It’s been five years since Congress’ first official declaration of genocide in Darfur. More than 1700 days since this determination, the people of Western Sudan are still waiting.
Waiting for adequate protection from the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed militias. Waiting for justice and reconstruction after losing their families and homes. Waiting for a real chance to rebuild their lives.
Congress is marking this solemn five-year anniversary with House Concurrent Resolution 159 [PDF download]. The resolution’s primary use value rests on its emphasis that genocide is continuing right now in Western Sudan. Here, Democrats and Republicans are joining together to state clearly: the worst crime known to humanity continues today in Darfur.
I wonder if the Obama administration shares this sense of moral clarity. As Rebecca Brocato at Enough points out, “U.S. Special Envoy J. Scott Gration has publicly waffled on the genocide issue recently, despite the views of both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Rice, who both unequivocally deem the situation genocide.”
The relevance of the genocide determination issue as it applies to Darfur has never been a mere issue of language. Genocide has a precise legal definition, which in turn has provided Sudan advocates a revealing benchmark for judging our public officials’ Sudan-related belief systems and policies.
Remember the past. In 1994, the White House publicly tried to distinguish “acts of genocide” from genocide. Such semantic dilution was completely deliberate. As the late Alison des Forges reminded reporters:
“They [the Clinton administration] feared this word [genocide] would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn’t want to act. It was a very pragmatic determination.”
And now we have U.S. Sudan envoy Scott Gration calling the situation in Western Sudan the “remnants of genocide.”
Given Gen. Gration’s apparent effort to try another round of soft diplomacy with Khartoum (absent any sticks such as the threat of targeted multilateral sanctions), we have to wonder: Is this political marketing? Gen. Gration seems to believe that Omar al-Bashir — who is undeniably responsible for killing millions of his own citizens through monstrous state violence and forced starvation — can somehow be talked into disarming the Janjaweed, calling off his bombing campaigns, and committing to a sustainable peace process? In other words, the U.S. Sudan envoy believes that words (again, unaccompanied by any sticks) can stop these mass murderers, at a time when they are executing a campaign of forced starvation and disease with complete impunity.
Seriously?
If the U.S. government is committed to going down this beaten, dead path, then obviously it’s more convenient for it to call the whole thing “remnants of genocide.” By doing this, you create the perception that things are approaching an endgame: you get people to believe that the Sudanese government is largely done with its slaughter, in such a way that things like sanctions or a no-fly zone aren’t necessary anymore.
We sincerely hope that we’re mistaken. We hope that Gen. Gration is not wired to such illogic. But we can’t assume anything, and it’s the Sudanese movement’s job to tell this administration that it is turning a blind eye towards genocide.
