September, 22 2010, 12:28pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brenda Bowser Soder,bowsersoderb@humanrightsfirst.org,O -202/370-3323, C - 301/906-4460
Obama Administration Must Tackle Tough Issues About Sudan at U.N. Gathering
U.N. General Assembly Gathering Offers Opportunity to Demonstrate Leadership, Reinforce Key Priorities
WASHINGTON
This week as President Obama seizes the opportunity provided by the
United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly to personally engage on Sudan,
Human Rights First is urging him to assert U.S. leadership to ensure
that January's referenda votes happen smoothly and on time. The group
notes that President Obama should also work with key countries to stifle
the potential for violence in the coming months.
In less than four months, on January 9, 2011, two referenda will take
place in Sudan that mark a critical moment for Africa's largest
country. The implementation of the referendum on self-determination for
Southern Sudan and a second referendum on the status of the border
region of Abyei are two core provisions of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005. That document brought an end to the
decades-long civil war between north and south Sudan.
In recent weeks, senior U.S. officials have clearly conveyed their
concern about the current moment in Sudan's history. Secretary Clinton
described a "ticking time-bomb," and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan
Rice called the current situation "a very precarious moment." Later this
week, President Obama will meet with both Northern and Southern
leaders, which will mark his first direct interaction with Sudanese
leaders since he took office. The President will also join a high-level
meeting led by the U.N. Secretary-General on Friday that will focus on
international attention and support ahead of the January referenda.
"This week, President Obama has the opportunity to defuse what
Secretary Clinton has labeled a "ticking time-bomb' and to help ensure
that Sudan's future is not dictated by its troubled past," said Elisa
Massimino, President and CEO of Human Rights First. "There is no
substitute for U.S. leadership in the effort to bring peace to Sudan.
The United States must also be vigilant and prepared to address the
potential for violence in the aftermath of the referenda votes."
Human Rights First notes that there are ongoing concerns about the
fragility of the situation in Sudan at present and about how much still
remains to be done to prepare for these critical votes. There are also
well-founded fears about the potential for a return to violence and mass
atrocities against civilians in the south, even as atrocities continue
in the western region of Darfur. It notes that there is a clear need for
adequate diplomatic, financial, and technical resources to ensure these
votes happen on time, are carried off smoothly, and are a legitimate
expression of the will of the voters. There is also an urgent need to
prepare for what happens after the referenda to ensure their outcomes
are respected and that they form the basis for a peaceful future for all
of Sudan's people.
In advance of President Obama's meetings on Sudan this week in New York, Human Rights First is urging President Obama to affirm U.S. commitment to the following five priorities:
- Support existing multilateral mechanisms: The U.S.
was one of the so-called Guarantors to the CPA when it was signed in
2005, along with the U.K., Norway, Netherlands, Egypt, Italy, and the
following institutions: African Union (A.U.), European Union (E.U.),
Arab League, and the U.N. President Obama should now mobilize this group
of international actors to help ensure the CPA is implemented and to
avoid a return to violence, including by supporting existing
multilateral mechanisms such as the A.U.-U.N. Consultative Forum and the
A.U. High-Level Implementation Panel for Sudan. - Engage key countries with leverage in Sudan: While
broad international engagement on Sudan is needed at this moment, there
are certain countries with strong ties to the Government of Sudan and
therefore with particular leverage that the U.S. should seek to enlist.
China's role as a major economic partner of Khartoum and as a
significant source of arms flows to the Sudanese government throughout
its campaign of atrocities in Darfur warrants particular attention.
President Obama should encourage China to use its relationship to help
pave the way for smooth referenda and for a peaceful outcome to those
votes. Not only China but also other countries such as Russia, Chad, and
the UAE, which have been sources or transit points for military
materials and other critical goods and services that have helped sustain
the capacity of armed forces to commit atrocities in Darfur, should be
urged by the U.S. to act as constructive stakeholders and avoid enabling
atrocities anywhere in Sudan. - Don't forget Darfur: International attention
has shifted to focus on Southern Sudan as the referenda approach, but
insecurity continues to plague the western region of Darfur, and
persistent violence against civilians there should remain a concern for
U.S. policy makers. Next month, the final report of the U.N. Panel of
Experts on Sudan is expected to reveal serious violations of the arms
embargo on Darfur, just as its predecessor panels concluded in their
reports over the past several years. The failure of third parties to
comply with these U.N. sanctions in Darfur and the failure of the U.N.
Security Council to take new measures to enforce the embargo have
contributed to the ongoing atrocities in that region. The U.S. should
carefully review the Panel's report and recommendations next month, and
action on that front should be one of several ways in which the U.S.
shows a concrete commitment to Darfur and to a holistic approach that
address all flashpoints in Sudan at present. - Make clear that a return to north-south violence is not an option:
President Obama should send a clear message to the parties to the CPA
and to others that resorting to violence in the run-up to--or the
aftermath of--the referenda is not an option. All parties in Sudan, and
all third parties with ties to that country, should be put on notice
that the U.S. and the international community are committed to avoiding
violence against civilians, are prepared to act to prevent it, and will
levy consequences on any who plan or perpetrate it. - Be prepared for risks of mass atrocities against civilians in Southern Sudan: Even
as the Obama administration focuses on ensuring smooth preparations for
the referenda, it should remain alert to the potential for a recurrence
of violence around or after those critical votes. Given Sudan's history
of government-sponsored atrocities against civilians, the U.S. should
keep a watchful eye for early warning signs of plans for violence
targeting civilian populations, and should be prepared for that worst
case scenario. Part of its contingency planning should include support
for the preventive deployment of peacekeepers from UNMIS to flashpoint
areas to monitor the situation and deter localized violence. Another
critical part of preparedness and prevention efforts should include the
use of intelligence assets to track the flow of arms, ammunition, and
other goods and services to those who may be engaged in planning or
committing atrocities in the coming months. With Sudan's history of mass
atrocities, the past may offer a prologue; previous patterns and
perpetrators, as well as potential third-party enablers, deserve special
attention at this fragile time.
For more information about Human Rights First's work on Sudan and its
ongoing work to hold accountable the enablers of atrocities, please
visit https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/cahp/index.aspx.
Human Rights First is a non-profit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular