Darfur Not Genocide

Written by

in

lready described what is taking place as genocide, but the Sudanese government yesterday said the UN report, to be published later this week, would not endorse that conclusion.

“We have a copy of that report and they didn’t say there is a genocide,” Mustafa Osman Ismail, the Sudanese foreign minister said in Abuja, the Nigerian capital, yesterday.

Such suggestions have dismayed Glenys Kinnock, a Labour MEP and overseas development spokeswoman, Michael Ancram, the deputy Tory leader, and Sir Menzies Campbell, the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats.

In a joint letter to Mr Blair, they wrote: “We fear the UN commission on Darfur will, in effect, signal to the military dictatorship in Khartoum that it can continue to murder its own citizens with impunity.”

Glad to see Menzies Campbell coming round to the idea of getting tough with dictatorships that murder their own citizens.

Last summer, Mr Blair said he believed Britain was doing everything possible for Darfur, and he visited Khartoum in October, where he said he had received assurances from the regime that the violence would be curbed. Those promises have been broken, according to Mrs Kinnock, Mr Ancram and Sir Menzies.

In New York yesterday, Australia, Canada and New Zealand urged the UN Security Council to impose targeted sanctions on Sudan’s regime and prosecute its members for war crimes.

Britain should surely be joining in here. Blair’s Khartoum visit did seem a miscalculation, serving only to make him look naive.

Comments

  1. G. Clattuc Avatar
    G. Clattuc

    ereignty is sacred and no sanctions of any kind are acceptable. Then they’ll decide either that the genocide is imaginary, or that the US is responsible for it. A few years down the line, after it’s all over, they’ll be blaming the US for not preventing it or, failing that, for not stopping it once it was underway.
    The only encouraging speck in this whole mess is that I’ve seen claims that the AU peacekeepers are effective, that the janjaweed actually steer clear of villiages under the peacekeepers’ protection. If this is true (and while I’m mildly optimistic, I’m not yet convinced it’s true), I’m willing to bet that it’s because they’re not like the usual European-style peacekeepers: They don’t have to worry about a media shitstorm if they actually do their job. A peacekeeper who will not shoot to kill can’t keep the peace. All he can do is watch. No thug on Earth would hesitate for a moment to massacre civilians under the protection of Canadian or Dutch peacekeeping troops; for Canada or Holland, the PR cost of shooting a thug would be enormous — far greater than the value to Canada or Holland of preventing a massacre. For Africans, the PR cost of shooting thugs is zero — less, even, than the relatively modest PR cost of letting a massacre happen. They might just shoot you.

  2. DaninVan Avatar
    DaninVan

    If using the word “Genocide” is all that’s holding up action, then change the frigging word! Call it Ethnic Cleansing or ANYTHING that means the UN can
    impose a peacemaking solution on Sudan. Just do SOMETHING, fer crissake!
    (Yeh right, THAT’S gonna happen…)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *