Call for Participation Sentinel Project Begins Research On Drone Policy For Development and Humanitarianism The Sentinel Project has launched a new research project focused on the use of drones for development and humanitarianism in the Global South. We’re looking for people and organizations working with this technology around the world to participate in interviews about your ideas and experiences. Followers of the Sentinel Project’s work will know that we are strong advocates of using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) for improving human security and peacebuilding in conflict areas. We see the potential for UAVs to perform roles such as local area surveillance and reconnaissance to warn civilian populations about incoming threats, verifying information to combat misinformation, and documenting atrocities if they do happen. This technology can also bring added benefits to humanitarian and development efforts by playing such roles as search and rescue, land use mapping, and cargo delivery. That’s why we have now launched a project with the support of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to look at how UAVs are being used to improve lives throughout the Global South and how government policies affect these innovations. The role of drones in global assistance The research aims to understand this emerging landscape by asking several core questions: What applications of UAVs (both current and potential) are most relevant to development in the Global South? What policy and regulatory challenges present obstacles to UAV deployment for development and humanitarian applications in Global South countries? What factors (security, public perception, etc.) most influence policy makers in Global South countries when forming UAV policy? What practical and theoretical concerns exist regarding UAS and how do they impact policy and regulation? How you can help In order to answer these questions, we want to talk with as many people as possible who are working on UAV issues related to the Global South. That means NGOs, technologists, researchers, entrepreneurs, government officials (especially aviation regulators), and anyone else with a connection to this topic. Participation in our research will generally involve taking part in an interview and your contributions can be either anonymous or attributed as you wish. You can help us contribute to better informed, wisely regulated, and more responsible UAV deployments in development and humanitarian contexts around the world. If you’re interested, please write to Christopher Tuckwood (chris@thesentinelproject.org) or Drew Boyd (drew@thesentinelproject.org) to schedule an interview, share information, or refer other participants. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 The Senitel Project

Rohingya immigrants living in Pakistan, react during an interview with Reuters at their residence in Arkanabad neighborhood in Karachi, Pakistan September 7, 2017. Pakistan’s foreign minister has expressed “deep anguish” at the ongoing violence against Rohingya Muslims in Burma. The foreign secretary has summoned the Burmese ambassador and registered an official protest. And Pakistan’s parliament has urged the government to press the issue on the international stage. Like other countries around the world, Pakistan has expressed horror at the Burmese government’s brutal crackdown against the Rohingya, which Human Rights Watch found bears all the hallmarks of an “ethnic cleansing” campaign. More than 350,000 Rohingya have crossed into neighboring Bangladesh, fleeing abusive security operations by the Burmese military that began soon after a Rohingya armed group attacked police and army security posts. Inside Burma’s western Rakhine State, village after village is being burned down, the smoke visible from the skies and across the border. Rohingya refugees have described the military’s use of small arms, mortars, and armed helicopters to chase them out of their homes. Given the terrible violence being visited on them inside Burma, Pakistan’s concern for the plight of the Rohingya is welcome. But attitudes closer to home are less inspiring. Officially, 55,000 Rohingya live in Pakistan today, many in the Arkanabadneighborhood of Karachi. Many of these Rohingya families, who actually may number up to 300,000 people, first came to Karachi after a repressive military regime took power in Burma in 1962. Yet half a century after arriving in Pakistan, the Rohingya in Karachi are still unable to obtain citizenship, and those who arrived after Pakistan’s 1971 civil war cannot get national identification cards, which leaves them unable to enroll their children in public schools, use government health facilities, or even open bank accounts. They are effectively rendered “stateless” – precisely the same indignity to which the Rohingya have been subjected in Burma. Their uncertain legal status makes the Rohingya living in Pakistan vulnerable to harassment, extortion, and discrimination. Pakistan should use all diplomatic channels on its own and in concert with other countries to press Burma to halt its violent campaign targeting the Rohingya. But the Pakistani government also needs to start treating Rohingya on its own soil better too, and it should start by guaranteeing them the same basic rights and constitutional protections other Pakistanis enjoy. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Human Rights Watch

Dear Mr. Ruehlmann, We, the undersigned 130 Sudanese, scholars and human rights organizations, write to request your help. Your firm is lobbying for the government of Sudan, a regime comparable to the Nazis whose leaders are indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. At the hand of your client, over 3 million Sudanese have been killed and over 5 million have been forcibly removed from their homes. The regime has eliminated all basic freedoms and Sudanese are discriminated against and targeted because of their race and religion. Christians, in particular, are persecuted and their places of worship destroyed. We believe the actions of the Sudan regime are incompatible with the values of your firm, which emphasize corporate responsibility and fostering social justice, and the values of all Americans. Therefore, we write to strongly urge Squire Patton Boggs to no longer associate itself with the Sudan regime. We and others have reached out to your firm about this matter; however the response has not been satisfactory given the serious threat the regime poses to millions of innocent people. To underscore this reality, we include below messages from two Sudanese from the Darfur region who are trying to survive as refugees in Chad, Oumda and Adam Mussa. Oumda and Adam in a Chad refugee camp for Sudanese From Adam Mussa: I am from destroyed, neglected, discriminated, displaced and completely looted Darfur, Sudan. We learned that in the USA there are a group of lawyers working to lobby the government that we believe has the best values in the world, the government that defends human rights, democracy, and liberty to lift US sanctions against the government that delivered and raised the world terrorists, and that promotes hate, injustices, corruption and discrimination; the government that displaced its own people to replace them by terrorists; and the same government that is ruled by international criminals wanted by ICC. My message to this distinguished group is please don't exchange our life and our children’s future for money. Know that we who are now in Sudan, many families, are starving why because our money always goes to weapons, to the Janjaweed, and to the terrorists for Jihad. Please help us to send Albashir to the ICC for Justice then the Sudanese will be well prepared for real friendship and cooperation with the government of the United States of America. Thank you. From Oumda: MY EYES ARE CRYING, MY INJURIES BLEEDING, WHEN CAN THIS STOP?? The government of Sudan is one of the regimes that cannot be trusted. We even have one proverb, says that you can believe the devil, rather than Sudan government! No one can imagine, for how many years those victims of Darfur suffered, and still the same attacks, killings, rapes, captures, arrests, and tortures are going on! Crimes which all the nations saw and heard! But no change for a minute from the Government of Sudan to improve the situation, and it uses all the opportunities to make the military forces and Janjaweed ready to fight. Look how many US presidents came and went, all of them sanctioned al-Bashir regime, but the same actions are still going on! What we know is this regime purchases guns to kill one person, rather than to use money in building schools, or to implement any agreement to approach peace. It sees that spending money to devastate any part of Sudan or people is more easy than improvements! All these terrible things are leading to expose the efforts of GoS to wash out the lives of Darfuri people. The Government of Sudan should be under redoubled sanction - any help from communities, organizations, or individuals to Government of Sudan to lift sanctions means participating in the crimes of the genocide My voice is voice of millions of victims of Darfur, Djebal Alnouba, Blue Nile, and all the marginalized people collectively in Sudan. By their name, I am calling all the advocates, activists, experts, groups fighting for the rights, and individuals who have kind heart: to work very hard, to stop those who are defending the Sudan regime and who use the money before humanity, for their wealth! See these innocents, they need a better life with dignity, education, peaceful environment, to grow like any child around the