THE BEAUTIFUL WORK OF ARTIST

LYNN ROSENCRANTZ

By Anemona Hartocollis

April 9, 2012

The New York Times

Ms. Spielberger, who is in her 80s, was even getting into the spirit of the place, despite her unnerving condition. “It’s beautiful,” she said. “Everything here is wonderful.”

Yet this was an emergency room, one specifically designed for the elderly, part of a growing trend of hospitals’ trying to cater to the medical needs and sensibilities of aging baby boomers and their parents. Mount Sinai opened its geriatric emergency department, or geri-ed, two months ago, modeling it in part after one at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, N.J., which opened in 2009.

By James West

April 5, 2012

MOTHER JONES

You've heard it before: Politicians say they'd love to take action against climate change, but they're reeling from the sticker shock. Today, a new report from the United Kingdom's leading climate change watchdog refutes the oft-cited argument that climate action will herald economic Armageddon.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) report, with the hairy-sounding title "Statutory Advice on Inclusion of International Aviation and Shipping," says that in 2050, the UK's emissions reductions across the whole economy will cost 1 to 2 percent of the total GDP. This updates, in greater detail, the range predicted half a decade ago by the watershed Stern Review.

“[It’s] hard to think that maybe I’d made a mistake to take this elephant’s life and merge it with mine…..We needed another life for her. She needed to be an elephant. Not a dog. Or a daughter.” – David Balding, in One Lucky Elephant.

I learned how elephants live in the wild and how rarely elephants’ needs are met in captivity…watching David try to find the best home for Flora was to see, finally, that she’s caught between two worlds and belongs fully to neither.

What we have come to understand is that we need to change the human dominance model of how we exist on this planet, this model which is not working. We must acknowledge that we are just one species in the web of life – recognize we are part of this greater ecosystem. Until we do that, we are going to be in trouble. –Miriam Cutler, Producer

 

One of my greatest joys connected to the film was when an audience member came up to me after watching the film and said he’ll never look at elephants in the circus or zoo the same way again – Lisa Leeman

By Fred O'Regan

March 21, 2012

INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE

The illegal ivory trade starts with the slaughter of elephants, continues with wildlife traffickers smuggling ivory across international borders and ends with the under-the-counter sale of carvings, signature stamps and trinkets, in marketplaces in Asia and online.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare is working to cut the supply chain at all its major touch points by training rangers in anti-poaching techniques, lobbying politicians to take action to block the sale of ivory, collaborating with customs and law enforcement authorities to arrest black-market sellers and reducing consumer demand through out the world, especially China, one of the largest consumers of wildlife products including ivory.

THE SCOPES MONKEY TRIAL REDUX?

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION

AND THE FIGHT TO TEACH

CLIMATE SCIENCE IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The late Dr. Stephen Schneider, renowned climatologist and Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University gives an overview of the climate change debate

If you haven’t tuned in lately to the global warming debate, one of the most incendiary issues on the cyberwaves today is the intense pressure brought by global warming skeptics on science teachers who want to teach the science of climate change in our public school classrooms.

Make no mistake, this is no small time brouhaha.  While world governments gear up to extend a commitment to the Kyoto Protocol,  we, in this country, are in the midst of a full scale, hard ball battle driven by political and economic interests, to suppress the teaching of legitimate climate science in our schools.  At a minimum, the outcome will have far reaching consequences for the integrity of science curricula and learning standards throughout our country, as well as for the substance of what we communicate to our children regarding their role as stewards of an increasingly fragile planet.

The controversy has generated such heat, that the popular blog, Think Progress, has compared it to a 21^st century Scopes Monkey Trial.

Fortunately, there is help for school districts and teachers who find themselves under attack: The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a private not-for-profit organization founded in 1981, by scientists, educators, and others, to promote and support the teaching of the science of evolution in the schools.  In the last few years, the NCSE mission has expanded to include support for the teaching of climate science and climate change as well.

Dr. Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist, has been the Executive Director at NCSE for over 25 years, and she and her staff have had legendary success in working with local communities – preparing them for court cases, working to revise state standards, and providing background materials to educators and parents who have an interest in preserving the teaching of evolution and now, climate science in the schools.  

Scott is the subject of an enlightening interview and discussion below, but first, a bit of background on the essence of the controversy.  (For those who want to skip directly to the interview, click here).

THE CLIMATE SCIENCE DEBATE: WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?

