Is
it genocide? |
|
Refugee camp in Farchan Photo courtesy of Oxfam |
|
| Genocide
is defined as “The systematic and planned extermination of an entire
national, racial, political, or ethnic group.” (The American Heritage® Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company)
For a more in-depth explanation of what constitutes genocide, click here. The United Nations released a report in January of 2005 in which it was determined that, although the Sudanese government is responsible for the attacks in Darfur, but that the attacks were not targeted at a specific race or ethnicity, and therefore cannot be termed genocide. The following is an excerpt from the Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, 25 January 2005: “Based on a thorough analysis of the information gathered in the course of its investigations, the Commission established that the Government of the Sudan and the Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law. In particular, the Commission found that Government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to crimes against humanity. The extensive destruction and displacement have resulted in a loss of livelihood and means of survival for countless women, men and children. In addition to the large-scale attacks, many people have been arrested and detained, and many have been held incommunicado for prolonged periods and tortured. The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other so-called ‘African’ tribes…” While previously former United States secretary of state Colin Powell had declared the situation in Darfur to be genocide, comments by deputy secretary of state Robert Zoellick suggest that US is now leaning towards a policy in line with the United Nations. The UN has classified it as a humanitarian disaster, and says that the civilian attacks amount to crimes against humanity. The report by the International Inquiry on Darfur describes these as “particularly odious offences constituting a serious attack on human dignity or a grave humiliation or degradation of one or more human beings (for instance, murder, extermination… rape…enforced disappearance of persons). What distinguishes this category… from war crimes is that it is (concerned)… with violations, which may occur either in time of peace or of armed conflict, and constitute part of a widespread or systematic practice of atrocities (or attacks) committed against the civilian population.” (Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, 25 January 2005, section I, article 178)(link) The United
States used the term genocide in hopes of drawing attention to a desperate
issue. In the wake of the Holocaust, the Genocide Convention was created
to prevent something like that from happening ever again. The promise
was “never again,” but in 1994, Rwanda proved that the
international community could still look the other way. The question
now is, will the world worry more about placing Darfur into a neat
category than stopping the suffering? |
|