usnewswire: Embassy of Sudan: A Characterization of 'Genocide' Spurs More

[Lefta Dissenter]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=36063

is this true??? Could it possibly be worse???????

To: National Desk Contact: Embassy of the Republic of Sudan, 202-338-8565

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement by the Embassy of the Republic of Sudan:

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, declared the tragedy in the Darfur region a "genocide". The methodology used by the Department of State to reach this weighty conclusion was flawed from the outset. It was based on the observations of an American investigating team that never even set foot in the Darfur region; instead the American team interviewed refugees in Chad who live in camps that serve as safe havens for the leaders of the rebel movements from neighboring Sudan. The influence of the rebel movements on the outcome of the American investigation cannot be overstated.

The Secretary of State's characterization of the Darfur situation is in stark contrast to the more thoughtful assessments of The European Union, The African Union, The Arab League, The Organization of Islamic Countries, The Non-Aligned Movement, The International Red Cross, and Doctors Without Borders, all of whom have had personnel on the ground in Darfur working with the refugees for months. Their assessments are based on reality, not made for short-term political considerations.

Secretary Powell's testimony while admitting that the two rebels movements kidnap relief workers, violate ceasefire agreement, has failed to hold them accountable for the killing, looting, burning of villages and other atrocities which occur as a natural result to their criminal behavior as mentioned by the Secretary. While U.S. senators at the hearing stated without supporting evidence that the government of Sudan has armed and trained the Janjaweed, none asked who has armed and trained the two rebel movements.

This is in spite of the fact that Senator Jon Corzine and former American Ambassador to the U.N, Richard Holbrooke, wrote in the Washington Post on September 8th that the rebels "receive outside assistance primarily from Sudan's eastern neighbor Eritrea". Moreover, the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs testified before the same committee in June 15th, and acknowledged the fact that the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army of the south had trained, and provided the rebels in Darfur with arms and ammunition. Shouldn't all these forces share at least part of the responsibility of the tragic situation in Darfur?

The consequences of the Secretary of State's message have already been seen. The Sudanese rebel representatives to the negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria have declared the peace talks dead and pledged to wage a full scale war from all directions to bring down the government in Sudan.

This is a sad day for international peace and security!

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. Is what true?

Yes, the Janjaweed and their sponsors, the government of Sudan, are accused of systematic rape by Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch have called for an international commission to investigate the abuses, including the accusations of genocide.

Yes, the US Congress, and now the State Department, have called it genocide.

The Economist discussed a bit over a month ago whether the name is important or not.

Under the UN Convention on Genocide in 1948, the 127 state signatories undertook to “prevent and punish” genocide, defined as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”, including the causing of serious bodily or mental harm, preventing births or inflicting conditions calculated to lead to a group's destruction. States may act alone or call on the UN to take “appropriate” measures.

Is what is happening in Darfur genocide? Legally, it is fuzzy. Though Sudanese Arab militias have been targeting three black African tribes, some Arab groups have also been attacked and some African ones spared. America's Congress has called the attacks genocide, but the Bush administration has carefully avoided the word. The African Union and various human-rights groups argue that the threshold for genocide has not yet been crossed.

It may not matter much, for under international law, there is no inherent right of armed humanitarian intervention, even to stop genocide. The UN charter only sanctions force in self-defence (Article 51) or when authorised by the Security Council to prevent a breach of the peace or an act of aggression (Chapter VII). It specifically forbids intervention “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”, though this injunction can be overridden by a Chapter VII authorisation. Sudan has warned Britain and Australia “not to meddle” in its affairs after they said they would be prepared to send in peacekeeping troops.

It is possible that it isn't 'genocide', and 'just' mass murder and rape, by an out-of-control militia on the settled inhabitants. It would be worse if their whole purpose was the complete extinction of an ethnic group, rather than them regarding murdering them as an acceptable tactic, I suppose. But not that much worse than what's happening now.

[Lefta Dissenter]

2. I wasn't asking if the genocide was taking place... ( ! )

(with a son who just graduated with a major in Political Science with an Emphasis on Africa, and a minor in African Studies, I am not totally oblivious)

I was horrified to read that the mere placement of the label could make things even worse. If that is the case, then one would clearly have wanted to weigh out the risks vs benefits of making the speech and using that label (which I would hope that even our current administration would do).

My comment, I guess, was just that I couldn't have imagined that it could have gotten worse than it already was.