The late Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University explains the real world of climate change politics

The climate change maelstrom centers on whether global warming is real and occurring now; whether it is an imminent threat to mankind, and especially, whether it is caused by natural forces or by human activity, the latter of which can be controlled to mitigate or reverse a potential catastrophe.

The stakes in this discussion couldn’t be higher, as the outcome will influence our national policy on energy use, the fate of multi-billion dollar private interests representing oil and gas, coal and other carbon based energy resources — and ultimately, the future of our planet.

The essential argument hinges on interpretation of the data relevant to climate change and global warming.  If you have viewed the clip above in which Dr. Stephen Schneider explains the debate, then you know that science is not absolute and that there are opinions of the data, along a continuum.  In the case of climate change, there is a consensus within the scientific community that the planet is warming, and that the intensity of warming over the last few decades is due to human activity.  Further, there are several possible outcome models within the consensus parameters (none of which are pleasant).  What is uncertain within the science community is the absolute outcome of the warming effect. 

Unfortunately, according to Dr. Schneider, it is the polar extremes at either end of the continuum that get the media attention–the doomsayers vs. the skeptics.  In this case, they have distorted the facts of global warming to accommodate their own agendas, to present a scenario which is unsupported by the science.

It is one of these extremes – the skeptical extreme–that has picked up traction in the public debate, and that is most relevant for the challenge currently faced by climate science teachers in the public schools.  For purposes of illustration, both extremes are outlined below:

 ♦   The Proponents have concluded that our extensive dependence on a carbon based fossil fuel economy is pushing the earth’s climate to the edge of a cliff, and that our mining, refining and use of fossil fuels has had significant impact on global warming and extreme weather patterns which have become more pronounced in the last few years.

     They further believe that if we do not take immediate and resolute steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels, that the resulting intensified warming and extreme weather will have calamitous results for mankind and for the planet within the next few decades; and 

 ♦  The Skeptics believe that global warming is a hoax; they deny that the earth has warmed in the last decade, or that if it has, it is the result of natural earth cycles over which we humans have no control.   In general, this group feels that that the proponents of global warming theories are radical environmentalists and alarmists who are in cahoots with the government to justify chokehold regulations, and programmatic spending. Some lay skeptics also attribute a financial motivation to the proponents – that their position is necessary to ensure an ongoing supply of grant money for continuing climate change research.  In the extreme, they feel that the climate change movement is a socialist plot to abolish capitalism.  

     Their bottom line is that there is no reason to interrupt business as usual, that our continued use of fossil fuels has no discernible impact on a warming or weather pattern effect.

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GLOBAL WARMING

Rapid loss of older, thicker Arctic sea ice, from 1980-2012

NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA climate scientist Tom Wagner explains what the loss of thick Arctic ice means for our warming planet.  This clip was produced in 2009.

The popular global warming fact check website, Skeptical Science, points out that 95% of active climate researchers, including qualified scientists, venerable scientific organizations as well as the scientific academies of 19 countries have reached a consensus on the Proponent side, while those who support the latter position are a much smaller group of scientists.

In fact, the validity of the evidence for human activity impact on global warming has so reached the mainstream scientific community that the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, C2ES (formerly named the Pew Center for Climate and Energy Solutions) states on its website:

 “The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The world is undoubtedly warming. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. “ 

The C2ES continues,

“…… This warming will have real consequences for the United States and the world, for with that warming will also come additional sea-level rise that will gradually inundate coastal areas and increase beach erosion and flooding from coastal storms, changes in precipitation patterns, increased risk of droughts and floods, threats to biodiversity, and a number of potential challenges for public health.”

CONFUSION WITHIN THE GENERAL POPULATION

It is within the general population, however, that there seems to be confusion as to whether global warming exists or if it is human caused.  A Pew Center poll released in November, 2011, indicates that the acceptance of global warming and whether it is caused by human activity has become more widespread in the last two years (since 2009), and there is also a rebound since 2009, in the number of people who feel that global warming is a very serious problem.  

But, remarkably, the number of people who believe that global warming is not too serious a problem or that it is not a problem at all, has risen steadily, from 20% in 2009 to 33% in 2011.

AN EXPLOSIVE SCANDAL REVEALS UNDERLYING INTENT TO DERAIL THE TEACHING OF CLIMATE SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

It seems to be this last group, the 30% of non-believers and private interests that are launching a frontal attack on the presentation of climate science and climate change in the public schools.

Last August, Think Progress described nothing less than a lynch mob style witch hunt taking place against science teachers who want to teach climate science in their classrooms.  Admittedly, this seems like a shocking assertion, even for a progressive blog.  But the article goes on to quote the respected Science magazine, which describes the scenario in which conservative voices have ramped up the vitriol with the claim that that climate science is a “monstrous hoax”, that “(climate science) is now joining evolution as an inviting target for those who accuse 'liberal’ teachers of forcing their ‘beliefs’ upon a captive audience of impressionable children.” 

The real danger in presenting denial arguments, continues Think Progress, is that students are “being fed politicized misinformation”, and rather than being taught to think critically, and to reach conclusions based on scientific principles and evidence, they are taught to associate climate science with an ‘emotional, politicized reasoning process’”.

Just last month (February, 2012),  the clash between the two sides reached an explosive climax, as Dr. Peter Gleick, well regarded climate scientist and founder of the Pacific Institute, put his career on the line to expose documents he received through admittedly deceptive means, from the arch-conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago – documents which detail a plan funded by powerful private interest based organizations to promote a climate denial curriculum in the public schools. 

Though Heartland claims that one of the crucial documents exposed by Gleick was forged, its agenda has already effused into the stratosphere. 

DR. EUGENIE SCOTT AND THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION (NCSE): THE BEGINNINGS

It is within this complex and combative environment, that the National Center for Science Education presents one of its greatest strengths: Executive Director, Dr. Eugenie Scott.

Scott is a scientist whose views are informed by a deep knowledge of the way science works, and a piercing sensitivity to the way conclusions are formed and framed.

What we focus on –our DNA– is person to person help for teachers, to give them the assistance they need to withstand the challenges from parents or administrators – we give them suggestions for framing and effectively presenting information. 

Thirty odd years ago, she was a professor at the University of Kentucky, when the local Board of Education was approached by a citizens group to teach creation science along with evolution in the schools.  The university science faculty and Lexington teachers immediately mounted a defense. 

Scott, as it happened, had had a long standing interest in creation science, and had been collecting the literature on it since graduate school.   She soon became the central resource for the local response. She formed a coalition of scientists, teachers, mainstream clergy and local parents, and after almost a full year of effort, the coalition defeated the policy.  But the experience, she says, solidified her understanding that these ideas have profound consequences — for education, for religious liberty, and moreover, that these controversies can really polarize communities in very unpleasant ways. 

Years later, as Executive Director at NCSE, Scott and her staff have built an organization that is a vital “go-to” resource for school districts, educators clergy, parents, students, and other groups interested in learning about the evolution and climate change controversies, and in supporting and preserving the teaching of the science in our schools.

We aren’t saying that ideologies are bad, here – everyone has ideologies that guide and shape their lives and they’re important.  But when your ideology runs smack into a wall of empirical evidence that contradicts it – that’s when we have to consider an ideological modification.

What follows is an excerpt from our fascinating, and for me, highly informative conversation.

A.N.N.: What is the genesis of NCSE and what does it do?

E.S.: In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a concern that laws promoting the teaching of creationism were being proposed in state legislatures all over the country, and it was clear that large science organizations like the National Academy of Sciences weren’t set up to deal with grass roots monitoring that was necessary to preserve the teaching of evolution science in the classrooms.  So the raison d’être for the NCSE was to organize scientists, clergy, teachers, and civil libertarians at the grass roots level to respond effectively when state legislation proposed the teaching of creation science in the classroom.  They have been doing this ever since.

A.N.N.: What is the NCSE approach to the current attacks against the science teachers who want to teach climate science and global warming in the schools? 

E.S.: We’re taking the same approach that we’ve found helpful when we’ve worked to keep evolution in the classroom.  Climate change has only recently been included in the science curriculum in districts and states.  We direct teachers to what we feel are the best sources of information, and we work with other institutions to improve the information available to teachers. 

What we focus on –our DNA– is person to person help for teachers, to give them the assistance they need to withstand the challenges from parents or administrators – we give them suggestions for framing and effectively presenting information. We also provide information on science or pedagogy that they need to effectively make their case.

A.N.N.: Global warming is a highly charged emotional issue….

E.S.: Yes, and it isn’t enough just to get the science right.  Teachers do have to know why the claims are erroneous from a scientific standpoint.  But to be effective, they also need to know why people embrace certain ideas  so quickly – even when these views are contrary to observed science –  and why they are so resistant to changing their minds.

The controversy over climate change education isn’t structurally different from the controversy over teaching evolution. The parallel is that anti-evolution is fueled by an ideological view – a religious ideology.  Anti-global warming is fueled by political and economic ideologies.  People who hold strong ideological views often have their fingers wedged in their ears – they don’t want to listen to science.  We have to be able to approach them from a perspective that reaches them on an emotional/ideological level. 

We aren’t saying that ideologies are bad  – everyone has ideologies that guide and shape their lives, and they’re important.  But when your ideology runs smack into a wall of empirical evidence that contradicts it — that's when we have to consider an ideological modification.  

An example of an effective way to reach people through ideology is to appeal to religious views that embrace the environment. Dr. Katharine Hayhoe (see clip below), for example, is a wonderful spokesperson for the conservative Christian response to climate change.  She is an evangelical Christian who understands climate science.  Others from her religious tradition will trust her, and then will be more open to listening to the science.  

(In our work) we have to address the emotional-ideological barrier that keeps people from listening – so they can realize it’s not necessary to choose between faith and science.

Dr. Katharine Hayhoe is Director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University and a powerful voice for the conservative Christian response to climate change

In many ways, climate change is where evolution was 25-30 years ago.  We realize that this is a tough issue – it is driven by economics and politics and there are extremely powerful interests that have a stake in the question of climate change.  People feel strongly about their economic survival, and there is an emotional push to buy into anti-global warming arguments.

There is another parallel between the global warming argument and evolution: the scientific consensus for both evolution and global warming is very strong.  Because scientists accept both evolution and global warming, they should be taught by science educators.  That’s the bottom line for us. 

A.N.N.: The public is genuinely confused about climate change.  On the one hand you have the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed signed by 16 scientists saying there is nothing to get excited about, and on the other hand, you have NASA climatologist Jim Hanson, who says that if we don't do something now, it will be too late. 

How should teachers approach that dichotomy? 

E.S.: Both teachers and the public need to understand that the way science works — the way we come to conclusions about explanations of the natural world – is not a crisp process where we name it and nail it. We don’t conduct one or two experiments and then conclude that we understand something – especially when it’s a complicated subject.  Scientists evaluate each other’s work, criticizing it, suggesting new approaches, new tests, new observations, and finally after a period of time, a consensus grows among them, but sometimes it takes decades.

For example, there is a strong consensus that living things have common ancestors, that natural selection is a strong mechanism producing the common ancestry patterns that we call evolution. There is also, as a result of many decades of research, a strong consensus that the planet is getting warmer and that people’s actions have a lot to do with producing the change in temperature. 

That said, you can find creation scientists, who will contend that the evidence for evolution is weak, about to crumble, and data don’t support it and therefore the issue is still unresolved.  You can also find scientists who doubt that the Earth is getting warmer and/or that humans are the critical factor driving this change.

You can find small numbers of scientists who deny that evolution takes place, but if you go to science journals and meetings of scientific societies you won’t find anyone presenting papers, or publishing peer reviewed journal articles, or claiming that the evidence that living things have common ancestors is weak, and that we should challenge the idea of evolution.  Similarly, although climate scientists differ on the details, at the conferences and in the journals, you don’t find denial that the planet is warming, nor that humans have a substantial role in this.

But because you can find a few scientists who think the evidence for evolution or climate change is weak, should teachers tell students that there is an active controversy within science over whether evolution took place, or whether the Earth is warming?  That’s just wrong.

“the scientific consensus for both evolution and global warming is very strong.  Because scientists accept both evolution and global warming, they should be taught by science educators.   That’s the bottom line for us.”

With respect to global warming, the Wall Street Journal article was very disappointing because it was very authoritative (in tone), but it was structured like the arguments made by anti-evolutionists  – that the evidence is weak – that we have scientists on our side, you have scientists on your side,  the “jury is still out”, so it’s too early to make a decision yet,  so let’s not do anything drastic.

Yet, when you look at the survey data on climate scientists, you get 97% saying that the earth is getting warmer and that people have a lot to do with it.  If you survey all scientists, including those who are not climate scientists, there still are huge percentages – over 90% who say earth is getting warmer, and that people have a lot to do with it.

A.N.N.: But these 16 scientists signed on to the Wall Street Journal piece.

E.S.: There is a tremendous amount of cherry picking of data in claims like those made in the Journal article.  They said (that warming hasn’t taken place over) ten years.  But what if it had been 20 years?  Well, of course the earth is getting warmer, but they just happened to start on a particularly warm year.

