“Today is my birthday, I wish to dedicate this day to detainees in Sudan, jailed for fighting peacefully for their rights. I wish for a ‘happy birthday’ next year with you in the streets of a free Khartoum.”

—    Sudanese twitter activist Gihan Eltahir

Contrary to the denial of President Omar al-Bashir, the army general who has held power in Sudan since 1989, the Arab Spring may have finally come to Sudan.

Gihan Eltahir

Mass protests, which began on June 16th have continued over the last month. Pictures and videos from the ground show thousands of peaceful activists, journalists, university students and citizens being attacked, their homes, offices and dorm rooms raided. Over 2,000 have reportedly been arbitrarily detained in clandestine facilities. According to activists on the ground, the regime’s security has hired thugs and criminals called Rabata to attack protestors, identical to tactics used in Syria, Libya and Yemen.

While the protests have dwindled in the past weeks due to fear, many continue to be detained, arrested and, according to organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, subject to torture. In the worst spate of violence since the demonstrations began, peaceful protestors in Nyala-South Darfur were brutally attacked;  12 were killed and dozens injured, according to a list published by activists. Some of those killed were as young as 16 years old. The government is clearly worried.

The headlines should write themselves. Sudan has been at the center of conflict for decades, warfare being the regime’s main instrument of governance. It had been locked in continued fighting with South Sudan, which voted for independence last year following a 23-year civil war that claimed the lives of millions, and fighting has continued to erupt over the last eight months as the two countries continue to hammer out differences on oil and borders. The regime also waged a brutal war against rebels in its westernmost province of Darfur between 2003 and 2010, claiming the lives of an estimated 300,000.

Seven weeks after the first protests in Khartoum, law and order seem to have collapsed in many parts of Sudan, and clashes between government forces and citizens continue to persist.

Yet international media coverage has been poor, barely mentioning the demonstrations, the intimidation and the scores of activists and journalists languishing in secret prison cells at risk of torture. Foreign journalists are being detained and deported, their offices raided and their entry into the country denied. But this is no excuse for the lack of reporting or response. Sudanese tweeters and bloggers can provide the coverage. In fact, they already are.

Social media sites have blown up as media savvy bloggers and activists around the country attempt to spread the message, despite continued arrests, threats and intimidation. You can track all of this on twitter at #SudanRevolts, or at crowdvoice.org/sudan-protests.

So why isn’t civil unrest in Sudan receiving the same attention that other Arab Spring countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya or Syria inspired? More importantly, how can we support the efforts of activists such as Eltahir and honor her birthday request to stand with those in Sudan brave enough to work for change?

From Serbia to Georgia to the Arab Spring the media has been instrumental in mobilizing both internal and external forces for justice and democratic accountability. For decades, the international community has tried to contain the excesses of the al-Bashir regime through sanctions, threats of prosecution and the presence of U.N. military forces. This may be an historic opportunity for Sudanese themselves to transform this society that has suffered tremendously for decades — an opportunity we, in addition to the people of Sudan and East Africa, cannot afford to let pass.

Zahra Ismail is a program officer at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice at the University of San Diego.

A version of this article appeared in the Huffington Post on March 2, 2011

As the forces for democracy reverberate across the Middle East and North Africa, now is not the time to slash support for their efforts. From Tunisia and Egypt to Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, the region is alive with the makings of a fourth wave of democratic transitions, following Latin America, Eastern Europe and much of Africa and Asia. As Congress and the Obama administration consider tough budget choices, they should do everything they can to help democracy leaders ride the wave until it cleanses all shores – or we may see the wave crash before it even crests.

U.S. leadership is critical now, and it must reflect our own democratic values more than bolster repressive governments who have manipulated alliances with the United States to stay in power. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama espoused powerful rhetoric for democracy in the region that was later criticized for not being followed up with decisive action. What have received less attention – and may be on the congressional cutting board even though they represent less than 1 percent of the federal budget – are the long-term international assistance programs that have supported justice reform and local civil society organizations struggling for rights and transparency across the Middle East and the world.

Many Americans may be unaware of the efforts of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Institute of Peace, the latter slated for elimination in the budgetary proposal that passed the House. But advocates for the democratic participation and rights of women and men around the globe have competed for and received U.S. support from these agencies.

Youth under the age of 30 comprise up to 65 percent of the population in the Middle East and North Africa. Their aspirations will determine the future of the region. The transparency and accountability of our democratic system, with its legacy of middle-class development and potential for economic growth and equity, resonates with them. Our record of shoring up some of the nastiest tyrants of the last 50 years – the Duvaliers in Haiti, the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua and Saddam Hussein in Iraq – does not. One young Egyptian told CNN that he knew the United States would be on the side of whoever prevailed in order to protect its “interests.”

