and actors driving informal trade. It documents the growing influence informal economies are having on human co-existence on a planetary scale.
For more information: http://www.nai010.com/en/atlasinformalmarket

Discourses can be seen as a social practice through the use of language. Language is constructed in a social context but may also construct the society as social phenomena is constructed through the use of language. Discourse is thus both productive and has the ability to create meaning. Socially constructed norms, values and knowledge constructs discourse, which in turn may lead to a corresponding reaction. Reaction may, furthermore, result in action. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how discourses on atrocities may open or close possibilities for intervention. The main argument of the thesis is that if you speak about a situation in a specific way, you will treat it as such. Such reaction is built upon the knowledge that is generated through language, a process which in turn may create social context. The thesis consists of a discourse analysis on the atrocities of the Darfur Conflict in which a selection of material is analysed with respect to how the conflict was interpreted and how such interpretations may enable or prevent intervention. The thesis uses Darfur to exemplify the problem of the relationship between discursive and social practice. Furthermore, genocide and crimes against humanity will be used as terms of reference when analysing in what direction discourses may enable intervention. The thesis uses a constructivist approach to International Relations as a  theoretical foundation. The methodological perspective is based on the approach to discourse analysis that is developed by Norman Fairclough; namely, Critical discourse analysis. The thesis found that the elements that are prominent within the discourses corresponds with the elements of the definitions of genocide and crimes against humanity. However, within the discourses, the two concepts are not used as frequently as their consisting elements are. Since the atrocities are spoken about as having elements that correspond with either crimes against humanity and genocide, we may treat the situation as such and thus act accordingly. However, since the concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity possess a greater power to create and to destroy, than the elements of the two concepts do, an absent use of the two may prevent intervention. The elements may, indeed, open for possibilities for intervention, but only to a certain extent, since the elements does not solely belong to genocide and crimes against humanity but to other types of atrocities as well; meaning that the elements can be related to whichever type of conflict and we will thus think about the situation only as being similar to genocide or crimes against humanity.

The geography of The Sudan is the first challenge of the country. Sudan is the largest country in Africa. It is bordered by nine countries; in the north by Egypt, east and north east by Ethiopia and Eritrea, south by Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Uganda and Kenya, in the west by Central African Republic and Chad, and North West by Libya. Darfur is in the north western part of The Sudan. Darfur itself is a remote vast region, almost the size of France. It is 2,500 kilometres from the Red Sea coast and its infrastructure, particularly roads and airports capable of taking the largest aircraft, is underdeveloped. The environment is austere and highly demanding. Daytime temperatures in the summer regularly exceed 50° Celsius and the rainy season can prevent all road movement across large parts of Darfur for four months. Malaria is rife. It seems that these factors were not fully appreciated when the deployment of African Union/United Nations Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) was first conceived. This is one of the main reasons why the deployment and sustaining of the main UNAMID force and its equipment was slower than expected, but I will return to this later.

In this paper the background to formulation of recent health policy in the Sudan is examined. Beginning with the early history ranging through the colonial period to modern times the influences of historical event shape and guide how such policy is formed.

This article seeks to critically analyse and discuss the implications of the ratio decidendi of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in the Genocide Convention Case. The writer argues that the high standard of proof adopted and the incorrect application of ICTY case law has led the Court to establish an unnecessarily high threshold for the establishment of the dolus specialis for genocide and the subsequent attribution of State responsibility. This outcome makes it difficult to make a finding of State responsibility for genocide, which in turn damages the ability of international criminal law to prevent genocide and deliver justice. The paper also covers individual criminal responsibility, collective responsibility, the impact of the ratio on Darfur and the ICJ’s subsequent decision in the Croatia v Serbia Genocide Convention Case.

Authoritarian regimes are often considered to be prone to civil wars because they are fundamentally based on principles of marginalization and coercion. Recent literature on authoritarian resiliency tends nonetheless to consider that regimes that are plagued with violence cannot endure over the long term. Building on an analysis of Omar al-Bashir’s regime in Sudan, this paper explores the relationship between civil wars and the winning coalition, the group of people whose loyalty is necessary for the survival of the regime. It studies the way in which the war in Darfur has been fought, and demonstrates how this has led to changes within the coalition that may contribute to the entrenchment of authoritarianism in Sudan.