A.N.N.: The public also seems to be confused over the difference between global warming and climate change.  Some people can look at six feet of snow in February and claim that the earth isn't warming.  Can you explain what is happening in a way that is easy to understand?  

E.S.: There is clearly a difference between climate and weather.  I saw a wonderful video clip the other day that illustrates the difference beautifully.

Climate is the path of the dog walker, weather is the path of the dog.

A.N.N.: How does the NCSE make a difference?

E.S.: We are a small, underfunded, not-for profit and we wisely realize that (with climate change) there is a limited amount we can accomplish.  But where we can make a difference is in helping teachers one-on-one to cope with push-back against the teaching of climate change. Some of these are issues arising from actions taken by State Boards of Education, or State legislatures, and some are local – from administrators, parents, and students. 

We have made a difference in the teaching of evolution, by helping teachers defend good science teaching. For example, we have helped to ghost write substitute policies that respect the integrity of science, and countless times we have helped  to defeat other policies by providing solid information to supporters who can testify at meetings.

The anti-global warming contingent claims that the consensus isn’t yet settled.  In light of the survey data we have, that is a claim that is more and more difficult to make but they are making that claim at the public level and not at the scientific level. 

We are dealing with issues that are important; we’ve helped teachers by providing information which clarify to concerned parents that when they teach evolution, they aren’t forcing the children to give up their faith.  We can use those same lessons we’ve learned over the decades because the parallels are quite clear. 

A.N.N.: What can you say to those who deny global warming — to the Heartland Institute, for example?

E.S.: Most NCSE members are scientists, and we want the consensus view of science to be transmitted to the new generation.  If  that consensus changes, then that’s fine. But the burden of proof lies with those outside of the consensus to demonstrate that the consensus is flawed. 

The anti-global warming contingent claims that the scientific consensus isn’t yet determined.  In light of the available survey data on scientists, that claim is more and more difficult to defend. And note that global warming deniers make  that claim to the public rather than to the scientific community.  We tell ….this group, if you have a better explanation, convince the scientific community first, and then these views will trickle down to the schools.

A.N.N.: What are the three important things the public should know about NCSE?

E.S.: First, NCSE is dependent upon the support of members and private foundations to keep doing what we do. Any donations are appreciated.

Second, we depend upon citizens in the states and communities to help us be effective.  We work with local people to help them solve problems regarding teaching “controversial” issues.

Third, we have a lot of experience dealing with these scientifically controversial issues, and we are happy to share our experience with those who have problems. Our website is a good place to start, and our staff is on call.

A.N.N.: How can the public support your efforts?

E.S.: There are Citizens for Science groups that are independent of NCSE.  We’re going to ask some of those groups if they would be willing to monitor challenges to climate change education much as they monitor challenges to evolution education. The important thing is that people know where to go for help – and that we know who we can go to for grass roots support– we can’t do it ourselves.

And second, because of ideological opposition, good science is being kept from our kids.  Unless (everyone) can realize what a wonderful, exciting and adventurous phenomenon science is, they will be missing an important piece of their lives. So I encourage all of your readers to support science education, and an appreciation of science in the culture.

CONTACT:

Dr. Eugenie C. Scott

National Center for Science Education

www.ncse.com

(510) 601-7203

 Eugenie Scott bio.

FACEBOOK PAGE

DONATE

Major Study: Oceans Acidifying at “Unprecedented” Rate

By Kimberly Ayres

March 2, 2012

CLIMATE WATCH

The breadth of this study  – 18 research institutions and 21 scientists worldwide — and the examination of hundreds of studies stretching so far back into the geologic record makes this conclusion a singularly solid statement about the present trend.

“From everything we know today, it looks like the current rate of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions” may spell the loss of “organisms we care about — coral reefs, oysters, salmon,” says Bärbel Hönisch, the study’s lead author, who I reached by phone in New York. She’s a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. The paper’s being published today in the journal Science.

ONE MAN'S MISSION TO KEEP DARFUR

ON THE WORLD’S EMOTIONAL RADAR

A CONVERSATION WITH GABRIEL STAURING

FOUNDER OF I-ACT (STOP GENOCIDE NOW)

Gabriel and Katie-Jay Stauring with friend

 by Jonathan Arkin

Imagine for a moment that you have lost everything that defines you: your home–your family, your country– and that you are living in a makeshift shelter in one of the most inhospitable areas of the world – arid, dust covered, without greenery.  You are dependent on international aid for food and water, competing for scarce resources with tens of thousands of others, just to keep yourself and your animals alive.  You are  vulnerable to disease and to marauding bandits who will abuse you and steal from you.  If you are female, you are in constant danger of gang rape or abduction into sex slavery.

