Sudan: End The Human Rights Crisis In Darfur
Sudan: Rape as a Weapon of War
Sudan says conflict 'not genocide'
While the international diplomatic community debates whether or not the tragdy that is Darfur rises to meet the legal definition of "genocide", the murder, rape, and displacement continues unabated.
While Nero fiddles, Rome burns....
KHARTOUM, Sudan -- Sudan's foreign minister has rejected a U.S. Congressional declaration that bloodletting in the country's western region of Darfur amounts to genocide.
Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail insisted his government was doing all it can to end the conflict in Darfur which so far has killed 30,000 people and forced a million to flee....
So far neither the Bush administration nor the U.N. has said the conflict is genocide -- a step which would authorize other nations to intervene under international law.
Foreign minister Ismail said that Sudan agrees with the African Union, which has refrained from calling the atrocities genocide, a crime punishable under a 1948 U.N. convention....
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said last month he was not ready to describe the situation in Darfur "as genocide or ethnic cleansing" but he did call it "a tragic humanitarian situation" and raised the possibility of international intervention.
Arab militias have killed up to 30,000 people in Darfur, most of them black Africans, and driven over one million from their homes since the conflict began last year.
Of course, Darfur has the disadvantage of being an exceedingly remote region with relatively little economic value. Without any oil, for example, the likelihood of the Bush Administration contemplating involvement is minimal. People will need to be convinced that what is happening rises to the level of genocide- the legal definition be damned.
At some point, does it not become incumbent upon the international community to stand up and say "ENOUGH!!"? The Sudanese government may protest that Darfur is an internal matter, but enabling systematic rape and murder on behalf of a recognized government is deplorable. No civilized government- or people- should be cruel and heartless enough to content themselves with splitting legal fine hairs. The problem, of course, is forging a consensus among countries about how to deal with the problem. It is easier, of course, not to mention safer, to sit on the sidelines. After all, why risk the dangers involved when you don't have a dog in this fight?
At some point, governments, and the people they represent, need to understand that to ignore the genocide in Darfur is to become complicit in it. Inaction is tantamount to endorsing the murderous policies of the Sudanese government. No man is an island....
If we can invade Iraq on the basis of lies and half-truths, should we not be able to contemplate involvement in Darfur when confronted with compelling evidence of genocide? Ignoring the genocide in Darfur only diminishes our claim to the moral high ground and places our own humanity in question.