world, but they didn't find it. What do you think about a life like this? If you have a kind heart don't you see young children like yours are suffering? What did they do to be in situations like this? We need your voice to change this crisis, as a human for humanity. The people of Sudan have long counted on the U.S., the defenders of freedom, justice and equality, to stand with them against the tyranny of the Sudanese regime. They cannot understand why U.S. policy would change when the regime and their own personal circumstances have not changed. These are matters of life and death and of huge importance with regard to the advancement of security, peace and justice around the globe. Allowing impunity and ignoring human suffering creates a world that threatens us all. Please do your part, take a stand and refuse to represent the government of Sudan. Sincerely, Mia Farrow, Actress and Humanitarian 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, Nathan Wineinger, Director of Policy Relations, Washington, DC ACROSS, Elisama W Daniel, Executive Director, South Sudan Act for Sudan, Eric Cohen, Co-Founder, Boston, MA Ahmed H. Adam, UK African Freedom Coalition, Al Sutton M.D., President, New York, NY African Refugees and Victims Relief Fund, Ted Dagne, Silver Spring, MD African Soul, American Heart, Debra Dawson, President and CEO, Fargo, ND Agape International Organization, Agnes Lokule, Vice President, Des Moines, IA Akulia Foundation, Lita Muki, Chairperson, Juba, Central Equatoria, South Sudan Al Khatim Adlan Centre for Enlightenment & Human Development (KACE), Albaqir A Mukhtar, Director, Kampala, , Uganda Sudanese children growing up in a Chad refugee camp American Friends of the Episcopal Church of the Sudans (AFRECS), Richard Parkins, Executive Director Asha Khalil Elkarib, Civil Society and Human Rights Activist, Khartoum, Sudan Blue Nile Association for Peace and Development USA, Omer Abdelsawi Omer, Mulberry, FL Brooklyn Coalition for Darfur & Marginalized Sudan, Laura Limuli, Coordinator, Brooklyn, NY Christian Solidarity International-USA, The Rev. Heidi McGinness, Director of Outreach, Denver, CO CLIP-Poverty, Samuel L. Geng, Team Leader, Juba, Jubek, South Sudan Colorado Coalition for Genocide Awareness and Action, Roz Duman, Founder / Director, Denver, CO Comité Soudan, Diagne Chanel, Présidente, Paris, France Concerned Citizens for Change, Gene Binder, Steering Committee Member, Bronx, NY Darfur Action Group of South Carolina, Richard Sribnick, MD, President, Columbia, SC Darfur and Beyond, Cory Williams, Co-Founder, Phoenix, AZ Darfur Community Association, Mohammed Esmail, President, Cape Town, Western Cap, South Africa Darfur Interfaith Network, Martha Boshnick, Co-Chair, Washington, DC Darfur People's Association of New York, Motasim Adam, Secretary General, Brooklyn, NY Darfur Relief and Documentation Centre, Abdelbagi Jibril, Vice President, Geneva, Switzerland Darfur Women Action Group, Niemat Ahmadi, President, Washington, DC David Alton, Professor the Lord Alton of Liverpool, Independent Crossbench Member of House of Lords, London, UK Dear Sudan Love Marin, Gerri Miller, Founder and Coordinator, Tiburon, CA Doctors to the World, C. Louis Perrinjaquet, MD, Medical Director, Breckenridge, CO Dr. Deborah Mayersen, Research Fellow, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia Dr. Gerard Prunier, Author, Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide, Paris, France Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, Founding Chairman, Genocide Watch, Research Professor in Genocide Studies and Prevention, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington, VA Dr. Hakim Moi, London, UK Dr. Herbert Hirsch, Professor of Political Science, Virginia Commonwealth University, Co-Editor, Genocide Studies International, Richmond, VA Dr. Mukesh Kapila, Former Head of the UN in Sudan, Prof. of Global Health and Humanitarian Affairs University of Manchester, UK Dr. Mutaal Girshab, Human Rights Consultant, MENA, Khartoum, Sudan Dr. Samuel Totten, Professor Emeritus, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Author of Genocide by Attrition: Nuba Mountains, Sudan, Fayetteville, AK Elhag Ali Warrag Sidahmed Warrag, Editor in Chief, Hurriyat, Egypt Elijah M. Brown, Ph.D., General Secretary, North American Baptist Fellowship, Washington, DC Elizabeth Blackney, Media & Communications Director, Panzi Foundation USA, Washington, DC Ellen J. Kennedy, Ph.D., Executive Director, World Without Genocide at Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St. Paul, MN Empower One, Mike Congrove, Executive Director, Dallas, TX Empowerment Through Education (ETE), Micklina Kenyi, Executive Director, Boulder, CO Eric Reeves, Senior Fellow, Harvard University’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights, Northampton, MA Face Past for Future Foundation (FP4F), Abdelrahman Gasim, Chairman, Kampala, Uganda Genocide No More - Save Darfur, Marv Steinberg, Coordinator, Redding, CA Genocide Watch, Gregory StaGalloway, NJ Greg Miller, Professor Emeritus of English, Millsaps College, Poughkeepsie, NY Greater Nuba Action Coalition (GNAC), John Jefferson, Founder and Director, San Francisco, CA Hamid E. Ali, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Public Policy and Administration, The American University in Cairo, New Cairo, Egypt Harambi Foundation, Adil Abdel Aati, Founder and CEO, Warsaw, Poland Human Rights and Advocacy Network for Democracy (HAND), Abdalmageed S. Haroun, Executive Director, Brooklyn, NY Human Rights and Development Organization (HUDO), Bushra Gamar Hussein, CEO, Kampala, , Uganda Idaho Darfur Coalition, Marilyn Griep, Co-Founder, Boise, ID Independent Movement Organization, Adil Taha, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Fairfax, VA Investors Against Genocide, Susan Morgan, Co-founder, San Francisco, CA Jewish World Watch, Susan Freudenheim, Executive Director, Los Angeles, CA Jews Against Genocide, Sharon Silber, Co-Director, New York, NY Joining Our Voices, Slater Armstrong, Founder/Director, Baton Rouge, LA Kalahari Peoples Fund, Robert K. Hitchcock, PhD, , Albuquerque, NM Kentuckiana Taskforce Against Genocide, Robert Brousseau & Phil Nippert, Co-Founders, Louisville, KY Khalid Kodi, Adjunct Professor, Boston College, Brown University, Boston, MA Mahdi Ibrahim Saeed, PhD Candidate, Former UNCHR Field Coordinator Asst, PhD., Candidate, University of Limpopo., Polokwane, South Africa Massachusetts Coalition for Darfur, William Rosenfeld, Director, Boston, MA Melanie Nelkin, Human Rights Activist, Atlanta, GA Melanie Rodden, St. John's Episcopal Cathedral, Denver, CO Mercy Beyond Borders, Sister Marilyn Lacey, RSM, Executive Director, Santa Clara, CA Mustafa Sharif, PhD. College Station, TX Nagla Ahmed, Human Rights Lawyer, Columbia University Nehemiah Initiative, Gavin Gramstad, Executive Director, Washington, DC Never Again Coalition, Lauren Fortgang, Policy Director, Portland, OR New Sudan Generation, Silvestro Akara Bakhiet, Founder / President, San Francisco, CA New York Coalition for Sudan, Eileen Weiss, Co-Founder, New York, NY Nuba Christian Family Mission, George Kouri Tuto, Chairman and James Spence Flournoy, Director, Englewood, CO Nuba Mountain Peace Coalition, Tito El Gassai, Representative, Dallas, TX Nuba Mountains Advocacy, Gogadi Amoga, Chair, Cincinnati, OH Nuba Mountains International Association, Komi Elaiaiser, President, Lorton, VA Nuba Mountains International Association (NMIA), Abbaker Mudir, Alexandria, VA Nubia Project, Nuraddin Abdulmannan, President, Washington, DC Nubian Language Society, Nubantood Khalil, , Washington, DC Operation Broken Silence, Mark C. Hackett, Executive Director, Memphis, TN Our Humanity in the Balance, Terry Nickelson, Executive Director, Deming, NM Partners in Compassionate Care, David Bowman, Founder and Chairman, Grand Rapids, MI Paul Slovic, Genocide Scholar, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR People4Sudan, Valerie Delacretaz, Global Coordinator, Geneva, Switzerland Philip Tutu, Human Rights Activist, Kansas City, MO Pittsburgh Darfur Emergency Coalition, David L. Rosenberg, Coordinator, Pittsburgh, PA Pittsburgh Presbytery International Partnership Ministry Team, The Rev. David B. Carver, Moderator, Pittsburgh, PA Professor Elihu D. Richter MD MPH, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University- Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel Rebecca Tinsley, Journalist and Author, London, UK Rights for Peace Foundation, Osman Naway, Director, Kansas City, MO San Diego Lost Boys of Sudan Charitable Corporation, Karen Richards, President, San Diego, CA San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition, Mohamed Suleiman, President, San Francisco, CA SEA Partners, Dr. Donnie L. Brake II, President, USA, Kenya, South Sudan Seif Barsham, Human Rights Defender, Boston, MA Shine A Ray of Hope, Carmen Paolercio, Founder, New Rochelle, NY Simon Deng, 2011 UN Watch Freedom Award Human Rights Activists, Sudan Freedom Walk, New York, NY Skills for Nuba Mountains, Lazim Suleiman, Director, Kauda, South Kordofan/Nuba Mountains, Sudan Society for Threatened Peoples - Germany, Ulrich Delius, Director, Göttingen, Germany South Sudan Human Rights Commission, Amute Francis Lobalu, Human Rights Officer, Juba, Jubek State, South Sudan South Sudan Women Christian Mission for Peace, Sandra Bona, Coordinator, Yei, Yei River, South Sudan Stop Genocide Now, Katie Jay Scott, Coordinator, Redondo, CA Sudan Democracy First Group, Monim El Jak, Executive Director, Sudan Sudan National Democratic Forum California Chapter, Mr. Saifeldin B. Gibreel, Alameda, CA Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Agency, Ishraga