THE G WORD
"...we concluded, I concluded, that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit bear responsibility -- and that genocide may still be occurring..." -- Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
Colin Powell's use of the G-word to describe the crisis in Darfur has taken some by surprise. The African Union has said the threshold for genocide has not been reached and the EU has said its officials do not have adequate evidence.
So do the atrocities committed in Darfur constitute genocide or not?
The jury seems hung -- not least because the term is open to interpretation and there is no single authoratative body charged with deciding when genocide has been committed.
Once a situation is officially labeled genocide, countries that have ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are duty bound to intervene and take action to punish the perpetrators.
Whether what is happening in Darfur is genocide or not, Colin Powell's intervention is the clearest sign yet that Washington's patience is running out -- both with Khartoum and those on the UN Security Council (such as China and Pakistan who benefit from the 320,000 barrels of oil a day pumped out of Sudan) who may want to shy away from taking tougher action.
Ultimately, though, this semantic debate is irrelevant given the appalling crimes taking place in the region.
"...we concluded, I concluded, that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Jingaweit bear responsibility -- and that genocide may still be occurring..." -- Colin Powell, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
Colin Powell's use of the G-word to describe the crisis in Darfur has taken some by surprise. The African Union has said the threshold for genocide has not been reached and the EU has said its officials do not have adequate evidence.
So do the atrocities committed in Darfur constitute genocide or not?
The jury seems hung -- not least because the term is open to interpretation and there is no single authoratative body charged with deciding when genocide has been committed.
Once a situation is officially labeled genocide, countries that have ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are duty bound to intervene and take action to punish the perpetrators.
Whether what is happening in Darfur is genocide or not, Colin Powell's intervention is the clearest sign yet that Washington's patience is running out -- both with Khartoum and those on the UN Security Council (such as China and Pakistan who benefit from the 320,000 barrels of oil a day pumped out of Sudan) who may want to shy away from taking tougher action.
Ultimately, though, this semantic debate is irrelevant given the appalling crimes taking place in the region.
posted by Stuart at 23:43
1 Comments:
The Hutu-Tutsi thing didn't involve oil so yank wasn't interested. Sudan has oil, and what's more China owns much of the drilling rights. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE.
Post a Comment
<< Home