Never again, the world proclaimed after World War 2. After discovering the depths of what had occurred at the death camps to millions and millions of people at the hands of the Nazi Empire the world swore it would never happen again. Well the world has lied. The world has once again done exactly that, it has left people to be wiped out while it’s sitting back doing nothing to stop it. And of course this isn’t the first time since World War 2 that this has happened. We’ve seen it happen in East Timor, in Bosnia, in Rwanda while we’ve done nothing. The “greatest humanitarian crisis” as some have dubbed it is actually taking place once again in Africa. For the last few years massive human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, have been committed in Darfur (western region of Sudan). Although the abuses have been committed on all sides the Janjawid (men on horseback), local militias armed and financed by the Sudanese government, and government armed forces have carried out the majority of these crimes. The Janjawid, Muslim militiamen, were recruited by the Sudanese government to carry out these attacks on the civilians from the Fur, Masaalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups who, while also Islamic, are of African origin and make up the majority of the region’s settled population. Human rights violations have also reportedly been committed by the armed opposition groups, but reports of killing of civilians and rape by the Sudanese Liberation Army/ Movement (SLA/ SLM) also known as the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army /Movement (SPLA/ SPLM); or the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) appear to be few compared to the massive human rights violations committed with impunity by the Janjawid and Sudan government forces. Sudan has long experienced conflicts over religious, ethnic, and political differences. It geographically is split in half by its ethno-religious composition. The north is mainly Muslim of Arab and Spanish descent while the south is Christian or traditional animist black African with several tribes or bands further dividing identity. In 1983 the dominant Muslim parties under the National Islamic Front declared the institution of Islamic law, which protected religious minorities under Muslim rules of pluralism. Non-Muslim political groups however perceived the declaration as a threat, and a civil war broke out. From the southern territories, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (military wing) and Liberation Movement (political wing) called for political autonomy for the south and joined an alliance of anti-government groups consisting of parties from both north and south. The Islamic Front launched a suppressive response to the challenge and occupied many southern villages, often destroying them in the process. Ethnically, the battle lines were drawn between southern Nuer and the Upper Nile, and the southeastern Dinkas vs. Didinga. The occupying forces created a slave trade of southern Christians and, according to the US Committee for Refugees, around 2 million people have been killed and 4 to 5 million internally displaced since 1983. Refugee organizations report that, as of 1999, 420,000 Sudanese refugees are dispersed across 7 countries. To add to the hardship, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) estimates that 391,500 external refugees from neighboring conflicts have fled into Sudan over the last 35 years. Relief operations became involved with Sudan in 1967 to aid in supporting the mass influx of refugees from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Chad, Uganda, DRC, and Somalia. Since the civil war started, the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan and the Red Cross have provided food and provisions to the refugees and villagers and monitored developments. Unfortunately, the Sudanese government has detained humanitarian shipments, restricted distribution of aid to the opposition groups, and bombed civilian and Red Cross airstrips. The crisis in Darfur grew out of a complex, simmering conflict between nomads and sedentary farming people in Darfur, which had lasted for decades but which the Sudanese government had failed to solve. In February 2003 one armed group, the SLA, was formed; a few months later the JEM, with links to the Islamist opposition Popular Congress in Khartoum, was also formed. At the end of March 2003 the government said that it would give up attempts at reconciliation and use force to end the conflict. After an SLA attack on al-Fasher airport at the end of April 2003 the government gave free rein to already existing nomad militia groups to attack villages of the farming population, mostly Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, some of whose members had provided the main personnel for the armed groups. The militias, known negatively as the Janjawid or positively as Fursan (knights, "cavaliers"), are usually accompanied during their attacks on villages by the Sudanese army and have been increasingly incorporated into the Sudanese armed forces as paramilitaries. The Sudanese air force also uses Antonovs, helicopter gunships and reportedly MIG planes to bomb villages and kill civilians. The conflict seems to have taken on a racial tone. The armed political groups claim that the “Blacks” have been discriminated against by the government. The rhetoric used by the Janjawid as reported by civilians they have attacked shows that they believe that they act as counter-insurgency armed forces in the Darfur conflict. Testimonials from refugees have told of the words used by the Janjawid: -“You are black and you are opponents. You are our slaves, the Darfur region is in our hands and you are our herders.” -“You are slaves, we will kill you. You are like dust, we will crush you.” -“you are opponents to the regime, we must crush you. As you are black, you are like slaves. Then all the Darfur region will be in our hands. The government is on our side. The government plane is on our side to give us ammunition and food.” -“We will not allow blacks here. We will not let Zaghawa here. This land is only for Arabs.” -“You belong to me. You are a slave to the Arabs, and this is the sign of a slave.” (The woman who was told this by the Janjawid was then slashed across leg with a sword before they let her hobble away, stark naked). Other refugees were simply told by the Janjawid that they would be “taken care of” so that they could “clean Darfur for good”. The conflict escalated quickly and quietly as the mediators of the North-South peace process were desperately trying to negotiate the end of the civil war in southern Sudan and were not willing to publicly criticize the actions of the Sudanese government in the Darfur region. It’s estimated that 2 million people were either killed or died as a result of conflict-related disease or war-induced famines in the civil war in southern Sudan and another 4 million refugees have been internally displaced. As in Darfur, civilians in the south were massively displaced and then denied humanitarian assistance. But in Darfur without public scrutiny the human rights abuses were carried out in silence and out of the sight of the international community. Murder, torture, rape, enslavement, human trafficking, destruction of crops and villages and intentional attacks against civilians and civilian objects are among the war crimes committed, as well as forced displacement and rape committed as part of a systematic and widespread attack against civilians. Approximately 1.6 million Sudanese refugees have been displaced within the Darfur region and another 200,000 have fled across the border into neighboring Chad (one of the world’s poorest countries). The implementation of these human rights abuses were part of an intentional policy, designed by the Sudanese government and the Janjawid, to forcibly displace the civilian population of particular ethnic groups from certain geographical areas. In addition to the actual killings that have taken place in Darfur ground attacks have also targeted the destruction of people’s livelihoods along with their very means of subsistence. The destruction of homes and crops have catastrophic consequences on the local population in a region that is prone to drought and underdevelopment. The result is that food, shelter, essential commodities, economic and social rights are being denied to the population. People have little choice but to flee their homes and villages out of fear or because their villages have been completely destroyed. The displacement of so many refugees only adds to the pressure of town’s populations in other parts of Darfur or in Chad. According to the U.S. Committee for Refugees, the death toll in Sudan is higher than the combined fatalities of Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia, and Algeria. Over two million Sudanese have died directly because of the war, or from war-related causes. Ground attacks by the Janjawid are sometimes followed by the abductions of civilians. There is no information as to the whereabouts or the treatment of many of the abducted persons. Many refugees have stories about family members or fellow villagers that have been abducted and fear for those who have “disappeared”. There are many accounts of villagers being taken away by the Janjawid to never be seen again. But sometimes the fate of those taken away is known or later discovered. Between 5 and 7 March 2004, Sudanese military intelligence and armed forces officers accompanied by members of the armed militia, the Janjawid, arrested at least 135 people in some 10 villages in Wadi Saleh province, in Western Darfur state: Zaray, Forgo, Tairgo, Kasikildo, Mukjar, Garsila, Kirting, Kuso, Gaba, Sogo, Masa and N’djamena. All those arrested belong to the Fur, the largest ethnic group in Darfur. The military intelligence officers detained those arrested in Deleij, 30 kilometers east of Garsila town in Wadi Saleh province. Military intelligence and army officials reportedly claimed that they had arrested the men because they were sympathizers of the armed opposition group the SLA, at war with the government since February 2003 over issues relating to discrimination and marginalization. At least 135 men were then blindfolded and taken in groups of about 40, on army trucks to an area behind a hill near Deleij village. They were then told to lie on the ground and shot by a force of about 45 members of the military intelligence and the Janjawid. This is one account of villagers taken away and killed by the Janjawid and Sudanese soldiers. It’s difficult to know the exact number of victims of these abuses because of those who have disappeared or have been abducted by the Janjawid. Others are in hiding or are in areas that are controlled by armed militias which are usually inaccessible to international monitors and aid groups. Victims attacked by the Janjawid have described the Arab militia as being well armed and well equipped. The majority are dressed in military uniforms and are often accompanied by soldiers driving military vehicles These abuses of human rights in Darfur are being committed with impunity by the Sudanese government and the Janjawid. The Sudanese government has deliberately tried to deceive the international community in relation to steps taken against suspected perpetrators of violations in Darfur and not a single suspected perpetrator of war crimes or crimes against