A. Khamis, Deputy, Blue Nile, Sudan Sudan Unlimited, Esther Sprague, Founder and Director, San Francisco, CA Sudanese Community Association of Illinois, Peter Magai Bul, Former Board Member, Chicago, IL Sudanese Community Church, Episcopal Diocese of Colorado, The Rev. Ayyoubawaga B. Gafour, Ph.D., Vicar, Denver, CO Sudanese Community of Kentucky Inc, Abdulrahim S. Adam, President, Louisville, KY Sudanese Rights Group, Khartoum, Sudan Tamara Banks, Freelance Journalist, TazMedia, Denver, CO The Abaunza Group, Bonnie Abaunza, Founder, Los Angeles, CA The Baroness (Caroline) Cox, Independent Member, House of Lords, CEO, Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, London, UK The Elsa-Gopa Trust, Nell Okie, Director, Madison, CT The Friends of Sudan, Justin Laku, Sr., Co-Founder, Ottawa, ON, Canada The Horn of Africa Civil Society Forum, Uganda The Institute on Religion and Democracy, Faith J.H. McDonnell, Director, Religious Liberty Program, Washington, DC The MagkaSama Project, Max Dana, Founder, Paris, France The Nile Institute for Peace and Development (NIPD), William Pay Tuoy-Giel, M.Ed., Executive Director, Phoenix, AZ The Reverend Ronald D. Culmer, St. Clare's Episcopal Church, Pleasanton, CA The Reverend Susan Fortunato, Christ Episcopal Church, Poughkeepsie, NY The Rev. Tim Oslovich, Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Vernon, CT The San Antonio Coalition Against Genocide, Susan Smylie, Coordinator of Advocacy, San Antonio, TX Thomas Merton Center, Gabriel McMorland, Executive Director, Pittsburgh, PA Trinity South Sudan Ministry, Bill Andress, Facilitator, Lexington, SC Unite for Darfur Organization, Bahar Arabie, CEO, Gaithersburg, MD Use Your Voice to Stop Genocide RI, Sandra Hammel, Director, Portsmouth, RI Victoria Sanford, PhD, US Fulbright Scholar, Columbia 2016-17, Professor & Chair, Department of Anthropology, Lehman College, Director, Center for Human Rights & Peace Studies, City University of New York, New York, NY Voice of Darfur Women, Mariam Suliman, Chair, London, England, UK Waging Peace, Maddy Crowther, Head of Communications and Research, London, UK

Rohingya refugee children from Myanmar stand outside Kutupalong camp in Bangladesh (July 2017). Photo: Poppy McPherson/IRIN The United Nations human rights chief today lashed out at the treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar which has led to more than 300,000 people fleeing to Bangladesh in the past three weeks, as security forces and local militia reportedly burn villages and shoot civilians. “The situation seems a textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” Zeid Ra‘ad al-Hussein told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, noting that the current situation cannot yet be fully assessed since Myanmar has refused access to human rights investigators. He cited reports of Myanmar authorities laying landmines along the border with Bangladesh and requiring returnees to provide “proof of nationality,” an impossibility given that successive Myanmar governments have since 1962 progressively stripped the Rohingya population of their political and civil rights, including citizenship rights. The latest security operation in Rakhine state follows attacks by militants on 25 August against 30 police posts. The High Commissioner called the response “clearly disproportionate” and “without regard for basic principles of international law,” and said the Government should “stop claiming that the Rohingyas are setting fire to their own homes and laying waste to their own villages.” “This complete denial of reality is doing great damage to the international standing of a Government which, until recently, benefited from immense good will,” he said. “I call on the Government to end its current cruel military operation, with accountability for all violations that have occurred and to reverse the pattern of severe and widespread discrimination against the Rohingya population,” he added, calling for his Office (OHCHR) to obtain unfettered access to the country. Last year, Mr. Zeid issued a report warning that the pattern of gross violations of the human rights of the Rohingya suggested a widespread or systematic attack against the community, possibly amounting to crimes against humanity. In today’s statement, he also addressed Bangladeshi authorities, encouraging them to maintain open borders for the refugees, and the international community to help support the refugees. Humanitarian agencies in Bangladesh today appealed for $77 million to aid an estimated 300,000 refugees through the end of the year. At the same time, he deplored measures taken by India, which has said it is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention and can deport Rohingyas. Warnings of escalating violence in Venezuela Among other issues raised in his address today was the situation in Venezuela, where Mr. Zeid said that crimes against humanity may have been committed, and where tensions have the potential to escalate further. He noted a report issued by OHCHR last month highlighting excessive use of force by security officers and multiple other human rights violations, and urged authorities in Venezuela – which is a member of the Geneva-based forum – “to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights.” Given the very real dangers to human rights in the country, he urged the Human Rights Council to establish an international investigation and called for the involvement of the international community. Call for international probe into abuses in Yemen Mr. Zeid also called for the establishment of an international and independent investigative body to probe the human rights situation in Yemen, which he called “extremely alarming.” He noted that 62 international and Yemeni non-governmental organizations had submitted a letter to the Council requesting such an inquiry. “The devastation of Yemen and the horrific suffering of its people will have immense and enduring repercussions across the region,” Mr. Zeid said. “I appeal to the parties to the conflict to reach a negotiated and durable solution, and to adhere to their obligations under international law, including by facilitating the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian relief.” _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Uunited Nations News Centre -

The UN’s World Health Organization (WHO) continues in its refusal to call the cholera epidemic that has spread throughout Sudan by its proper name (cholera is caused by the Vibrio cholera bacterium, easily identified in WHO’s Geneva laboratories). WHO remains silent, refusing either to confirm or disconfirm the existence of cholera in Sudan. Give the continual reporting, for a year now, by Radio Dabanga and Sudan Tribune,about the existence of a cholera epidemic, it is indisputably WHO’s obligation to make a determination. From its silence we may infer two things: [1] The ruthless Khartoum regime knows there is a “stigmatizing” cholera epidemic, which is why it threatens health workers and reporters who dare use the word cholera, and has also succeeded in intimidating the WHO into not using the word cholera in any way. [2] But given the widespread reporting of cholera epidemic in Sudan, WHO would certainly use fecal samples from victims of what they insist on calling “acute watery diarrhea” to disconfirm the existence of cholera, if it possibly could. But it can’t, so it maintains an unconscionable silence. Why is it important that cholera be named? There are many reasons, including the urgent deployment of medical equipment (primarily massive quantities of re-hydration supplies and cholera treatment medicines) and knowledgeable medical personnel (including infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists familiar with the patterns associated with a cholera epidemic). Critically, newly developed cholera vaccines could be used, particularly in populations most at risk (Kalma camp and Jebel Marra in Darfur, for example). But the vaccines won’t be distributed unless the disease from which they offer protection is named. WHO itself recognizes the value of such vaccines: The UN World Health Organization on Cholera Vaccines: Cholera vaccines | http://www.who.int/topics/cholera/vaccines/en/ In the long term, improvements in water supply, sanitation, food safety and community awareness of preventive measures are the best means of preventing cholera and other diarrhoeal diseases. However, WHO and partners are evaluating the use of newer tools to complement these traditional measures. Oral cholera vaccines of demonstrated safety and effectiveness have recently become available for use by individuals. Some countries have already used oral cholera vaccines to immunize populations considered to be at high risk for cholera outbreaks. Evidence gained on the use of oral cholera vaccines is evolving rapidly. Work is under way to investigate the role of mass vaccination as a public health strategy for protecting at risk populations against cholera. Issues being addressed include logistics, cost, timing, vaccine production capacity, and criteria for use of mass vaccination to contain and prevent outbreaks. • Potential use of oral cholera vaccines • Currently available oral cholera vaccines [Cholera vaccines are discussed in similar terms by the U.S. Center for Disease Control | https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/vaccines.html/] The refusal to name the cholera epidemic in Sudan by its proper name is costing more lives and creating more human suffering daily. Why won’t the UN World Health Organization fulfill its explicit mandate? Our primary role is to direct and coordinate international health within the United Nations’ system. Our goal is to build a better, healthier future for people all over the world. Working through offices in more than 150 countries, WHO staff work side by side with governments and other partners to ensure the highest attainable level of health for all people. Suffering from cholera, the people of Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan are unconscionably offered relentless silence by the UN’s World Health Organization ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 SUDAN Research, Analysis, and Advocacy

