Question:
Is the Darfur Crisis really a Genocide?
hey
2008-03-16 01:22:37 UTC
The UN refuses to label the crisis as a genocide because it doesn't meet all the requirements.

The US is the only country to call Darfur a genocide.

But it's a mass killing! Arabs killing nonArabs. The Sudanese funding Janjaweed to kill, rape, and murder people in all of Darfur. But the Sudanese deny their funding.

I think it's a genocide.

DO YOU THINK IT'S A GENOCIDE? WHY?

Why would people think that Darfur is NOT a genocide?
Four answers:
ranakhalid112
2008-03-16 01:28:43 UTC
It is question of openion. I would label it a conflict between federating units. It might touch genocide limits.
coop
2008-03-16 01:35:27 UTC
America has lost allot of credibility the last few years.



IF the UN labels the crisis as a genocide that means that they are going to have to do something about it within a short amount of time of calling it so.



I think it's genocide from what I hear everyday, which is "it's a mass killing! Arabs killing nonArabs. The Sudanese funding Janjaweed to kill, rape, and murder people in all of Darfur. But the Sudanese deny their funding."



Of course I've never been to Darfur! All I have is what the good ole' media force feeds into my mouth everyday. Thus I can provide absolutely zero information. Not to say it isn't happening, I believe it very well is and something somehow somewhere by somebody should be done...



The concept of war keeps spinning along with the world...



**The Darfur situation is senseless genocide. You know the plain and simple facts... I can't even comprehend why this is allowed to exist to-date. This is 2008, we sit in our heated houses and eat heated meals while......
Arrman
2008-03-17 01:36:54 UTC
After a month-long research on Darfur issue, it has indeed amazed me to see how the UK and the US flex their mind-manipulation power and sabotage work against China.



Same as their swindling the whole world into accepting the Iraq invasion on a trumped-up WMD-plus-biochemical pretense, a mind-manipulation campaign has been under way to make the world believe that Darfur is China’s fault.



The following is what I found:

(All materials are based on the Economist, a British weekly journal, a staunch supporter of Iraq Invasion)



1) Sudan is running the longest civil war on Earth. Wars were waged among the tribes in the South, the West and partly the North. They had been in fighting since the 1950s, when the old colonial masters, the English and French, left. This Sudan government, sovereign in name, had never been in full control.



2) The Sudan government is of black-Islamist, who took side with the Arabs whenever the Israel-Arab conflicts flared up. That certainly cannot be tolerated by Israel and US. Sudan once gave refuge to Bin Laden but drove him out under US pressure. It also tasted US bombs during the Clinton Administration in 1998 when a pharmaceutical plant was a target. It was still under US embargo.



3) In the South, non-Arab blacks, with American support , gradually got the upper hand in the struggle, and negotiated a peace treaty with the Sudan government under Colin Powell’s watch. To Americans’ credit, the peace treaty would not come into being without Colin Powell’s perseverance and occasional show of intimidation. Before, Sudan was one piece. Now, it is partitioned into two. A new geopolitical unit is added to the map by the US, it is called Southern Sudan.



4) Oil was discovered. They were the bones of contention between the South and the Sudan Government. The Sudan Government made oil concessions to French, Canadian and other European oil companies, which, under US pressure, many quit and sold concession rights to Malaysia and China and India. China came in 2006. with 40% of investment share in one oil adventure only. Within that adventure the rest is shared between Malaysia, 40%, and the Sudan government.



5) If you ask, why does the civil war never end in Africa? Answer: the boys had no jobs! What else can they do?! So it is obvious that an investment by any country would create job opportunities for the young Sudanese. But here comes an obstacle: the US embargo had never been lifted. It was the Executive Order 13067 issued in 1997.



6) But why did US try very hard to negotiate a peace treaty between the South rebels and the Sudan Government? This question can be answered only in this way: a) US pressed for a peace treaty only to see that the Southern rebels would not be crushed by the government; 2) the US and UK did not like oil companies coming in other than Exxon and BP.



7) Then what about Darfur? It is a region, the size of a France, in West Sudan. Practically speaking, it is beyond Sudan government control. Unlike in Southern Sudan, where fighting is between the Government and the local rebellions, in Darfur it is the locals who fight the locals.



8) So how exactly can you put pressure effectively on a party that is not involved in the other two parties’ fight? If you argue that the Sudan Government is a sovereign which should bear a direct responsibility, then you face this problem: the Sudan government cannot be considered an effective government , not effective at all since it could not even end a civil war that has lasted for the past 50 years. As a matter of fact, this Sudan government is not even in full control of its own northern territory, where the revolt is looming large.



9) Oil makes poor nations rich. This is a proven example as we see the Arabs and Latin Americans on their way to wealth. So China’s investment in Sudan is a plus to African people . Furthermore, the Chinese are also building roads, digging wells and doing other infrastructures work. Pressuring them out of Sudan is disserving the interests of Sudanese people. Killings shall go on in Darfur even if the Chinese quit Sudan.
kickyoubutt
2008-03-16 01:46:22 UTC
It's easy to see why the UN would seek to avoid categorizing Darfur as genocide. The Genocide Convention states that a finding of genocide can lead member states to "call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action... as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide..." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to this language when he described the violence in Darfur as genocide in September and called on the UN to act. The UN cannot separate the genocide from the war between the government and the rebels. Its policy of encouraging negotiations has not halted this nearly year-long genocide. It does not want a declaration of genocide as such to highlight its inadequacy in this regard.



In a final example of contradictory absurdity, and after establishing that there was no intent to commit genocide, the UN report states that “in some instances individuals, including government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent.” During the genocide in Rwanda, reporter Alan Elsner famously asked State Department Spokesperson Christine Shelley “how many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?” Now, it appears we must ask the UN, “How many individuals have to act with genocidal intent to make genocide?” Amina would like to know. But while the UN plays its word games, she and other Darfurians continue to suffer.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...