humanity has been brought to justice. Last July the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mustafa Ismail, declared that more than 200 Janjawid members had been convicted and sentenced to amputations. The Sudanese government later lowered the number to 10 Janjawid that they claimed had been tried for human rights violations committed in the context of the Darfur conflict. The so-called members of Janjawid were paraded in front of the Sudanese television cameras to announce that the government had not armed them. The Sudanese authorities gave no details of the crimes for which the men had been found guilty. Those publicly scapegoated were actually suspects accused of armed robbery who had been detained for more than a year. Amnesty International was able to confirm that five persons were tried, including a bank employee who had been found guilty of embezzlement and sentenced to a fine. The Sudanese president, Omar Hassan Ahmad El-Bashir, created the national commission of inquiry on Darfur in May 2004 but to this day they still have not reported publicly. The “Rape Committees” that were established by the government in July 2004 found only 50 cases of rape in all of Darfur, according to the government. They were supposed to continue investigating, but nothing seems to have been done since their first report to the government which has also, not been made public. Such initiatives taken by the Sudanese government to investigate human rights abuses in Darfur have not ended impunity. The Sudanese authorities have denied their responsibility in these war crimes and crimes against humanity against the civilian population in Darfur. Rather than admitting what’s really been happening and addressing the human rights violations committed in Darfur they have instead intimidated those trying to expose such abuse. Amnesty International concluded in it’s report, Sudan, Darfur: No one to complain to, that the national justice system was deeply flawed and not able in it’s present state to address the gross abuses committed in Darfur; and that international jurisdiction should be considered as an alternative to insure against impunity in Sudan. Amnesty International also states that “since the publication of this report on 2 December 2004, there has been no evidence of any concrete steps taken by the Sudanese government to initiate investigations and prosecutions for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the region.” A report from a United Nations commission said the Sudanese judiciary could not be trusted with the task and recommended that any accused go before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Ali Osman Taha, Sudan’s first vice-president said “we strongly believe that there are no grounds to warrant taking suspects out of the country. We strongly feel that such an action would very much help push things down, to degenerate rather than help people to reconcile.” Mr. Taha asserted the Sudanese system was "competent and able and willing to do justice.” The names of 51 war crimes suspects are on a sealed list accompanying the United Nations commission's report on the violence in Sudan and reportedly include members of the government. It has been accused of financing and equipping Arab militias held responsible for an ethnic-cleansing campaign that has left up to two million people homeless and caused the loss of 70,000 lives by United Nations estimate, and as many as 300,000 according to outside experts. In spite of their attempts to keep the abuses in Darfur quiet with their smokescreen investigations and scapegoating the Sudanese government are complicit in these grave abuses. The prime responsibility for these human rights abuses committed against civilians lies with the Sudanese government and it’s allied militias. The government has bombed indiscriminately civilian towns and villages suspected of harboring or sympathizing with members of the armed opposition, killing many non-combatants. It’s these deliberate and indiscriminate bombings that have resulted in “unlawful killings”. Ground attacks on villages and towns are often preceded or followed by bombings by the Sudanese Air Force. Most bombings appear to have disregarded the requirement to distinguish between civilian persons and objects, and military objectives or the principle of proportionality. Both are cornerstones of international humanitarian law regulating armed conflicts. Bombings usually consist of boxes filled with metal shrapnel dropped from the backs of Antonov planes. By their nature these bombs lack precision. Attacks also include the use of helicopter gunships, flying at low altitudes and shelling civilians. Antonov planes and helicopter gunships are the property of the Sudanese army. These bombings have had a terrorizing effect on the population, encouraging panic and displacement. The continuous bombings have become one of the main reasons why refugees say they can’t go back to their country. The bombings can been seen and heard from the refugee camps in Chad. The crisis in Darfur has been exacerbated by the clampdown on the right to freedom of expression in Darfur and the rest of Sudan; the lack of freedom of movement to Darfur and within Darfur, not only for foreigners but also for Sudanese; and the stifling of the right of freedom of association. If news of the growing crisis had reached the rest of the world earlier and been properly assessed, adequate action might have been taken sooner. Because of government ownership of media channels and harsh government censorship of the Sudanese press, little news was available within Sudan about the rising crisis in Darfur. Although the government lifted formal censorship of newspapers in December 2001 effective censorship by the national security continues. Local newspapers which are privately owned are themselves under constant threat of penalties such as suspension or the seizure of a print run. Some newspaper proprietors say they would prefer overt pre-censorship than the seizure of a print run since this involves great financial loss. Access to satellite television is only available to the wealthy and not many in Sudan have access to the Internet. The majority of Sudanese people rely on government-owned Sudan television and radio (the Voice of Sudan). Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based independent Arabic-language channel, remains one of the main independent sources of information about Darfur for Arabic speakers in Sudan but its Khartoum office was closed in December 2003. And where is the international community through all of this? Throughout all of this the response of the international community has been pathetic. World leaders refer to these realities as “ethnic cleansing,” “crimes against humanity” and a “scorched-earth campaign” that has produced “the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis.” And senior U.N. officials have condemned the “systematic” denial of humanitarian access to the areas in which African tribal peoples live. But with the U.N. Commission on Human Rights having failed to act, it is no surprise that the Sudanese government has twice denied a U.N. humanitarian assessment team, led by U.N. Undersecretary for Humanitarian Affairs Egeland, access to Darfur. The regime calculates that with an international community that is apparently unconcerned it will pay no price for their atrocities in Darfur. This belief has only been encouraged by the refusal of the U.N. Security Council to take up Darfur in a serious way. The world seems content merely to have supported the resolution in Geneva that declared: “The [U.N.] Commission [on Human Rights] expresses its solidarity with the Sudan in overcoming the current situation.” The EU has said that there was widespread violence in the Darfur region of Sudan but the killings were not genocidal, a potentially crucial distinction which underlined its reluctance to intervene. "We are not in the situation of genocide there," Pieter Feith, an adviser to the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, said in Brussels after returning from a fact-finding visit to Sudan. "But it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow killing and village burning of a fairly large scale. There are considerable doubts as to the willingness of Sudan's government to assume its duty to protect its civilian population against attacks." He said in the absence of willingness to send a significant military force, the EU and others had little choice but to cooperate with the Sudanese government. U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland reported an organized, "scorched-earth" policy of ethnic cleansing in Darfur. Egeland said there were credible and frequent reports that Janjawid militias, which are Arab and allied to the Sudanese Government, had committed atrocities -- including murders, rapes and acts of looting and destruction -- against local black Africans, especially members of the Fur, Zaghawas and Massalit ethnic communities. A British journalist who managed to cross the border into Darfur by wearing a disguise, told CNN earlier this month that he witnessed evidence of genocide in the region, including "hastily dug graves and a pile of bodies" in the village of Tadera. "What I saw was village after village which has been burnt down," Phil Cox said on CNN's International Correspondents program. "Usually there are bodies around the villages. There are mass graves outside. When I say mass graves, I mean large pits in the earth, maybe 10 to 20 bodies in them, and these pits, 20 to 30 pits around the villages." Cox said he uncovered recordings of Sudanese bomber pilots ordering attacks on civilian villages. "I have interviewed Sudanese government soldiers, who were told to attack villages and when they got there they only found civilians." Cox said. "I have interviewed the refugees and civilians from these villages who testified to this." After extensive reporting in the region, Cox said he has "come to the conclusion that the Sudanese government have a systematic intention of removing many black Africans from Darfur by violent means." On the heels of the 10th anniversary since the Rwanda genocide left nearly a million people dead in 100 days, Cox said not much has changed. "The world is not dealing with this. We know it is happening. Ignorance is not an excuse now. And in the light of these commemorations and talk about Rwanda, it comes as increasingly double standards again by the international community," he said. Photographer Marcus Bleasdale says he has taken pictures of between 30 and 40 mass graves in Darfur, in which up to 100 people had been buried. "As we looked along the horizon, we could see hands and heads sticking out of the trenches.” "You can drive for 100 kilometers and see nobody, no civilian," said Dr. Mercedes Tatay, a physician with Doctors Without Borders who has just spent a month in Darfur. "You pass through large villages, completely burned or still burning, and you see nobody." Nicholas D. Kristof also saw first hand the devastation in Darfur. “I can't get the kaleidoscope of genocide out of my head since my trip last month to the Sudan-Chad border: the fresh graves, especially the extra-small mounds for children; the piles of branches on graves to keep wild animals from digging up corpses; the tales of women being first raped and then branded on the hand to stigmatize them forever; the isolated peasants, unfamiliar with