Today I got emails from MoveOn and ColorofChange about the Save Darfur's "Rally to Stop Genocide" on April 30th. I've also started seeing fliers around town for the coinciding San Francisco rally.
I understand the part about the rally, but not about the genocide.
Why are people calling what is happening in Darfur a genocide? And who is calling it a genocide? It is a tricky question, as I don't want to come off as supportive of the Sudanese government, nor as attempting to diminish the horrific tragedy that is occurring. But it's not a genocide.
True, the Sudanese government is arming a militia that is carrying out human rights violations. True, rebels - with their own backers - are fighting and also carrying out human rights violations. And in the middle of it all, hundreds of thousands of civilians have died or been killed and millions are now refugees. But does the immense human catastrophe mean it's a genocide?
Most people say no. Some quotes:
I don’t think that we should be using the word ‘genocide’ to describe this conflict. Not at all. This can be a semantic discussion, but nevertheless, there is no systematic target – targeting one ethnic group or another one. It doesn’t mean either that the situation in Sudan isn’t extremely serious by itself.
Dr Mercedes Taty, Médecins sans Frontières deputy emergency director
Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group.
Médecins sans Frontières - France President Dr Jean-Hervé Bradol
I cannot call the killing a genocide even though there have been massive violations of international humanitarian law.
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General
We are not in the situation of genocide there. But it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow, killing going on, and village burning on a fairly large scale.
European Union fact-finding mission
Despite all this, the U.S. has labeled the situation as a "genocide." Since the U.S. really has no moral high ground to make such claims, should we believe them? Could it be that the U.S. government is playing politics with this matter?
Is it coincidence the U.S. made this claim right before the elections, when two months before Powell's "genocide" claim he said the situation in Darfur did not "meet the tests of the definition of genocide"? Or that the U.S. just happens to loath the Khartoum regime, which is also sitting on top of a lot of oil?
Regardless of their motives, the U.S. proclaimed "genocide" and several NGOs and other organizations have jumped on the bandwagon. While no one wants to see this tragedy continue, viewing the list of members on the SaveDarfur site raises a few eyebrows and begs the question if some groups aren't also using this for political ends.
Figuring prominently on the list are many pro-Israel, anti-Arab Jewish and Christian organizations. One can be sure they want to see peace in Darfur, but from their perspective, could it also be beneficial to their cause to spread the myth of Arabs committing genocide? If so, how much of a role does that play in their support of this effort? Does it not only make Arabs look bad but takes the world's eyes off of Israel? Would they be as vocal if it were Blacks supposedly committing genocide against Arabs?
One could rightfully point out that there are also many pro-Palestinian Muslim groups on the list. Why is that? I can't be sure, but my guess is that they are also concerned about the situation, especially because almost all involved are Muslim, and don't want to fall victim to the consistent, false charges that "Muslims don't condemn violence." Many Muslims, however, are upset about their endorsement of "genocide."
Regardless of the reasons, the tragedy and carnage must end - but I would suggest that it be accompanied by an accurate understanding of the situation and an awareness of those who would use it to further their own agendas.
Recent Comments