Your country is in a state of chaos, lawless, and security is now a relative concept.  Each day, you look for signs that the international community will take some action to restore order.  It doesn’t happen, and each day , you become less hopeful that you will wake from this nightmare to reclaim a semblance of your old life. 

This scenario describes the lives of the Darfuri survivors whom Gabriel Stauring met on his first trip to Chad in 2005, and who inspired him to start i-Act, a grassroots organization which seeks to put a human face on the suffering experienced by the Darfuri survivors of genocide and mass atrocities.  In the last seven years, i-Act has grown and evolved, and its mission has expanded to create a venue for advocacy and “on-the-ground” change.  He uses video technology daily to remind the world that these are real people, individuals with families, hopes and dreams like ours–who want to go home, and who deserve to go home.  And equally important, he has connected them through social network and video technology, to the rest of the world.   He empowers them to believe in their future-and he empowers us to believe that we can make a difference in their lives. 

Gabriel Stauring and i-Act are a lifeline for the Darfuri refugees.   i-Act is a 501c3 not-for-profit organization.  You can make tax deductible donations here.  –Action Now+Network

***********

It would probably be fair to say that Darfur is not a household word.  In fact, if you were to begin a conversation in any Los Angeles coffee shop regarding the “situation in Darfur,” you would likely be met with an awkward (maybe, an impatient) silence, a blank stare, or perhaps a shake of the head.   If someone were slightly more informed, he/she might acknowledge that they have "heard of it" or that "a genocide happened there". 

If L.A. is a fair litmus test for other cities throughout the country then arguably, despite the best efforts of high profile celebrities and numerous refugee protection programs, Darfur has not yet burrowed into the national consciousness as a priority issue.  With the exception of some substantial curricula changes made in socially conscious middle and high schools and colleges,  the vast majority of the country has yet to learn about what is happening in this blighted region of western Sudan.

Fortunately, however, that calculus may change quickly. Gabriel Stauring and his team from i-Act, have begun an ingenious campaign, with the help of refugee athletes and educators, to turn the eyes and ears of the world to the plight of the Darfuri refugees. 

BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THE GENOCIDE AND REFUGEE SURVIVORS

Sudan has been the site of violent ethnic and religious conflicts since the mid-1950s, but the most high profile ethnic cleansing, the Darfuri genocide, began in 2003.  Hundreds of thousands died horrific deaths at the hands of Dictator and now, indicted war criminal, Omar al-Bashir and his proxy Janjaweed militias, whose ferocious Cossack-like raids on undefended villages are now legendary. 

Traumatized survivors fled on foot to northern IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) camps – now areas of restricted entry by the Sudanese government –  and to twelve refugee camps on the border of neighboring Chad, where they have lived for the last nine years.  The vast majority of NGOs, including i-Act, are working now in the Chadian camps which face ongoing humanitarian crises related to malnutrition, disease and physical security.  The women and girls in the camps are particularly vulnerable, as they face kidnapping and gang rape when they leave the camp parameters in search of firewood, used both for cooking and as an essential bartering commodity.

“we try to give them a little hope so they can see their future, and also (see) the bigger picture of …getting home to a peaceful Darfur and a peaceful Sudan overall.”

Today, Sudan remains essentially lawless.  A limited number of refugee families have returned to Darfur, but the U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reports that the majority of Darfuris are reluctant to return to their homeland due to continuing instability in the area.    Further, the newly seceded country of Sudan is under attack; recent satellite images show violent incursions initiated by al-Bashir on villages in the area  — assaults not unlike those experienced by the Darfuris a few years ago. 

Whether the refugees will ever be able to return home to a stable life, is anyone’s guess.  As the years pass, the likelihood seems to fade.  There are reports that the UN and the World Bank are exploring options which include conversion of the 12 camps into sustainable communities.

"WHY NOT US?  WHY NOT DARFUR?"

Chad, as it turned out, while providing nominal refuge to the survivors, is no shangri-la.  It is one of the poorest countries in the world with few natural resources.  The reality is that there are more than 250,000 survivors of genocide living as displaced persons in barren, isolated camps, without infrastructure to provide personal security, consistent communication, or access to the outside world.