Since 2012, the International Crisis Group repeatedly has warned that, if left unresolved, Rakhine State’s volatile dynamics pose a major risk to Myanmar’s transition. If dealt with primarily through a heavy-handed, indiscriminate security response, rather than in the framework of a political strategy, the dangers were clearly set to become far worse. The events of recent weeks are not just causing enormous suffering to civilians, but bring Myanmar precipitously close to just such an unraveling of much that has been achieved since the end of military rule. The 25 August attacks on Myanmar security forces by the militant group Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), also known as Harakah al-Yaqin, which the government has designated a terrorist group, undoubtedly were intended as a provocation. Neither these attacks nor the reported killing of non-Rohingya civilians, at least some of which are undoubtedly the work of the group, are excusable, no matter what political agenda they claim to represent. Any government has the responsibility to defend itself and the people living in the country. At the same time, such government security responses need to be proportionate and not target civilians. It is extremely difficult to verify the numerous reports of atrocities amid the confusion and chaos, and very limited access for media and humanitarian agencies. Yet even if specific allegations cannot be proven, the scale of the crisis is clear. The 270,000 Rohingya who have fled in the last two weeks to the Bangladesh-Myanmar border and across are telling, both in terms of their numbers and the accounts they bring. The vast majority of these people, mostly women and children, are unlikely to be militants. Along with some 87,500 who fled a previous upsurge in violence in October 2016, nearly half of Myanmar’s estimated one million Rohingya may now have been forced from their homes. It may indeed be difficult for the government to distinguish between ARSA members and other Rohingya. The events of last year and recent weeks, particularly the heavy handed military response in the wake of the October 2016 and August 2017 attacks, appear to have promoted a sense among Rohingya that a general uprising is underway. But operationally challenging as this is, it cannot be an excuse for military action against the general population. By doing so, the military will not quell the crisis, but rather play straight into the hands of ARSA by increasing the sense of grievance and hopelessness. It is similarly vital to treat with utmost caution claims that the current crisis is being fuelled by militants with transnational jihadist aims. Rohingya communities have not typically been radicalised in this fashion and there are no indications that ARSA has been pursuing goals congruent with those of global jihadist outfits. While there may be domestic political imperatives or gains to be had for politicians in the region to make these claims, doing so is deeply dangerous. If the Myanmar government chooses to continue a massive military response against the general population, even if parts of this population may be sympathetic to ARSA, or publicly to treat the violence as the work of jihadists, it risks creating conditions for the entrenchment or rise of those very same dynamics. An alienated, desperate and dispossessed population that is shunned by the country it claims as its home and by neighbours is ripe for exploitation by such groups and may believe it has little to lose if it were to turn to violence. The risks to those who live in Myanmar, the country’s transition and regional stability are considerable. There is no military solution to the crisis in Rakhine state. The Myanmar government will find no success, only long term violence and crisis, if it uses the presence of militants and the growth of some sympathy for them, as an excuse to address in an extreme manner the long-standing challenges of Rakhine state. The path to stability lies in dealing head on with the fears, claims and desires of all groups in the state, Rakhine, Rohingya and other minorities. This political path is difficult and will require compromises many may find distasteful. But taking this road is the only way to reduce the risks of serious violence, more displacement and greater human misery. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 International Crisis Group

Chad is facing a severe fiscal and social crisis. On 7-8 September, President Idriss Déby is in Paris for an International Donor Conference to seek much-needed funding for the country’s National Development Program. The government likes to portray the country’s problems as due to external shocks like the drop in oil prices and the cost of military intervention against Boko Haram and other extremists. Donors, under pressure from France, largely accept this narrative and support has recently been forthcoming from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). But a closer look at the country’s recent history tells another story. According to the Chadian economy minister, the conference aims to mobilise support “for the transformation of Chadian economy”. This is not the first time Chadians have been promised such a transformation. When Chad joined the club of oil-producing countries in 2003, the World Bank supported the building of the critical pipeline to get the oil to the coast on condition that the money generated would be put to good use. The Oil Governance Law was passed in 1999, stipulating that 80 per cent of revenues were to be allocated to pre-defined priority sectors – public health, social affairs, education, infrastructure, agriculture, livestock and water. Ten per cent of oil revenue was to be channelled into a fund for future generations, while another 5 per cent was earmarked for the oil-producing region. Only the remaining 5 per cent would flow directly into the state budget. Soon thereafter, however, Déby started to dismantle these control mechanisms. In 2006, he amended the Oil Governance Law, dismantling the future generations fund and, crucially, adding defence to the list of priority sectors. He faced down donors and gradually rolled back all the control mechanisms so painstakingly negotiated by the World Bank, eventually gaining full discretion over spending of oil revenues. This came about against the backdrop of mounting political and military opposition. The lack of political space, and in particular the constitutional changes in June 2005 that allowed Déby to run for a third term in 2006, led to the defection of senior political and military figures including his nephews Timane and Tom Erdimi. After a failed coup attempt on 14 March 2006, they established a rebel group, one of several rebellions to challenge Déby’s power with the support of neighbouring Sudan. Major rebel offensives on N’Djamena in 2006 and 2008 nearly overthrew the regime. Oil money gave Déby a critical lifeline. Free from any obligations of transparency, he awarded his supporters import licenses or public contracts for numerous infrastructure projects. To ease social tensions, the regime also recruited workers into the public sector. Oil revenues likewise enabled Déby to confront the armed opposition, through heavy investments in the army. Military spending skyrocketed from $67 million in 2005 to $247 million in 2006. Military expenditures reached an all-time high in 2009, accounting for $670 million – a full 8 per cent of GDP. According to SIPRI data, between 2006 and 2016, the regime acquired 34 aircraft (attack and transport planes) and 372 armoured vehicles of different varieties, turning its armed forces into one of the best equipped on the continent. After this splurge, military spending declined, but still remains way above pre-oil money levels at 2.6 per cent of GDP. As in other African countries that have received significant Western support for their militaries, Chad’s government is itself a product of a civil war and remains military at heart. So diverting funds to the army fits seamlessly with the government’s own desire to reward its military and keep it loyal. Military spending has helped Chad intervene in the Central African Republic, Mali, in neighbouring countries threatened by Boko Haram and as far afield as the Saudi Arabia-led coalition to fight Huthi combatants in Yemen. This engagement has strengthened relations with Western powers and brought substantial financial and political support. The EU, France and the U.S. in particular today consider Déby as their principal partner in the fight against terrorism in the Sahel. For Déby it is a win-win: tackle domestic armed opposition, pay his troops and gain significant leverage over donors. But the rise in military spending along with mismanagement of oil revenues has come at a cost. Having failed to diversify the economy while the going was good, dependency on oil money has made the country highly vulnerable. Declining prices and production levels have led the country back to international donors. Partly as a requirement under the IMF financial and economic support