Darfur conflict, which began in 2003 in the Western part of Sudan, is considered to be one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 21st century. It is a multi-dimensional armed conflict involving economic, political, social, cultural and environmental aspects. This study discusses the background of the conflict, and how policies of segregation and social discontentment of the rebels i.e. Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), evolved into a political conflict against the government causing hundreds of thousands of fatalities. As of March 2009, and July 2010, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant to President Omar al-Bashir, held responsible for Darfur Genocide. Another aspect of this study explores the effect of the conflict on peoples’ migration and depopulation. As a matter of fact, Darfur conflict caused mass displacements of millions of civilians and migration into refugee camps, thus taking an international dimension with multiple responses. In confronting Darfur conflict, the United Nations (UN), being the largest international organization worldwide, got involved in the name of “Humanitarian intervention” principle to solve this complex conflict. It had issued a hybrid United Nations-African Union mission (UNAMID) to maintain peace in the region of Darfur. Besides that, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) set up refugee camps, nevertheless, the UN refugee Agency’s task was met by obstacles and challenges in carrying on its mission such as restricted access, difficulty to reach out to people in need, lack of resources, etc. The study elaborates on the reason(s) why after the Ceasefire Agreement i.e. Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA), and UN Resolutions, violence is still constant, and what is structurally needed for conflict resolution, and potentially Sudan’s integrity.

The first part of this article provides an overview of the development of entrenched armed conflicts in Sub Saharan Africa which continue or have resurfaced in 2016. The author (JVdB) aims to expose the underlying causes and nature of the violent contestation by drawing on the works of C. T. Call in order to break open the black box of ‘failed states’ and analyze their legitimacy, capacity and security gaps separately. In addition the author will provide short scenarios of how these conflicts are likely to evolve in the short and medium-term and which (structural) factors will dominate these trends. The second part of this article (by JR) mainly aims at presenting the basic preconditions for the activities of the major terrorist organizations in Africa. With emphasis on the importance of the north-east and north-west regions of this continent in context of terrorist threats. Hence the initial focus was put on Somalia, which as a permanent fragile state remains under the increased influence of the Jihadist organization Al Shabaab, which is an organization with a high potential for increased capacity in the coming years. Next, was sketched out the situation in Egypt, considering, in essence, the activity of the so-called Islamic State in Sinai Peninsula. In this Analysis it also pointed to the intricate internal situation in modern Libya after so-called Arab Spring and international military intervention, where, despite earlier appearances, the terrorist threat was too much positioned, mostly by comprised to the internal conflict between the different Libyan political parties. Finally, efforts were made to illustrate the current terrorist activity in the Mali area, highlighting the importance of Al Qaeda branch AQIM and the situation in Nigeria where Boko Haram group operates.

EFFECTS OF SLAVE TRADE ON THE SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL LIFE OF THE SUDAN IN NINETEENTH CENTURY

Slavery, in general in Africa, and specifically in Sudan, has played a crucial role as significant phenomenon within the historical process. In the continent, that was a source of black slaves, the effects of slavery have been destructive and these effects has shaped the Sudan in various ways, and it keeps doing so even today.

The most attractive period of the Sudan is the 19th century. This century was considered important as then, despite the increase of the slave trade, there were attempts of prohibition of slavery and slave trade. Slavery and slave trade have been the result, trigger and result of events that took place and marks historical turning points of the 19th century. This study is aimed at finding out how the slave trade affected the Sudan in the 19th century in regards of social, political and economic levels.

To this end, in Part I, firstly the slavery application of the Ottoman Empire, that controls the Sudanese land, is examined. In Part II, following information on the historical process of slavery in the Sudan, the details of slavery in the Sudan and Darfur is given. Moreover, the arrival of Muhammad Ali Pasha to the Sudan is examined through slave trade and the question of how the slave trade let to the rise of sultanate (landlord ship). In Part III, the abandonment or continuation activities of slavery in the Sudan and connected regions are explained. Moreover, as an important development of the last quarter of the 19th century,  the Mahdi revolt and its relations with slavery is examined. In Part IV, different impacts of slavery and slave trade on the Sudan are examined in social and military fields. Moreover, the effects of slavery and slave trade on the Sudan in current times, is examined.