That limited concept of our interests is being challenged by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, internationally minded Republicans like Senator Richard Lugar and U.S. policy advocates. Secretary Gates has called for a 3D approach to integrate defense, diplomacy and development for more balance in our strategic initiatives. A recent State Department review recommended greater focus on the security of people in foreign countries and stronger support for citizens working for accountability and resolution of social conflict. Lugar has questioned “a narrow, security-driven definition of success” in Afghanistan. U.S. advocacy groups have proposed that peacebuilding capacity be a focus area of a reformed Foreign Assistance Act.

Massive budget cuts in our capacity to support democracy – just when our government is finally developing a more balanced strategy to use the tools of peace and justice initiatives more effectively – could take the United States out of play just when the tipping point may have finally been reached. Foreign assistance to the democratically inclined citizens of countries that have waited far too long for this opportunity will continue to be crucial for their success. The United States cannot be perceived as keeping them waiting if we want to continue to exercise maximum leadership on the world stage.

Those who prefer the appearance of stability offered by non-democratic allies will point out that transforming our policies may lead to greater uncertainty. But if the choice is to go on supporting autocrats for short-term advantage, then we can be certain that our leverage in the world will decline. A better choice is to engage broadly, support with financial assistance and lead with a vision for democracy. That is the option that exemplifies our best political traditions and resonates with the democratic aspirations of the people who have challenged the status quo we have been helping to maintain.

Milburn Line is executive director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice at the University of San Diego

A version of this article appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on January 22, 2011.

President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao met today in Washington, D.C, in the shadow of our celebration of America’s greatest civil rights leader. As they reset the U.S.-China relationship, they would do well to honor that legacy by considering the treatment of Chinese advocates for justice and democracy. Our own experience of the civil rights movement is a good starting point.

Beijing’s angry reaction to the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Liu Xiaobo masks a heated internal debate within the Communist Party about political reform, with leaders as high as Prime Minister Wen Jiabao issuing favorable signals. Now is the time for our president to begin to convince the Chinese political elite of the benefits of pluralism and accountability. Recognizing Liu Xiaobo as a Nobel laureate instead of a dissident might be a tipping point for democratic development, just as the civil rights movement was one for a more authentic democracy here in the United States.

During the Cold War the United States was defensive about international scrutiny of race relations. The Soviets highlighted the issue, and one could still see 1963 footage of police mistreating demonstrators in Birmingham, Ala., on the news in Moscow in 1987. Earlier on, human rights champion Eleanor Roosevelt threatened to resign from the NAACP Board in order to prevent it from pursuing a case at the United Nations criticizing treatment of African-Americans in the United States.

A half-century later, our president and officials at the highest levels of government are of African-American descent – something scarcely imaginable when racial segregation was the norm. Civil rights leaders were stigmatized as radicals and persecuted legally, not unlike many of China’s would-be reformers. Liu Xiaobo’s offense was to co-author “Charter ‘08,” which states:

After experiencing a prolonged period of human rights disasters and a tortuous struggle … Chinese citizens are increasingly and more clearly recognizing that freedom, equality and human rights are universal common values shared by all humankind, and that democracy, a republic and constitutionalism constitute the basic structural framework of modern governance. A “modernization” bereft of these universal values and this basic political framework is a disastrous process that deprives humans of their rights, corrodes human nature and destroys human dignity.

In China, the combination of an expanding economy and a monopoly on political authority have led to corruption, environmental degradation and displacement following land expropriations – all of which have resulted in tens of thousands of public disturbances as local communities express their frustration. Prime Minister Wen has linked political reform to making the economic successes of the last 25 years sustainable. President Hu has not been convinced.

Like China, America’s economic surge in the 1950s led to greater prosperity, increased education levels and reflections on the justice of its political system. The civil rights movement was a painful struggle for the human rights of African-Americans, but the response of key leaders and institutions – including judicial decisions for desegregation, civil rights and voting rights legislation, and mobilizing federal law enforcement to ensure compliance at key moments – helped institutionalize a still incomplete path toward greater equality in the United States.

As we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the sit-ins that started in Greensboro, N.C., and challenged racial segregation across the south, it’s a good time to engage the Chinese not as critics, but as people whose “modernization” has struggled to overcome inequality and ensure human rights for all citizens. Who better than our president to convince the Chinese leadership that “dissidents” like Liu Xiaobo – like the once-vilified leaders of our civil rights movement – may be those most committed to a just and stable polity?

Milburn Line is executive director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice at the University of San Diego