program, the government has introduced drastic budget cuts, affecting allowances for civil servants, parliamentarians and police, student scholarships and the staffing size of state agencies. The government has accumulated arrears in payments of salaries, allowances and pensions. This situation has caused waves of strikes by teachers and other public sector workers. Many feel that while they didn’t profit from the oil revenues in the first place, they are now, on top of this, paying the price for its mismanagement. Widespread corruption, high living costs, and the lack of political space and civil liberties have further fed the anger and the country’s growing number of protest movements. The government has reacted with repression and a clampdown on civil liberties. Reports of harassment, arbitrary arrests, ill-treatment and torture of journalists, civil society activists and political opponents have increased. Unsurprisingly, international partners have been reluctant to denounce such practices, let alone impose conditions for their support. So even as Chad’s economy nosedives in the context of corruption and authoritarianism, Déby’s international position appears untouchable. Europe’s increasing desire to get Sahelian countries to stop migrant flows from reaching the Mediterranean will likely give him a further opportunity to show how useful his country can be. Chadian civil society activists and political opponents are increasingly frustrated with this unconditional international support for Déby, which they interpret as silent complicity. And understandably so: in backing Déby as he pours money into his military while the rest of the population suffers, Western powers are paying scant regard to the sustainability of their engagement, nor to what kind of state they are encouraging. The longer-term fight against extremism requires stronger and more legitimate public institutions, not “more strongmen”. While financial support for the fight against extremists in the Sahel is certainly an immediate priority, Chad’s international partners should also extract real commitment to use part of international aid to support the country’s crumbling social sectors, as well as to build new monitoring mechanisms to guarantee greater transparency. Eliane Giezendanner, Central Africa Project intern, assisted in the preparation of this commentary. This text was changed on 12 September 2017 to rectify the original version that incorrectly stated, "Between 2006 and 2014, the regime purchased 139 aircraft and 153 armed vehicles". According to SIPRI data, the regime actually acquired 34 aircraft (attack and transport planes) and 372 armoured vehicles of different varieties between 2006 and 2016. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 International Crisis Group

Dear Excellencies, We write to you regarding the deeply concerning situation in Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine State. Reports estimate that more than 270,000 Rohingyas have fled to Bangladesh following the outbreak of violence two weeks ago, and this figure is expected to significantly increase. Thousands of non-Muslim residents have also been internally displaced. Reports have also emerged of entire villages being burnt and hundreds killed. On 31 August, three UN Special Rapporteurs expressed concern citing credible reports of death to villagers resulting from security force attacks, and the use of helicopters and rocket propelled grenades on the population. On 5 September, speaking to reporters, the UN Secretary General warned of a risk of ethnic cleansing. Access to northern Rakhine State has been denied to independent observers and humanitarian aid agencies while media has been tightly controlled – leaving the territory under a virtual information blackout and exacerbating a humanitarian catastrophe. We call on the UN Human Rights Council to urgently act – by passing a resolution on Myanmar calling for an end to abuses against the population and ensuring immediate humanitarian access. The UN Human Rights Council established a Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar (FFM) at its 34th session in March this year, following reports of alarming human rights violations in Rakhine State beginning in October last year. In February 2017, a report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and statements by the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar referred to reports of egregious violations targeting the Rohingya minority at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017 – including the deliberate killing of children, the burning of homes with people inside them, rape, and sexual violence. The OHCHR report concluded that reports indicate the very likely commission of crimes against humanity. Military operations conducted during this period bear a close semblance to current operations which involve mass exodus of Rohingya fleeing violence, multiple reports of civilian deaths, and egregious violations under an information blackout, without independent access to observers or journalists. The current bout of violence began following reports of coordinated attacks on police posts by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA), an armed militant organisation, on 25 August – after which the Myanmar military launched a massive response. Weeks before the current outbreak of violence, on 11 August, the UN Special Rapporteur on Myanmar expressed concern on increasing military build-up in Rakhine State. The violence broke out immediately following the release of a report by an international commission headed by the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which called for reforms to address wide-ranging forms of discrimination faced by the Rohingya community. On 29 August, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights cautioned all sides on fuelling further violence and called on the government leadership to condemn the inflammatory rhetoric and incitement to hatred that is proliferating. He further expressed concerns on unsupported government allegations that international aid organizations were complicit in or supporting attacks, as this places aid workers in danger and may make it impossible for them to deliver essential aid. Myanmar has so far failed to restore full humanitarian access following the preceding period of violence that began in October 2016. The Myanmar government has hitherto been reluctant to cooperate with the FFM and has denied allegations relating to violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law. The government has also refused to reform discriminatory laws that affect the Rohingya community and deny them full citizenship rights, leaving the community in a vulnerable situation. It is imperative for the UN Human Rights Council to urgently address the escalating situation in Myanmar through a resolution at the upcoming 36th session of the UN Human Rights Council. The establishment of the FFM was considerably delayed for technical reasons. The lack of access to the country by independent investigators as well as the current outbreak of violence have further increased the magnitude of the body’s work ahead of its March 2018 reporting deadline. In this context, the Council should pass a resolution on Myanmar which: Extends the time available for the FFM beyond March; Makes provision for the FFM to provide a preliminary report to the UN General Assembly in September 2017 and a final report to the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly in 2018; Calls on Myanmar to urgently grant full access to the FFM; Emphasises the responsibility of Myanmar to prevent and seek accountability for any retaliation or reprisal against individuals for engaging with the FFM; Expresses grave concern over recent allegations of violations and calls for an immediate end to attacks on the civilian population; and Urges full access for humanitarian aid and independent observers. Please accept the assurance of our highest consideration. ALTSEAN-Burma (Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma) ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) Asian Legal Resource Center (ALRC) Association of Women for Awareness & Motivation (AWAM) Awaz Foundation Pakistan – Centre for Development Services (AwazCDS-Pakistan) Burma Campaign UK Bytes for All, Pakistan (B4A) Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation Civil Rights Defenders Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (kontraS) Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Conectas Direitos Humanos Defend Defenders (the East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project) Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights FIDH – International Federation for Human Rights Fortify Rights Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect Human Rights Watch Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) INFORM Human Rights Documentation Centre Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC) International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) Judicial System Monitoring Program (JSMP) Korean House for International Solidarity (KHIS) Madaripur Legal Aid Association National Commission for Justice and Peace, Pakistan Odhikar Partnership for Justice People‘s Empowerment Foundation, Thailand People‘s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) People’s Watch PILIPINA Legal Resources Center (PLRC) Pusat KOMAS Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit Safeguard Defenders South India Cell for Human Rights Education and Monitoring (SICHREM) Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM) Think Centre Unitarian Universalist Service Committee _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Human Rights Watch

