Death in Darfur and a Distracting Debate

When Rwanda was being devastated by ethnic violence, the Clinton
administration spent a lot of time arguing and wringing their hands
over the exact definition of ‘genocide.’ Meanwhile, an estimated
800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were slaughtered.

In her definitive work on how the US has historically responded
to genocide, A Problem from Hell, Samantha Power recounts
how President George W. Bush, after reading a memo about his
predecessor’s failure in Rwanda, wrote ‘Not on my watch’ in capital
letters on its margin. It could have read, Not on my watch…
will we quibble over the term genocide.

When US leadership and the Bush administration unhesitatingly
labeled the atrocities in Sudan’s western region of Darfur
‘genocide,’ human rights activists rejoiced. Since, as

Scott Straus recounts in a piece in Foreign Affairs
(excerpt), it was assumed that ‘genocide’ would be the ‘magic word
that triggers intervention.’ Instead, the deadly violence being
perpetrated by government-backed militias continues unabated. (It’s
estimated that at least 70,000 people have already died and about 2
million have been displaced.)

A few political leaders have entertained the idea of
intervention, as

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did at the recent Munich Conference on
Security Policy. Those voices have been drowned out in recent
headlines by a new debate between the United States and the United
Nations, however, over where the perpetrators should be tried.

The UN does not deem the situation in Darfur to be worthy of the
term genocide. It does believe grave abuses have been committed,
though, and recommends that the International Criminal Court (ICC)
launch a war-crimes investigation and prosecution. Backers of such
action maintain, as Power did in a recent

op-ed piece in The New York Times, that ICC
involvement could stem the violence by deterring perpetrators.

The Bush administration — that court’s mortal foe — has sworn
off ICC action, fearing any legitimization of the court’s purview.
Instead, the administration wants a new ad hoc court formed at the
Tanzania tribunal handling Rwandan war crimes cases.

That leaves

both sides at a standstill. Sudan is not a party to the ICC,
and therefore any action by the court would need to be ordered by
the UN Security Council (which the United States, and perhaps
China, would likely veto).

The
Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide —
which the United States ratified in 1988 — commits signatory
states ‘to prevent and to punish’ genocide. The United States and
United Nations have mired themselves in how to punish, when the far
more important command is to prevent.

Go there >>

Darfur and the Genocide Debate (article excerpt)

Related Links: