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
'Disgraceful Act of Complicity': Indian Left Denounces Modi's Israel Visit
"Modi's embrace of Zionist Israel amidst its relentless genocidal assault on Palestine is a betrayal of India's anti-colonial legacy," said one leftist leader.
Feb 25, 2026
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's arrival in Israel on Wednesday sparked widespread condemnation among his country's leftists, many of whom accused the Hindu nationalist leader of complicity in Israel's annihilation of Gaza.
Modi was warmly welcomed at Ben-Gurion International Airport by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara to kick off a two-day state visit that is expected to focus on issues including military cooperation and arms sales, as Indian purchases of Israeli weaponry have increased exponentially in recent years.
The Indian leader was also joyously greeted at his place of accommodation, the King David Hotel, where in 1946 Jewish militants seeking independence from British occupation carried out a bombing that killed 91 people, including at least 15 Jews.
Modi addressed the Israeli Knesset, or Parliament, lamenting the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023 in which 1,195 Israelis and others were killed and 251 abducted. But he said nothing about the more than 250,000 Palestinians killed or wounded by Israel's genocidal retaliation.
"Modi endorsed the brutal killing of 71,000 innocent Palestinians from reckless Israeli bombing," Calcutta-based journalist Seema Sengupta said on social media in response to the Knesset speech. "The death on both sides should've been mourned by him. Instead, he sounded like a partisan leader of a party which gained prominence through disharmony, violence, and bloodshed."
The Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M)—which leads the ruling Left Democratic Front that currently heads the Kerala state government—said it "strongly opposes" Modi's visit, which it called "a betrayal of the Palestinian cause" that "legitimizes the murderous Netanyahu regime."
"The visit comes at a juncture when Israel has been waging a genocidal war in Gaza," the party continued. "Despite a ceasefire, there are daily violations by Israel which conducts strikes killing scores of Palestinians. In the occupied West Bank, there are stepped up attacks on Palestinians and a spurt in illegal settlements."
"The declared intent of the visit is also to deepen strategic, military, and economic ties with a Zionist expansionist regime which seeks to dominate the region with the help of the United States," CPI-M added. "The visit is all the more inopportune because it is taking place at a time when the United States is preparing to attack Iran militarily at the instigation of Israel."
CPI-M General Secretary M A Baby said that "Modi's embrace of Zionist Israel amidst its relentless genocidal assault on Palestine is a betrayal of India's anti-colonial legacy."
The Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation, whose stronghold is in the eastern state of Bihar, said that it "condemns Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel as a disgraceful act of complicity in the ongoing genocidal assault on the Palestinian people."
"At a time when Palestinian civilians are being massacred, displaced, and starved under a brutal Israeli occupation, this visit amounts to political endorsement and profiteering on Palestinian blood," CPI (ML) Liberation continued. "After mortgaging India’s sovereignty and strategic autonomy to [US President Donald] Trump's racist agenda, Modi is now completely surrendering India’s historic legacy of anti-colonialism and solidarity with the oppressed by visiting Israel."
"Since assuming office in 2014, the Modi regime has systematically imported Israeli models of repression to consolidate its own politics of hate at home," the party added. "From bulldozer demolitions and collective punishment tactics against minorities and marginalized, to the expansion of illegal surveillance infrastructures, the [Bharatiya Janata Party]’s fascist politics has found a role model in Israel."
Israel and India have deepened ties since Modi and the BJP were elected over a decade ago. Both Modi and Netanyahu are right-wing nationalists who utilize religious supremacism to exclude or marginalize Muslims, and both have been accused of increasing authoritarianism, just like their common ally Trump.
Center-leftists including members of the opposition Indian National Congress—which has been criticized for its "pragmatic" engagement with Israel—also condemned Modi's visit.
Left-leaning members of Indian civil society and academia also decried the visit.
Rebuffing Modi's claim that this week's shirtless anti-BJP demonstrations by members of the Indian Youth Congress were an embarrassment for the nation, Delhi School of Economics professor Nandini Sundar said on social media that visiting "genocide-committing Israel has embarrassed and shamed Indians more than a 1,000 shirtless protests."
The activist group Indian People in Solidarity With Palestine and the India chapter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement issued a joint statement accusing the "fascist BJP government" of working "hands-in-gloves with genocidal Israel" to "suppress voices of dissent while maintaining a facade of being democratic."

“At a time when the ceasefire is being used as an excuse to bomb and vaporize Palestinians and occupy Gaza," the groups said, "the Indian government is choosing to stand with genocidal Israel and its imperialist masters like America and is working overtime to benefit the corporations from the occupation of Palestine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Arsonist as Fire Chief’: Fed Appoints Wall Street Lobbyist to Key Bank Oversight Role
"There can be little doubt that having a Wall Street lawyer-lobbyist in charge of supervising and regulating his former Wall Street clients will likely result in a catastrophe for the American people."
Feb 25, 2026
The Federal Reserve board has quietly appointed a prominent Wall Street lawyer and lobbyist as the central bank's director of supervision and regulation, a move that one critic said was worse than "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse."
"This is like appointing a lifelong arsonist as a fire chief," Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, said in response to the Fed's decision to put Randall Guynn in a position to regulate the industry he has long represented.
Politico reported Tuesday that "Guynn, a prominent Wall Street lawyer, will become the next director of supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve, effective March 8."
Before joining Fed staff last year as an adviser to the central bank's vice chair for supervision, Guynn worked for close to four decades at the corporate law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he recently chaired the company's Financial Institutions Group. According to Guynn's bio, he has "focused on advising banks of all sizes on their most critical financial regulatory issues and transactions."
Reuters, which first reported earlier this month that the Fed was expected to appoint Guynn to the bank policing role, noted that the decision "would mark a departure for the central bank, which since at least 1977 has filled the job with long-serving Fed career staff."
"The only reasonable expectation is that his leadership of Fed supervision and regulation will accelerate the Fed’s current push to implement policies that favor the biggest, most dangerous banks."
In a statement, Kelleher of Better Markets described Guynn as a "lawyer-lobbyist" who has "spent his entire professional life—almost 40 years—zealously and exclusively representing the interests of the financial industry, including the biggest financial firms on Wall Street."
A 2024 paper published in Cambridge University's Perspectives on Politics journal identified Guynn as part of a "vast subterranean world of regulatory influence-seeking" that has managed to escape the scrutiny of legislative lobbying.
"Reporting exceptions under the Lobbying Disclosure Act allow many of the most powerful advocates to characterize their activity as lawyering, not lobbying, and thereby fly under the radar," the paper notes.
Kelleher argued that, given Guynn's history, "the only reasonable expectation is that his leadership of Fed supervision and regulation will accelerate the Fed’s current push to implement policies that favor the biggest, most dangerous banks—his former clients just ten months ago and presumably his current circle of professional and personal friends."
"That will crush small banks, harm the Main Street economy, and make another financial crash inevitable. That’s what happened in the early 2000s when the Fed’s misguided belief that Wall Street could regulate itself directly led to the catastrophic 2008 crash," said Kelleher. "We don’t have to speculate. We can look at his attached record or read the remarkable story of how, as a lawyer-lobbyist prior to joining the Fed staff last year, he was instrumental in pushing through a back-door merger approval by the Fed."
"There can be little doubt that having a Wall Street lawyer-lobbyist in charge of supervising and regulating his former Wall Street clients will likely result in a catastrophe for the American people," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocean Warming Drives 'Deeply Concerning Loss of Marine Life,' Study Shows
Noting that species are at risk from not only warming waters but also overfishing, one expert argued that "any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change."
Feb 25, 2026
Humanity's continued reliance on fossil fuels led to last year being among the hottest on record, and oceans store over 90% of the excess heat from greenhouse gases. A study out Wednesday details how the related long-term heating, warm years, and marine heatwaves "pose serious but poorly quantified threats" to fish species.