Shamsun Nahar (L), 60, a Rohingya widow who fled from Kha Maung Seik village of Myanmar to Bangladesh alone, whose 30-year-old son is missing, tells her story at Kutupalang Makeshift Camp in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, September 4, 2017. © 2017 Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters Ethnic Rohingya Muslims fleeing Burmese security forces in Burma’s Rakhine State have described killings, shelling, and arson in their villages that have all the hallmarks of a campaign of “ethnic cleansing,” Human Rights Watch said today. Burmese army, police, and ethnic Rakhine armed groups have carried out operations against predominantly Rohingya villages since the August 25, 2017 attacks by Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) militants against about 30 police posts and an army base. Burmese army commander Sr. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing told the media that the government-approved military clearance operations in Rakhine State was “unfinished business” dating back to the Second World War. Ethnic Rohingya Muslims fleeing Burmese security forces in Burma’s Rakhine State have described killings, shelling, and arson in their villages that have all the hallmarks of a campaign of “ethnic cleansing." The United Nations Security Council should hold a public emergency meeting and warn the Burmese authorities that they will face severe sanctions unless they put an end to the brutal campaign against the Rohingya population. “Rohingya refugees have harrowing accounts of fleeing Burmese army attacks and watching their villages be destroyed,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director. “Lawful operations against armed groups do not involve burning the local population out of their homes.” In early September, Human Rights Watch interviewed more than 50 Rohingya refugees who had fled across the border to Bangladesh and obtained detailed accounts from about a dozen people. The Rohingya told Human Rights Watch that Burmese government security forces had carried out armed attacks on villagers, inflicting bullet and shrapnel injuries, and burned down their homes. They described the military’s use of small arms, mortars, and armed helicopters in the attacks. Human Rights Watch obtained satellite data and images that are consistent with widespread burnings in northern Rakhine State, encompassing the townships of Rathedaung, Buthidaung, and Maungdaw. To date, Human Rights Watch has found 21 unique locations where heat sensing technology on satellites identified significant, large fires. Knowledgeable sources in Bangladesh told Human Rights Watch that they heard the distinctive sounds of heavy and light machine gun fire and mortar shelling in villages just across the border in Burma, and spotted smoke arising from these villages shortly afterward. The Burmese government has denied security force abuses, claiming that it is engaged in a counterterrorism operation in which nearly 400people have been killed, most of them suspected militants. The Burmese authorities assert, without substantiating their claims, that militants and Rohingya villagers have burned 6,845 houses across 60 villages in northern Rakhine State. Refugee accounts contradict the claims of Burmese officials. For example, Momena, a 32-year-old Rohingya woman from Maungdaw Township, said that she fled to Bangladesh on August 26, a day after security forces attacked her village. She first hid with her children when the soldiers arrived, but returning to the village she said she saw 40 to 50 villagers dead, including some children and elderly people: “All had knife wounds or bullet wounds, some had both. My father was among the dead; his neck had been cut open. I was unable to do last rites for my father – I just fled.” At the Cox’s Bazar hospital, Human Right Watch interviewed several Rohingya with bullet wounds. Some said they were hit while at home, others said they were shot when running for safety from their villages, or while hiding in the fields or hills from Burmese soldiers. Rohingya refugees wait for a boat to cross a canal after crossing the border through the Naf River in Teknaf, Bangladesh, September 7, 2017. © 2017 Mohammad Ponir Hossain/Reuters Usman Goni, 20, said that he and five friends were in the hills outside their village, tending cattle, when they were attacked. He saw a helicopter flying overhead and then something fall out of it. He later realized he had been hit by whatever the helicopter dropped. Four of his friends died from fragment injuries while villagers transported Goni to Bangladesh for treatment. The fragments in his torso had not yet been removed when Human Rights Watch met him in the hospital. Human Rights Watch’s initial investigations of the current situation in Rakhine State are indicative of an ethnic cleansing campaign. Although “ethnic cleansing” is not formally defined under international law, a UN commission of experts has defined the term as a “purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas…. This purpose appears to be the occupation of territory to the exclusion of the purged group or groups.” “There is no indication that the horrors we and others are uncovering in Rakhine State are letting up,” Ganguly said. “The United Nations and concerned governments need to press Burma right now to end these horrific abuses against the Rohingya as a first step toward restoring Rohingya to their homes.” Attacks on villages in Maungdaw Township, Rakhine State, based on interviews with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, August 30, 2017 to September 5, 2017 Yasin Ali Yasin Ali, 25, said that Burmese security forces attacked his village of Reka Para on August 27. Prior to the attack, tensions had been building in Reka Para and neighboring Rohingya villages as local Rakhine harassed and abused them for months. Ali said: “They would come around to us and say, ‘This is not your land. Don’t cultivate this land, and don’t dare take the food growing on it.’ If we went near their lands, they would beat us with sticks.” During the August 27 attack, all the villagers went into hiding. Ali said the women and children were sent further away to seek shelter, while the men stayed close by to wait out the attack in the hopes that they could quickly return to the village after the soldiers left. He said he hid by the roadside, about half a kilometer from where the soldiers made their approach. He heard what sounded like mortar shells hitting the village: “I heard boom boom boom, and then I saw the houses just collapse.” After a while, he saw the soldiers advance toward the village, and from his vantage point, he saw that they were carrying small arms and what looked like light machine guns. He also said he saw a mortar system on the shoulder of a soldier, and some apparent mortar rounds the size of a grapefruit. Ali said that when the soldiers entered the village, they started shooting indiscriminately. He and the other men from the village then decided to run away into the hills for shelter. From the hills, he saw a helicopter painted olive green circle his village four times, and saw something being dropped from the helicopter after which the houses in the village caught fire. Ali and his family walked to Bangladesh and were allowed to enter by the border guards. They arrived on August 31, and at the time Ali spoke with Human Rights Watch, they were waiting outside trying to sort out where they could get shelter. Momena Momena, 32, fled her village of Kirgari Para on August 26 with two of her three children. She said that soldiers had previously attacked the village during the military operations in late 2016, but the situation in her village had settled down since then. She described the events that prompted her to flee: I heard the sounds of fighting around 4 p.m. on Friday [August 25]. There was a lot of noise, worse than before. I saw them [the soldiers] myself as they entered my village. I don’t know how many there were but it looked like a lot to me. I fled with the other villagers and we sheltered in the jungle overnight. When I returned to the village the next morning, after the soldiers had left, I saw about 40 to 50 villagers dead, including some children and some elderly. All had knife wounds or bullet wounds – some had both. My father was among the dead; his neck had been cut open. I was unable to do last rites for my father, I just fled. Momena said she had to leave her husband and 10-year-old son behind. She has had no news of them since then. Her husband has no mobile phone and other villagers she is in contact with have heard no news of either of them. She heard that her mother is alive but has no idea where she is or how she is. From her vantage point while hiding in the jungle, Momena said she could see some of the houses in her village burning at night. She believes soldiers set fire to the houses as a warning to the villagers. Momena said she did not know of any armed Rohingya militants in the village. She had heard some youth in the village talking about resisting, but she never saw anyone take any action on this, there was just talk. She said many young Rohingya men fled into the jungle after the attack. In addition to bodies found in her village, Momena said she saw several bodies of children in the Naf River at one of the crossing points into Bangladesh. Momena said that when she and others fleeing with her crossed into Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Border Guards stopped them and said: “We have to stop you but if you shout and insist on entering, we’ll