Bağımsızlığından beri iç savaşlarla mücadele eden Sudan, 2000’li yılların başında yeni bir iç savaş ile dünya gündemine gelmiştir. Ülkenin batısındaki Darfur bölgesinde merkezî hükümete karşı silahlı isyan hareketleri örgütlenmiş ve askerî birimleri hedef alan büyük çaplı saldırılar gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sudan Hükümeti’nin bu saldırılara karşılık vermek adına kullandığı teknikler eleştiri konusu olmuştur. El-Beşir rejiminin Araplardan müteşekkil Cancavid adlı milisler vasıtasıyla Afrikalı/siyahî kabilelere karşı soykırım yaptığı iddia edilmiştir. Tarihî bağlamıyla değerlendirildiğinde meselenin bu kadar basit olmadığı görülmektedir. Zira bölgede yaşananlara alışılmışın dışında tepki gösteren uluslararası aktörler, buradaki insanî trajediden ziyade Afrika genelindeki nüfuz mücadelesine angaje olmuşlardır.

Having been troubled with civil wars since its independence, Sudan came to the fore with a new civil war in the early 2000s. Armed rebellion movements were organised against the central government in the Western region of Darfur and these movements carried out full-scale assaults targeting the Sudanese military units at first. The techniques used by the Government of Sudan to counter these assaults were criticised. It was alleged that the Al-Bashir regime carried out a genocide against Black/African peoples through Janjaweed militias mainly composed of Arabs. When it is analysed within the historical context, it is seen that the problem is not as simple as it is depicted. Because the international actors that have reacted to the events in Darfur in an unusual way are in fact engaged in a struggle for influence in the continent of Africa rather than the human tragedy in this region.

In this paper I examine the theoretical limitations of research dealing with the impact of climate change on violent conflict by situating it in relation to earlier debates on environmental security. The centrality of such concepts as scarcity and migration in the causal chains of environment-centered conceptions of violence has been resurrected within current climate conflict research. These limitations are reviewed through a critical comparison of the most influential theoretical approaches that participated in the earlier debate: political ecology framework that posited environmental conflicts as struggles over access/control of natural resources (Peluso and Watts 2001), ecoviolence models (Homer-Dixon 1999; Baechler 1999) that posited violent conflicts as linked to environment-induced ‘scarcity’, and large-N quantitative methods (Gleditsch 1998) that posited resource abundance as causing environmental conflicts. Causality, conceptual specificity of the term ‘environmental conflict’, and the utility of an ecoviolence paradigm for studying violence remains relevant methodological issues to the emerging climate change and conflict research agenda.

This paper proposes that research on climate change and conflict can methodologically advance through engagement with a political ecology framework and its broader discourse on climate and society; which investigates the impact of climate on history. This allows for an evaluation of the status of the current research program and of the possible avenues for advancing knowledge on the social dimensions of anthropogenic climate change. A political ecology framework privileges the social-political dimensions of climate change, offering a methodological tool to analytically sharpen the causal interrelationship between climate change and violence. Furthermore, political ecology problematizes seemingly axiomatic concepts such as ‘scarcity’ and ‘violence’ by historicizing climatic phenomenon and relating it to specific social systems and societies, which furthers our understanding of the dynamic interrelationship between climate change, social systems and violent conflicts.

This paper will explore the United States’ (US’) tense relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Using neoclassical realist theory and liberal institutionalist theory I will explore the reasons for US non-cooperation with the ICC. I hypothesise that, as per neoclassical realism, US’ opposition to the multilateral power of the court can be explained by its strong unilateral bargaining power abroad, the stability of its democratic system and the power of sub-unit level actors which has been facilitated by the US’ decentralised political system.

Using a comparative case study between Rwanda and Darfur, this research examines the relationship between three main factors and the recurrent failure of humanitarian intervention in the post-Cold War Era, particularly in Africa, in spite of the hopes associated with it since the beginning of the 1990s. Those factors are: the interest-based, racist selective state practice, the inadequacy of the humanitarian discourse, and the lack of an impartial international body responsible for implementation and monitoring of intervention. Through examining the two cases, the research highlights the failure of the international community to address the humanitarian disaster in Rwanda and the preliminary failure in the case of Darfur. But the case of Darfur has highlighted the developments that have started to take place within humanitarian intervention doctrine and practice. It is argued that for these developments to continue and for humanitarian disasters to be dealt with differently in the future, the three factors within humanitarian action presented by this research should be dealt with vigorously and wholeheartedly.

Only through an exhaustive, in-depth approach to the reasons that have caused the ongoing Darfur Genocide, and following a thorough understanding of the criminal work of the French, namely the fabrication of a false language, an inexistent culture, and a bogus-nation, can people realize the tragedy befallen on the various peoples of Sudan – that are all non-Arabs.