electricity, who suddenly encounter the 21st century as helicopters machine-gun their children” said Kristof. “The Arab Janjawid militia, armed by Sudan's government, shoots tribal African men and teenage boys who show up at the wells, and rapes women who go. So parents described an anguished choice” Kristof continues, “Should they risk their 7- or 8-year-old children by sending them to wells a mile away, knowing that the children have the best prospect of returning? And what should parents do when the Janjawid seize their children, or gang-rape their daughters? Should they resist, knowing they will then be shot at once in front of their children? Or what about the parents described by Human Rights Watch who were allowed by the militia to choose how their children would die: burned alive or shot to death?” A decade ago the world sat silently by and watched, as genocide was committed in Rwanda. As many as one million people (approximately 15% of the population) were murdered by their fellow Rwandese, in many cases by their own neighbors. Millions more fled from the region causing many more to die from starvation and disease. Instead of sending reinforcements for the 2,500 United Nations peacekeepers in Rwanda to put an end to the genocide the U.N. Security Council instead voted to pull all U.N. troops out. The world washed its hands of the ensuing genocide, taking our place on the sidelines. The coincidence of this current crisis with the tenth anniversary of the launching of the genocide in nearby Rwanda has spurred international concern. "The only difference between Rwanda and Darfur now is the numbers involved," the UN humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, told the UN Integrated Regional Information Networks. "This is more than just a conflict," said Kapila who was present in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. "It is an organized attempt to do away with a group of people," a description that comes remarkably close to the words of the 1948 Genocide Convention. UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland later accused the government of engaging in "ethnic cleansing." The comparison was also evoked in an unusual statement issued by the "Committee on Conscience" of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Wednesday. The group reiterated its "genocide warning" for Sudan and noted that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has warned that 100,000 civilians are at risk over the next few months if conditions are not soon stabilized, the displaced permitted to return home, and adequate relief supplies are not forthcoming. At the museum opening Jeff Drumtra from the US Committee for Refugees made a powerful speech criticizing the press for its "professional negligence on the matter of Sudan". The US media have shown little interest in the campaign of the renowned US Committee for Refugees, and non-US media has shown skepticism, as to the "US" prefix of the committee, knowing too well that the US is not the best place to obtain objective data about Sudan. Addressing the "professional journalistic irresponsibility" of the media neglecting the Sudanese genocide, Drumtra told the surprised journalists: "Journalists cover events that are extraordinary. Events that are unprecedented. Events that set records. Sudan is full of records - awful, grisly records. Sudan is full of headlines - grim headlines. Yet American journalism largely ignores Sudan." He went on asking "In what way is Sudan not worthy of coverage?" Indeed, Drumtra knew to present the media with headlines: "2 million Sudanese people have died of war-related causes in the past 17 years. That's more deaths than in Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, Chechnya, Indonesia, and Sierra Leone combined," he could inform. "During Sudan's war, an estimated average of 300 people have died each day, day after day, for 17 years. That's not a story that merits coverage?" - Here's another headline, he went on: "At least 115 times this year, civilian and humanitarian targets in southern Sudan have been bombed by Sudanese government planes. At least 115 times this year, Sudanese government planes have deliberately dropped bombs on towns, villages, hospitals, schools, health clinics, displacement camps, and relief food distributions in Sudan - locations with absolutely no military significance. That's not worthy of journalistic coverage?" he asked. Further, "this year Sudanese government planes have bombed UN relief aircraft on the ground. That's not a headline?" Salih Booker, Executive Director of Africa Action said, "A decade ago, the world averted its eyes as genocide unfolded in Rwanda. The U.S. had information about what was happening on the ground, but it blocked an effective response--an act for which President Clinton has since apologized. Now, a campaign of ethnic cleansing is gaining momentum in Darfur, but the U.S. appears ready, once again, to turn away." Booker continued, "At what point do we ask the uncomfortable question, why does the US seem to consider it acceptable for such genocidal acts to occur in Africa?" Documents from the Clinton administration show that soon after Rwanda's slaughter started in 1994, officials were privately calling it genocide but refrained from doing so publicly lest pressure grow for a US deployment which the administration did not want. The unwillingness to get involved and come to the aid of the Rwandese who were being brutalized had a devastating effect that can still be felt today. How many people died unnecessarily? Murdered while the world stood by for fear of getting our hands dirty. Livelihoods were wiped out and those that did survive the genocide in Rwanda still carry the scars of