let you in.” She understood this as the guards pretending to obey their orders to refuse refugees entry to Bangladesh, but in practice helping the refugees enter the country. Khatija Khaton Khatija Khaton, a widow, lived in the village of Ashikha Mushi with her four children. She said that on August 25, an armed group of ethnic Rakhine youth came to her house and issued vague threats. She recognized them from previous encounters because most of them had been involved in the violence against her community in October 2016. Khaton said she had never reported previous threats because “We don’t trust the police, we just escape, that’s our only solution.” The youth were armed with rifles and slingshots. She heard periodic gunshots, and other villagers said that the army was helping the Rakhine youth, but she did not see any evidence of that herself. After seeing the armed Rakhine group kill a young Rohingya man, a 22-year-old called Rahim, she decided to leave her village that day after Friday noon prayers. She said that initially the Rohingya youth in the village responded to the Rakhine group’s show of armed strength and threats by protesting with bamboo poles, but the Rakhine group opened fire on them: Jumma prayers were just over that Friday, and the men and boys were outside the mosque when the Rakhine armed men came up to them. Rahim and others took up bamboo poles, that’s all they had, but Rahim panicked when they began to shoot. He started running away. I saw them shoot him – the bullet went through his cheek, right by his cheekbone under his eye. He died from that wound. After witnessing that shooting, Khaton panicked and fled into the hills with her three teenage daughters, ages 13, 15, and 18, whose safety she most feared for. She left her 5-year-old son behind – many Rohingya thought younger children might be safe from attack – but since then, she has no news of him. She learned that the armed Rakhine group had returned to attack her village in the early hours of August 26. While hiding in the hills, Khaton said she saw several helicopters. She also said she heard bombs being dropped near and around her village: “It was a constant boom boom boom.” She saw her village mosque and one house in her village burning. Khaton and her daughters had no trouble entering Bangladesh, but she remains concerned about the security of her daughters, and is troubled by uncertainty and guilt for her young son left behind. Nurus Safa Nurus Safa, about 40, fled from Fahira Bazar in the village tract of Kha Maung Seik on August 29. She appeared to be in a state of shock when Human Rights Watch met her less than 24 hours after she arrived Bangladesh. “Many people were killed by knives, houses burned,” she said. “We were threatened, people were wounded, so I just fled.” Safa said her village was attacked on August 25 by men in uniform whom she assumes were Burmese army soldiers. She and other villagers ran from the village and hid in the nearby hills for a few days and nights. She had heard rumors that some Rohingya youth in her village had been arming themselves and organizing protests, but she did not know this directly and had seen no signs of it. In her panic to leave, Safa left behind the three eldest of her six children, ages 7, 8, and 15. She has received no news about them or her husband, Shafique Ahmed. She said that when she crossed the Naf River, the water level was up to her neck because of heavy monsoon rains. She said she saw many wounded people crossing the river into Bangladesh, but does not know who they were or how they were injured. Safa says she and her younger children did not have any trouble from the Bangladeshi border guards when entering Bangladesh. Mohammad Yunus Mohammad Yunus, 26, said his village of Sikadir Para in Tat U Chaung village tract, close to the border with Bangladesh, was attacked on August 26. Although the villagers had had no prior warning of the attack, they were nervous because other people had come to his village fleeing attacks on their own villages further inland. He described the attack on the neighboring village of Falinga Ziri: I remember army helicopters, olive green in color, flying around. I was standing on the other side of a canal, watching all this happen directly across from me. I was very close and saw it all myself. The soldiers were using guns that shoot fire, or something that explodes and sets fire. Yunus was not sure how many soldiers were involved in the operation, but he thinks there might have been over 250. He said he saw about 25 to 30 houses set on fire in Falinga Kiri from his vantage point. He said that at the time of the attack, it looked to him like there were no villagers left; they had all fled earlier. Yunus and his fellow villagers quickly decided to flee their village as well. The next day, August 27, as they were heading toward shelter in neighboring hills, he saw soldiers and police shooting at villagers fleeing. He learned later that one woman had been killed. Yunus said that he did not know of any Rohingya men who had been training or arming themselves, or had engaged in any militant activity. Begum Bahar Begum Bahar said that soldiers attacked her village of Kun Thee Pyin on August 25. They wore olive green uniforms and she believes they were Burmese army. She along with seven of her children and other villagers fled in panic when they saw the soldiers and heard gunfire. They ran into the jungle to cross the border into Bangladesh for safety, a two-hour walk away. Bahar said she saw at least three bodies as she fled to the border crossing. One had a cut on the back of the neck and two suffered from bullet wounds. She heard the “boom boom boom” of large weapons firing all day August 26 and 27, as she was attempting to cross the Naf River into Bangladesh. During the river crossing, she lost contact with her 12-year-old son and does not know if he survived. Begum Behar said she was unaware of Rohingya militant training or anti-government activities. She said that the authorities had ordered all Rohingya villages to deposit sharp weapons to local leaders to turn over to the police, so any kind of resistance would be difficult. She did admit that her 22-year-old son had opposed her decision to leave and stayed behind when she left with her other children. Tabarak Hussein Hussein, 19, said that on August 27 at about 9 a.m., about 200 to 300 Burmese security forces in uniform along with local Rakhine men arrived at his village of Kun Thee Pyun (Kwashong in Rohingya). He said they were all armed, but was too frightened to have a proper look at their weapons. They began a spree of indiscriminate shooting in the village. Hussein said that before the attack, tensions had been running high: The local police had been harassing us, mistreating us for at least six months before this. They would take away our cows, for example. We were angry about this but we didn’t protest; we knew protesting would come to nothing. Then on the Friday [August 25] before the attack, four people were killed in my village [by the police]. I don’t know exactly how it happened. They were all Rohingya men. We left the village that day and hid in the hills, but came back because the police seemed to back down and leave. We thought it was all over, but it was not. Hussein said that when the August 27 attack began, he and the other villagers fled into the hills. From atop one hill, he saw a helicopter flying over Kun Thee Pyun village, and then almost immediately after he saw houses in the village catch on fire. He doesn’t know what caused the houses to catch fire. He said that none of the villagers in his village were killed or injured during the August 27 attack. He walked for two days and on August 29 arrived at the Bangladeshi border. He said the Bangladesh border guards stopped his group at the border for a while, and then instructed them to take another route to enter Bangladesh. The group did that and they were allowed in. Anwar Shah Anwar Shah, 17, said that on the morning of August 27, Burmese security forces in uniform opened fire on a crowd in his village of Let Ya Chaung, killing three Rohingya men and a boy, and wounding 18 others. He said he didn’t know the circumstances of the shooting, but there had been tensions between the authorities and local Rakhine and Rohingya villagers for some time. He didn’t think the four were armed or posed any security threat. The dead included Shah’s brother, Abdu Satter, 22. Abdu Shukur, about 50, Nur Alam, about 15, and Haroun, about 25. Their families buried them in the neighboring village of Kum Para because they were too frightened to bury them in their own village. Shah said that after the attack he saw the local village mosque was on fire. He heard that the local police were responsible setting the blaze but did not witness that. Shah said that following his brother’s death, he fled to Bangladesh. He learned that there was a big attack on his village the next day, August 28, and that all houses were set on fire. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 Human Rights Watch