"To put it simply, the faster the ocean floor warms, the faster we lose fish," lead author Shahar Chaikin of Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN) told the Guardian. "A 7.2% decline for every tenth of a degree per decade might sound small... But compounded over time, across entire ocean basins, it represents a staggering and deeply concerning loss of marine life."
For the study, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, Chaikin, his MNCN colleague Miguel B. Araújo and the National University of Colombia's Juan David González-Trujillo analyzed 702,037 estimates of biomass change for 33,990 populations of 1,566 fish species across the Mediterranean, north Atlantic, and northeast Pacific between 1993 and 2021.
"On shorter timescales, warmer years and marine heatwaves were linked to sharp biomass losses of up to 43.4% in populations at the warm edge of the species' range and biomass increases of up to 176% at the cold edge," the study states. Chaikin warned in a statement that the temporary jumps in cooler areas could send misleading signals to managers of fisheries.
"Although this sudden increase in biomass in cold waters may seem like good news for fisheries, these are transient increases," he explained. "If managers raise catch quotas based on biomass increases caused by a heatwave, they risk causing the collapse of populations when temperatures return to normal or when the effect of long-term warming prevails, because these are short-lived increases."
González-Trujillo stressed that "unlike extreme short-term weather fluctuations, which can vary dramatically, this chronic warming exerts a constant negative pressure on fish populations in the Mediterranean Sea, the north Atlantic Ocean, and the northeastern Pacific Ocean."
Specifically, Chaikin said that "when we remove the noise of extreme short-term weather events, the data show that this warming is associated with a sustained annual decline in biomass of up to 19.8%."
Are warmer oceans good or bad for #fish? 🐟 The answer is a dangerous paradox. Our new paper in @natecoevo.nature.com shows how marine heatwaves may create “fake” fish gains that mask a large-scale crash. Read our findings here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...@mncn-csic.bsky.social #ClimateChange
[image or embed]
— Shahar Chaikin (@shaharchaikin.bsky.social) February 25, 2026 at 5:05 AM
Given the findings, Araújo emphasized that fisheries' managers "must balance localized increases with long-term declines extremely carefully to avoid overexploitation."
"As ocean warming continues, the only viable strategy is to prioritize long-term resilience," the study co-author said. "Management measures must plan for the biomass decline expected in an increasingly warm ocean."
Carlos García-Soto is a scientist at the Spanish National Research Council, which manages MNCN. Although not a study co-author, he also highlighted the need for policymakers to understand the "clear risk of misinterpretation" detailed in the new paper.
"In a context of accelerated climate change, policies cannot react solely to extreme events or be based on short-term signals," García-Soto said in a statement. "They need consistency between science, planning, and governance, especially in shared ecosystems or on the high seas."
Also responding to the research on Wednesday, Guillermo Ortuño Crespo of the International Union for Conservation of Nature said that "I believe this is a methodologically sound and valuable study that provides valuable evidence on how different components of ocean warming affect fish biomass."
While recognizing the well-documented and devastating impacts of fossil fuel-driven heating on marine species, Ortuño Crespo also warned that "there is a risk, in my opinion, that climate change will become the main explanation for changes in marine species biomass, leaving aside overfishing."
"Historically, overfishing has been the main determinant of biomass declines in many fisheries around the world," he noted, citing the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. "The proportion of overexploited stocks globally continues to increase, indicating that fishing pressure remains a dominant risk factor. The current challenge is that this overfishing crisis is being further exacerbated by ocean warming and deoxygenation."
"In terms of public policy, the study is highly relevant because it emphasizes that fisheries management systems must become more climate-adaptive," Ortuño Crespo said. "Any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change: climate and fisheries. Adjusting quotas solely on the basis of climate without reducing overcapacity and the impact of high-impact gear, such as bottom trawling, is likely to be insufficient to recover stocks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


