Sudan: Is it 'genocide' yet?
2004-06-23 11:36
Washington - Genocide has struck many victims over the past 65 years: European Jews during World War II, Cambodians in the late 1970s, Rwandans in 1994.
There may be a new addition: The black African tribes of Darfur province in western Sudan have faced murder, displacement, pillage, razing of villages and other crimes committed by Arab militias known as janjaweed.
Genocide is "the systematic killing of a racial or cultural group." The US government is reviewing whether Darfur qualifies for the designation.
"The janjaweed are the government's militia, and Khartoum has armed and empowered them to conduct `ethnic cleansing' in Darfur," says Human Rights Watch.
The Brussels-based International Crisis Group says Darfur can "easily become as deadly" as Rwanda in 1994.
In February 2003, the Zaghawa, Fur and Masalit black tribes rebelled against what they regarded as unjust treatment by the Sudanese government in their historic struggle over land and resources with their Arab countrymen.
The conflict has uprooted more than a million, and the US government believes this many could die unless a peace settlement is reached and relief supply deliveries are greatly accelerated. Sudanese co-operation has been limited but is improving.
A US interagency review is aimed at judging whether the Darfur tragedy qualifies as genocide under a 1946 international convention that outlaws the practice.
Close to if not bordering on genocide
"I believe what is occurring in Sudan approaches the level of genocide," says Jim Kolbe, a Republican lawmaker.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a group opposed to intolerance in all forms, says Washington could increase the pressure on the Sudanese government by issuing a "stern warning" that, in the US view, it is "close to if not bordering on genocide".
Mark Schneider, a vice president of the International Crisis Group, says Hier may have a point. He also cautions that a genocide designation by the United States could thrust the UN Security Council into prolonged debate, deflecting attention from Darfur's massive humanitarian needs.
A role for the United Nations is made clear under Article 8 of the Genocide Convention: "Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the UN to take such action under the Charter of the UN as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide."
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he wasn't ready to describe the situation in Darfur "as genocide or ethnic cleansing yet," but he called it "a tragic humanitarian situation".
For now, the US seems to be avoiding the genocide label but is sticking with ethnic cleansing to describe the situation.
With so many in Darfur at risk of dying, "legal distinctions about genocide versus ethnic cleansing are going to seem rather hollow," says US state department deputy spokesperson Adam Ereli. The focus, he says, should be on helping the needy.
- AP