Makeshift shelters in the refugee camps

While the UNHCR and numerous NGOS^[1]  have provided active relief in a number of the camps, the Darfuri citizens living there want to go home to their communities free from fear of further attack.   It is particularly difficult for the them to hear that the U.S. government has stepped up to help the rebels fighting against other oppressive governments in the Arab world;  They wonder, “why not us”, “why not Darfur”?  They feel all but forgotten by the international community.

"I have to tell them that I have no power, I’m not the UN, all I have is this little camera. …. when they see this guy come out with a camera, a guy who they feel is listening to them, that makes a big difference for them."

ONE I-ACT INITIATIVE: THE FIRST ALL REFUGEE SOCCER TEAM WITH AN EYE TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION

In 2011, Action Now Network introduced readers to Gabriel Stauring, the founder of i-Act – a project of Stop Genocide Now –as a tireless advocate for refugees living in the camps in Chad. 

Stauring (second from left) and team in the early days

Since that feature was posted, Stauring has been working on numerous projects which are detailed in depth on the website.   One of the most notable is the Darfur United soccer team –a project still in progress which he initiated with his wife and partner, Katie-Jay.  Darfur United aims to bring together the best athletes from the 12 camps to create the first all-refugee soccer team.  The genius of this initiative is that it not only connects the best athletes from the camps, but it serves as a symbol of hope, joy and pride for all the Darfuri refugee communities now in Chad.  The ultimate goal is to play in the Viva World Cup competition.  Simply brilliant.

ADAM MOUSSA AND THE R2E MOBILE LIBRARY

Darfuri refugee Adam Moussa

Stauring’s mission since he began traveling to the camps, and the raison d’etre of I-Act, has been to document the lives and stories of the refugees – survivors of the genocide –and to communicate to the world not only their experience in their own words, but also their hopes and desires for a safe and full future for themselves and for their remaining families. 

“We’re definitely focused on what the refugees care about and we measure everything we do on what they tell us their own needs are, so we’re always bouncing off of them.”

Now returned from his 11^th trip to the camps, Stauring continues to portray a remarkable people through portraits of individuals who have survived the worst possible assaults of humankind, and yet, have found the strength and courage to create a new life and culture within the barren confines of the camps. 

One such individual profiled on the site is Adam Moussa, a teacher, a man of great dignity and compassion, who through his own initiative, built a library in his camp.  Education is extremely important to the people living in the camps, and Moussa, with i-Act’s help, is now creating a human rights mobile library, R2E (Right to Education), to be filled with kindles, books, documents and other learning materials which are carried via donkey from school to school within the camps.  

Moussa is one of the heroes of the camps; he understands that only an educated people can build a stronger, safer Darfur. 

Action Now Network’s Jonathan Arkin recently spoke with Stauring upon his return from his last, 11^th trip to the Chadian camps.

Jonathan Arkin: Gabriel, after so many trips, does it ever get easier for you to travel over there?

Gabriel Stauring: “I thought it was only going to be one trip out there when I decided to go the first time. It’s kind of weird. It doesn’t get any easier to go out there. I thought I’d be used to it by now, that I could handle it better, but it’s (actually) quite the opposite.

What does feel good though, is that we are focused on different projects … in the camps. (Each time I return) I feel even more strongly that are focused on the right things.

We’re definitely focused on what the refugees care about and we measure everything we do on what they tell us their own needs are, so we’re always bouncing off of them.

On the ground

JA: Tell me about the nature of th(e) emotional relationships you have made.

GS: Well, we’ve established much deeper relationships with the refugees… we have met since the [peace agreement].   I do feel more responsible, just emotionally– I do have a lot more friends there now. I see kids grow up there, and then we’ve seen kids and older people we care about pass away…

We focus very specifically on direct help and programs related to education and sports. If you go to the website then you’ll meet some of the people who are affected by the situation.

JA: And how do you feel about the shared expectations versus the outcomes with your work in the camps?

GS: I’m not sure that the expectations in the camp are met, but (the people) do trust us more and they know that someone cares about them.  I know and feel that they want to speak to us.   As soon as I get there the groups come up and want to meet with us…it could be about education, it could be about the camp, or maybe they are worried that they’ll be sent back to Darfur.  I have to tell them that I have no power, I’m not the UN, all I have is this little camera. …. when they see this guy come out with a camera, a guy who they feel is listening to them, that makes a big difference for them.

JA: What’s the key to listening effectively and then taking action?