All people in Khartoum know already that they live the end of a long tyrannical experience; they have not identified the forthcoming solution, but they have the real feeling that the nightmare named ‘Sudan’ has already its expiry date. It was about time!

No one knows the details of the final, ultimate division of Sudan; even the number of the emanating countries is not precisely told. Will there finally be a Free Nubia? Will the Red Sea coast’s Beja / Blemmyes ultimately get the freedom they have fought so many centuries for? What will the various borders among the possibly 6 or 7 countries east of Chad look like?
The only issue they have no doubt about is Peace; Peace will be achieved only when all these various peoples and ethnic – religious groups will get their independence and enjoy their self-determination and freedom, following the cancellation of the murderous and inhuman frame of ‘Sudan’, a name that means just Death.

This report studies the effects of EU migration policies and the externalisation of EU border control on Saharan migration routes and on practices in the border regions connecting Niger, Chad, Sudan and Libya. The report finds that, in response to the obstacles and opportunities that border externalisation policies present for migrants, migration routes diversify and move to other countries. Beyond the fact that migration
is a transnational phenomenon not linked to one particular route or itinerary, this continuous moving of routes is made possible by cross-border Saharan trade and trafficking networks that have put in place the necessary logistics to facilitate migration and which often fall outside government control. Pushed by EU efforts to curtail migration, states such as Niger, Chad and Sudan have shored up border patrols and anti-smuggling operations in the border regions under study here. The report shows that this has been done in a manner that is often not conducive to stability in the region and which contributes to the ‘militia-isation’ – the growing power of militias whose presence undermines the state – of the countries at issue.

This paper examines the response options for providing justice and accountability in Darfur as it transitions--hopefully--from war to sustainable peace. In light of the unique cultural and historical characteristics of the conflict examined in this paper as well as developments in international law, the authors suggest that only a combination of international, national and local, and traditional mechanisms for accountability can bring true peace to the people of Darfur and the greater Sudan.

Depuis le début de l’année 2003, le conflit qui oppose les rebelles du Darfour aux forces du gouvernement soudanais et aux milices Janjawid a pour conséquence une des crises humanitaires les plus dramatiques de cette dernière décennie.
Faute de mieux, nous devons pour l’instant utiliser les chiffres des Nations Unies dont le mode de calcul est imprécis et donc contestable : ceux- ci faisaient état en mars 2005 d’au moins 180 000 morts2, certaines estima- tions allant jusqu’à 300 000, tandis qu’on compte – chiffres également des Nations Unies, mais vraisemblablement plus fiables – 1,5 million de personnes déplacées à l’intérieur du Darfour et 200 000 réfugiés au Tchad voisin.
D’emblée il apparaît que la guerre a entraîné une sorte de fracture ethnique qui n’a sans doute jamais été aussi nette. S’il existait auparavant une identité « darfourienne » transcendant le fait ethnique, en particulier dans les milieux urbains et parmi les communautés du Darfour vivant à Khartoum, cette identité semble avoir aujourd’hui disparu devant la division de plus en plus forte entre d’un côté les Arabes et de l’autre différents groupes que l’on nommera les « non-Arabes ».

Over the last decade the majority of victims in armed conflicts have been civilians. As a result, increasing attention has been given to the issue of protection of civilians and the United Nations now generally includes protection of civilians (PoC) in its peacekeeping madantes.
Noting the lack of clear methods and guidlines on how to implement PoC in practice this report investigates how civil-military coordination at the operational and tactical levels can be used to strenghten PoC. It does so in three parts.
In part I, the conceptual aspects of PoC, related principles and concepts as well as their evolution are explored.
Part II is based on a series of case studies including MONUC, UNMIL, UNOCI, UNMIS and UNAMID. This part explores PoC as it has been manifested in the respective mandates and how UN peacekeeping missions have engaged in civil-military coordination to deliver on the PoC mandate.
From the case studies the report seeks to extract lessons, which can be of relevance for a wider audience of peacekeeping actors. These recommendations are centered on enhancing the following aspects in relation to PoC: operationa guidance; planning; coordination; operational delivery; training and capacities as well as monitoring and reporting.
Part III closes with overall conclusions drawn from the report.

Keywords: peacekeeping; protection of civilian; protection; responsibility to protect; civil-military coordination; United Nations; and peace support operations.