On September 7, 2017, the Stanley Foundation, the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung partnered to hold a breakfast meeting between 15 leading civil society organizations from all continents and Dr. Ivan Šimonović, UN Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP). Within an informal, not-forattribution setting, participants discussed opportunities and offered recommendations for strengthening accountability and prevention under RtoP. This session was preceded and informed by the UN Informal Interactive Dialogue on the Responsibility to Protect, which took place September 6, 2017. This document highlights key aspects of the discussion and synthesizes recommendations set forth in the meeting. Reflections on the Annual Informal Interactive Dialogue Enhanced engagement with civil society is vital for RtoP and atrocity prevention. During the Informal Interactive Dialogue, civil society representatives were invited to provide statements in the middle of the program, rather than at the end as had been the case in years past. This procedural change demonstrated new appreciation for civil society perspectives on the RtoP debate. Also, in preparation for this year’s report by the Secretary-General on RtoP, Šimonović’s office arranged public, thematic panels in New York and Geneva to discuss accountability and international assistance for atrocity prevention. This process arose as a new initiative this year for enhanced engagement and discussion between Member States, UN representatives, and civil society on RtoP issues. These are important updates in the dialogue process, as well as in improving multi-stakeholder engagement. Members of civil society in all continents look forward to continuing to participate as key stakeholders in the development of concrete recommendations for atrocity prevention and RtoP in future reports by the Secretary-General and in ongoing efforts to strengthen prevention across the UN system. Shifting State positions on RtoP reflections of a change over time? Participants observed that some Member State interventions indicated a changing trend toward increased support for RtoP and atrocity prevention, while other statements reflected unmoving positions. Some States continue to use Article 2 of the UN Charter and national sovereignty as a shield for their internal affairs; however, participants noted this stance reflects a dangerous misinterpretation of international law and the sovereign responsibilities of the state. Šimonović noted his concern that there appears to be a trend of polarization, where States’ positions have 2 become more heavily opposed to or in favor of RtoP, consequently narrowing the opportunities to advocate support for the norm among States that fall somewhere in the middle or abstain from taking an official stance on RtoP. Encouragingly, participants observed that implementation of RtoP was discussed in new and innovative ways during this year’s dialogue, particularly the focus on accountability as a key component of prevention. Recommendations for RtoP and Atrocity Prevention at the United Nations The Joint Office of the Special Advisers on Genocide Prevention and RtoP should be used to establish more coherence in early warning and early response. The UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect can be leveraged in regard to media and messaging, as well as collaboration and strategy, to develop early warning and early response actions across the UN system. Efforts to reinforce and implement RtoP should incorporate a gender lens. Gender perspectives must be included in all efforts to strengthen policy and action for atrocity prevention. There is significant opportunity for the United Nations to include gender dynamics in all atrocity prevention and accountability measures, including in the UN Framework of Analysis and in all of the Secretary-General’s future reports on RtoP. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) can be a useful tool for structural prevention. As this year’s report on RtoP by the Secretary-General stated, including RtoP in the UPR process will help identify structural risk factors for atrocities. This creates an opportunity to mobilize political support and resources to fill capacity gaps for prevention at the national and regional levels. Civil society should contribute to future reporting and information sharing prior to the UPR, particularly by assisting and encouraging governments to have more honest and frank assessments in the review. Civil society is a crucial partner for the implementation of RtoP. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ first report on RtoP identifies specific recommendations for strengthening legal, political, and moral accountability for the prevention of atrocity crimes. Civil society perspectives and expertise on mobilization and context-specific implementation should be included in processes developed to carry forward his recommendations. Our responsibility is to prevent, not just protect. Accountability is a critical preventive tool. Holding Member States and the international community accountable to their legal, political, and moral responsibilities can make a direct contribution to reduced risk and increased resilience. Continuing to emphasize RtoP’s core objective, to prevent atrocities, can help mobilize greater support for the norm, especially among G-77 Member States. RtoP has a place on the UN General Assembly’s formal agenda. As of September 15, 2017, the UN General Assembly voted to adopt RtoP on the formal agenda of its 72nd session. A formal discussion on RtoP will require UN Member States to develop onthe-record statements, necessitating greater input from capitals. This should increase discussion of atrocity prevention outside of the United Nations and raise the potential for greater political 3 impact and domestication of RtoP. The General Assembly should continue to include RtoP as a formal agenda item in all future sessions. Recommendations for Mobilizing Implementation International law must be emphasized and more strongly supported. States need to ratify and implement key international humanitarian and human rights treaties that underpin RtoP. Diplomacy is not always enough, and a precedent of legal action against those who do not uphold or who violate their obligations under international law can influence actors and bring legitimate and influential pressure. Such initiatives are already encouraging governments to review constitutions and ensure that their legislation and actions uphold international criminal statutes to protect populations from atrocity crimes. The international community should support and reinforce regional bodies to prevent atrocities and uphold RtoP. Regional entities must be supported with the backing of the international community. Civil society and regional bodies can pressure and demand directly that States comply with their commitments to international statutes and norms and can help inform and carry out successful atrocity prevention measures. Regional intervention has proven it can work, but it requires strong political will and careful strategy. Attempts at intervention that fail can further complicate crisis situations and endanger populations, and can damage the overall perception of RtoP, potentially deterring actors from taking action to protect populations in the future. The analysis and recommendations in this policy memo do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizers or any of the conference participants, but rather draw on the major strands of discussion at the event. Participants neither reviewed nor approved this document. Therefore, it should not be assumed that every participant subscribes to all of its recommendations, observations, and conclusions. About the Stanley Foundation The Stanley Foundation advances multilateral action to create fair, just, and lasting solutions to critical issues of peace and security. The foundation’s work is built on a belief that greater international cooperation will improve global governance and enhance global citizenship. The organization values its Midwestern roots and family heritage, as well as its role as a nonpartisan, private operating foundation. The Stanley Foundation does not make grants. Online at www.stanleyfoundation.org. About the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), established in 1925, is the oldest political foundation in Germany. Its formation, mission, and social democratic tradition is informed by the political legacy of its namesake, Friedrich Ebert, the first democratically elected German president. FES focuses on the core ideas and values of social democracy—freedom, justice, and solidarity. This connects us to social democracy and free trade unions. As a nonprofit institution, we organize our work autonomously and independently. The FES office in New York serves as a liaison between the FES field offices and partners in developing countries and the United Nations system, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Our mission is to strengthen the voices of trade unionists, progressives, and the Global South within these international institutions. The FES contributes to debates on sustainable economic and social development, on peace and security issues, and on reforming the global governance architecture with a wellfunctioning and well-funded United Nations at its center. Online at http://www.fesglobalization.org/new_york/. About the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect The International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect convenes and collaborates with civil society, Member States, and regional and sub-regional organizations to strengthen normative consensus for RtoP further the understanding of the norm; push for strengthened capacities to prevent and halt genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing; and mobilize nongovernmental organizations to push for action to save lives in RtoP country-specific situations. Online at www.responsibilitytoprotect.org. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 ICRtoP

___________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 STAND

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (c) 2017 In Defense of Christains