GS:  We don’t come up with ideas on this side and …fold the refugees into them.  They care about education so we focus a lot on education, .. we try to give them a little hope so they can see their future, and also the bigger picture of wanting to get home to a peaceful Darfur and a peaceful Sudan overall.  That in turn ties into the big picture of Sudan, as other marginalized people go through the same things they’ve gone through.

JA: So, that bigger picture has presented a new reality, especially with the help of the Internet and the mobile libraries in the camps?

GS: Now the [refugees] see themselves connecting to all those marginalized people throughout Sudan [along the Blue Nile and in the Nuba Mountains, and in former Equatoria, now known as South Sudan], even across different tribes and religions. That’s been something that’s changed over the last couple of years – especially over the last trip. Those other areas of Sudan are now going through exactly what the Darfuris were going through in 2003-2004: militias attacking, large populations becoming displaced and finding themselves without any aid…those first stages of their own crisis. They now see their own future in how the world responds, or doesn’t respond, to that situation.

JA: I know the economy has shifted our national priorities in the views of some people, making a new focus on Sudan a hard sell. But what else can we do to help out here, aside from jumping on a plane with you?

GS: There are many ways to help. Not necessarily just a donation, though the fundraising arm of Stop Genocide Now, iAct, can be accessed HERE.  Money is always needed, but people can do meaningful things in their daily lives. Teachers can share the story with their students, make (the story something) they can work into their lives.

"The economy and health issues we face (here) are important, but if we make enough noise about huge groups of people getting attacked and displaced–especially (directed toward) those who have said that the world can never let this happen again–then I think we can make the most change."

Darfur is about people who have been kept alive but who have been abandoned in their own country. We then can connect … into it.

JA: The credo of iAct, “interactive activism,” serves to “empower individuals within communities, institutions and governments to take personal responsibility to act on behalf of those affected by genocide, mass atrocities, and crimes against humanity.” So there’s a bigger picture. How do we take that action to paint it?

GS:   We have to tell our own government that this is a priority for our own nation, that (Darfur) is something that we should address. The major players in Obama’s administration were all strong advocates for Sudan, but they have not come through with any real actions that will change the equation over there.

So if people tell their congressmen about what they want the Obama administration to do, they can help illuminate things over there

JA: The squeaky wheel?

GS: Yes. They  (the Administration) are going to address (the issues for which constituents make) the most noise. The economy and health issues we face are important, but if we make enough noise about huge groups of people getting attacked and displaced, especially (directed toward) those who have said that the world can never let this happen again, then I think we can make the most change.

JA: Let’s talk about Adam.

GS: Adam is a teacher we met in 2008 and he is exceptional. The way he can express the hopes and disappointments of his people are so compelling. From the beginning he told us that only the international community can make a difference… to stop what’s happening in Darfur and now all of Sudan. The videos [on iAct’s website, edited from submissions on the private PAZOCALO network] haven’t seen a [public] response like those….for Adam.   People quote him.

JA: What do you think drives him and makes him so effective? A lot of people seem to have the heart, while others have the savoir-faire. Adam clearly has both.

GS: He is quite remarkable and he is somehow able to take himself out of the situation and look at himself from the outside.  It’s such a pleasure to sit with him to get his perspective on what is happening and what might happen in the future.

JA: What do you think that future will hold?

GS: I’m very hopeful. Events that seemed completely impossible months ago – Qaddafi, Egypt – these things have happened that give me a lot of hope and also allow me to expect the unexpected. All this (world changes) did not happen overnight–it was a lot of people working to make change.

I am always optimistic and I think when I first started working on this I was a little too naively optimistic. I thought that if enough people found out about it, that things were going to change, that this level of man made human suffering would end, especially after what happened in Rwanda.

JA: It seems like you work on so many different levels: hyperlocal, global, interpersonal, the big picture.

GS: It all falls under the theme of what we think is important – to make these stories personal, and that mass atrocities are not something we turn away from. We make it about this one person, this one family that people can connect with.  If they (the public) can do something for that one person, they can help the greater group.

I wake up every morning knowing that I am doing what I should be doing but I think that all these little drops in the ocean can add up to a big wave. We don’t when it will hit, but if we are not all working together it will never come.

In addition to establishing the Human Rights Mobile Libraries in Camps Djabal and Goz Amer in eastern Chad, Adam Moussa and his students continue their blog entries via the PAZOCALO network.

Contact Gabriel at contact@iactivism.org.

Darfur United Facebook

i-Act Facebook