Last night I saw the movie "Hotel Rwanda." It me literally sick to my stomach. But all I could think was, "What about Darfur?" Over
70,000 people are dead, some 2 million displaced, and god knows how many women have been gang-raped.
The world said "never again" will we let genocide happen and stand idly by, yet that is exactly what we are doing.
The UN has passed Resolution 1556, demanding that Sudan disarm the militias in Darfur. But according to our own US State Department, Sudan is complicit with the Janjaweed and providing aerial assitance to bomb villages.
More below...
In a
survey of 1,136 refugees, the State Dept described the attacks as follows:
"Most reports followed a similar pattern:
1) GOS aircraft or helicopters bomb villages.
2) GOS soldiers arrive in trucks, followed closely by Jingaweit militia riding horses or camels.
3) GOS soldiers and militia surround and then enter villages, under cover of gunfire.
4) Fleeing villagers are targets in aerial bombing.
5) The Jingaweit and GOS soldiers loot the village after most citizens have fled, often using trucks to remove belongings.
6) Villages often experience multiple attacks over a prolonged period before they are destroyed by burning or bombing."
However, the world theater doesn't have the courage to stand up and say the word "genocide" because it would committ them to action under the Geneva Convention, which under Article 8, states, in part: "Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide." Just like in Rwanda before.
In a great article in The Weekly Standard, Duncan Currie compared Rwanda and Darfur and printed this infamous quote:
"At a news conference on June 10, a reporter asked Foggy Bottom spokeswoman Christine Shelly if she had received "specific guidance not to use the word 'genocide' in isolation but always to preface it with this word 'acts of.'" Shelly gave a remarkably maundering, incoherent answer, citing the statutory complexities of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
"I have guidance to which I--which I try to use as best as I can," she explained. "I'm not--I have--there are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. I don't have an absolute, categorical prescription against something, but I have the definitions, I have phraseology which has been carefully examined and arrived at as best--to as best as we can apply to exactly the situation and the actions which have taken place." The preferred 'phraseology' was 'acts of genocide may have occurred.'
SoS Colin Powell has been going back and forth on the issue of the genocide because of this reason. In June remarks to the press, he said:
"Whether you call it genocide or whether somebody prefers to call it ethnic cleansing or some people think, as a technical matter, it doesn't reach the level of either ethnic cleansing or genocide. I will let Ambassador Prosper and all the lawyers argue about that. What we are seeing is a disaster, a catastrophe, and we can find the right label for it later. We've got to deal with it now. That's my focus."
A technical matter? Ah, yes, 70,000 black Sudanese people killed by government-backed Arab Sudanese militias, by razing of villages, shooting, rape, and beatings and bombings, according to your own State Department, but that's a "technical matter."
However, in September: article in The Weekly Standard, he is quoted as saying:
"'The government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility," Powell declared. (The Janjaweed are Arab militias--almost certainly armed and supported by Khartoum--that have been ethnically cleansing black Africans in Darfur.) And 'genocide may still be occurring.'"
[empasis added]
Great! It's official! Oh, wait a minute! This month Powell backtracked:
"Asked if the violence still amounts to genocide, Powell did not answer directly.
'It was my judgment that genocide was taking place,' Powell said, with the Sudanese vice president at his side. 'I have not seen the secretary-general's latest report but I look forward to examining it.'"
Ok, I understand there is diplomacy involved here, but this is just pure cowardice in the face of indescribable acts against humanity. But not just by Powell -- China owns 40% of Sudan's oil, Russia is thought to be Sudan's biggest arms supplier.
At least Congress unanimously declared it genocide, back in JULY, not that it helped much.
The UN isn't doing anything, The African Union pledged tens of thousands of troops, and only a fraction of them are there, and they are only protecting the AU "observers." Aid groups have been ordered out of the country, if they hadn't already left in fear of being shot.
And the press isn't doing it's job, just like in Rwanda. Even Colin Powell chastised the media:
QUESTION: Why is it so difficult to get the world's attention for catastrophes like this?
QUESTION: Because your newspaper refuses to put it on the front page.
(Laughter)
That's not true actually. They did two front-page stories about Darfur.
SECRETARY POWELL: I think we are getting the world's attention. It's not as if we haven't been doing a lot. The United States has been in the forefront on this for a long time; Andrew especially has made this a passion of his. And we have gotten the Secretary General and our colleagues in the Security Council, at least, now energized. But sometimes people have to see it, they have to read about it, they have to see it on television and they will see more of it on television tomorrow, I hope. And you have got to touch their consciences; you have got to touch their emotions. And so, that's what I hope is happening with Congressman Wolf's visit, with Senator Brownback, who has been such a leader in this, as has Congressman Wolf, with Kofi's visit and a number of other ministers who are now going in.
So, I want to bring attention to this, so not only do we bring it directly to the attention of the Sudanese leaders again in a direct way, but I think by going out and seeing these camps, meeting with Kofi will elevate it. Unless it gets that kind of elevation there are just so many other things going on in the world that tend not to make it as newsworthy as it should be. Because no matter what else is going on in the world today, as you heard me say before: 8,000 people died today of AIDS and thousands of people have been consigned to their death in Darfur. But, it doesn't always make page one of a newspaper or the first two minutes of the evening news."
Shame on the media, and shame on the world. Will we go to see Hotel Rwanda and say "oh, how horrible!" and then forget? Or will we show some conscience?