Since the early 2000s, the UN and its African partner organizations have increasingly engaged in joint planning, resourcing and implementation of peacekeeping operations. Intensifying cooperation was a way to address the criticism of traditional top-down approaches in which the UN delegated peacekeeping tasks to regional actors. At the same time, new legitimacy problems and ongoing contestation among global and regional security actors have emerged. In fact, the most integrated instance of joint peacekeeping to date, the 'hybrid' UNAMID operation in Darfur, has decidedly lost its former status as a model for African peacekeeping. This paper interprets the seemingly paradoxical standing of hybrid peacekeeping-creating legitimacy problems despite being introduced as a more legitimate solution-as a consequence of dynamic legitimation discourses. Applying a framework inspired by frame analysis, it shows that while the UN and the AU initially engaged in mutual legitimation in the context of the Darfur crisis, normative divergences have subsequently led to more contested legitimation. Supporting cooperation can thus be a strategy for global and regional actors to legitimate peacekeeping, but it also heightens the potential for frictions, as it leads to a pluralization of legitimation agents and audiences.

The recently published HRW World Report 2010 features a particular chapter on Sudan whereby the monstrous Pan-Arabist tyranny´s practices and policies are summarily exposed and utterly denounced as far as the tyrannized land of Darfur and the persecuted local Furis are concerned. Some importance is given to the growing insecurity in South Sudan.

Unfortunately, the Report does not extend the focus, as the world´s leading Human Rights NGO should have, on Kordofan, the persecuted Hausa speaking minority, and the tyrannized Nuba of Jebel Marra.

Quite regrettably, the Report does not mention the atrociously oppressed Bejas of Eastern Sudan, who stretch in the land between the Egyptian and the Eritrean borders, and from the coastlands to the Red Sea cordillera and the desert up to Atbarah and Kessala. The geo-strategic importance of the Beja country is critical for the future of the colonial fabrication "Sudan". With the ancient nation of Blemmyes – Bejas seceding from "Sudan", the Khartoum tyranny will be landlocked and therefore asphyxiated.

One has to assume that HRW tries to keep a balance in their relations with the major countries involved, China, USA, England and France, and therefore the focus is adjusted in a way not to threaten the colonial countries´ interests in the area. Human Rights become thus ancillary to political motives and tactics.

Similarly, and very deplorably, the vast territory of occupied Nubia in today´s Northern Sudan is totally forgotten within this Report. The socio-behavioural, cultural, linguistic, and political oppression of the Nubians has recently taken a new, socio-economic, dimension with the forceful relocation of dozens of Nubian villages and thousands of populations due to the erection of an otherwise useless Nile dam that will be beneficial to the monstrous, Pan-Arabist gangsters of Khartoum, and detrimental to the indigenous Nubians.
First published in the American Chronicle, Buzzle and AfroArticles on 30 January 2010

*This book is at http://amzn.to/bBqICQ *.  With an epic historical sweep, “Genocide in the Middle East: The Ottoman Empire, Iraq, and Sudan,” reveals how the struggles by nations and empires to establish their regional supremacy resulted in the destruction of families and human groups. This book presents a new theory of the meaning and scope of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, based on the drafting history, the case law of international criminal tribunals, and practice of the states parties to the convention since the 1950s. It then paints an expansive portrait of genocide against populations on all six inhabitable continents, with a special focus on the greater Middle East and North Africa since the nineteenth century. In the Ottoman Empire, the Interior Minister issued orders describing the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek subjects of the empire as saboteurs allied to Russia who needed to be deported from their homes, and led efforts to massacre entire cities, carry out systematic rapes, and impose famine and disease on the surviving remnants. Similarly, in 1980s Iraq the Revolutionary Command Council of the Ba’ath party issued orders that served as the basis of convictions for genocide and other crimes in the Iraqi High Tribunal. These orders declared that areas serving as a base of operations for Kurdish and pro-Iranian insurgents should be rendered devoid of all life. Finally, in the Darfur region of Sudan, as in southern Sudan before it, the President and Interior Minister issued orders to the army and allied militia to kill and drive out entire communities in regions seeking independence, autonomy, or simply political equality. This book also provides cause for hope, explaining how former dictators have been tried and convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity, and how their victims have won independence and compensation for their losses after the fact in places like Armenia, Israel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, northern Iraq, East Timor, and southern Sudan.