that conflict, for many the brutality and genocide is still being carried out indirectly from the abuses suffered then. Many are still succumbing to the aftermath of what they have, at least for now, lived through. The women who survived the genocide did not escape unscathed. In addition to suffering trauma, as many as 75% of genocide widows are infected with HIV as a result of rape. The United Nations estimates that between 250,000 and 500,000 rapes were committed. Many of these women are left destitute and when they eventually succumb to their illnesses leave behind orphan children. They have little or no hope of receiving medical care or compensation. Most of these people find themselves unable to work and provide for themselves or their children due to their illness or because of the stigmatism of being HIV positive. Instead of receiving community support they find themselves ostracized, even by members of their own families. People mistakenly believe that they can contract AIDS just from a greeting with someone that is infected. Others will abandon their family members that have AIDS because they don’t want to waste their money or time on those that they feel will certainly die. Is this what the future holds for the Darfuri refugees? With scores of journalists and others now visiting Darfur and millions displaced who had survived gross violations of human rights it is hard for the government to prevent people from speaking out. The government authorities’ increasing pressure, especially since June, on those who give testimonies to foreigners has resulted from the government’s fear of international action (including sanctions and military intervention) in response to its failure to fulfill its commitments, in particular commitments to end attacks on civilians, disarm the Janjawid and ensure their removal from IDP (Internally Displaced People) camps, giving free access to monitors and ensuring there are no forced returns of IDPs. It is in these circumstances that the government has increased its attempts to control the information flowing out of Darfur. The national security and intelligence forces are tightly interlinked with the government. It is the government’s ‘security’ mentality which leads it to deny or manage the crisis rather than to try to solve it. In detaining those who speak out it uses the National Security Forces Act, the national security and intelligence agency may hold people in incommunicado detention without charging them or bringing them before a judge. In attempts to downplay the criticisms of the international community and portray the situation as improving in Darfur, the government has stated that many people are returning to their villages. It has also tried to entice IDPs to return to places where the security of people is not guaranteed, including by bribing community leaders or threatening those speaking out against return while the Janjawid still dominate the rural areas. The government of Sudan has been unable or unwilling to keep its ceasefire commitments to stop violence and abuses, and therefore some government authorities in Darfur appear to have tried to prevent the international community from recording this failure by using intimidation. After the AU (African Union) monitoring of the ceasefire started in earnest in July 2004 some of the internally displaced who gave information to the AU monitors were arrested. Others have been and are being intimidated to prevent them from giving information; as one observer said "Sometimes the information only comes in secretly". The AU monitors have investigated cases of reported continuing attacks on villages by the Janjawid and government bombing as well as reported ceasefire violations by the SLA. After months of virtual silence and tens of thousands more deaths, the January release of the report of the United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur has prodded US spokespeople into repeating the charge that “genocide” is taking place in Sudan’s Darfur provinces. However, if the recent past is any guide, Washington’s sudden rediscovery of the persecution of Darfur’s non-Arabic-speaking farmers will only last as long as it takes to pressure Khartoum to again tone down the worst aspects of its ethnic-cleansing campaign. The UN report concluded that while the military regime in Sudan “has not pursued a policy of genocide ... in some instances individuals, including government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent”. The report said it had established that the Sudan government and its state-sponsored janjawid Arab-chauvinist gangs are guilty of “crimes under international law”, including attacks on villages, killing of civilians, rape, pillaging and forced displacement of people. These crimes have continued without interruption, despite Khartoum’s commitments to stop the attacks, disarm the janjawid and bring its leaders to justice. The commission presented UN secretary-general Kofi Annan with a sealed file of “likely suspects” and recommended that the UN Security Council refer them to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. This recommendation is unlikely to be implemented because the US, which has veto power in the Security Council, is opposed to the ICC’s existence. The administration of US President George Bush vehemently rejects the body because it fears that its illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (and future offensive military operations), and the crimes its troops have committed there, may see it brought before the ICC. The situation finally prompted a visit to western Sudan by U.N. Secretary General Koffi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the end of June. It was the first visit to Sudan of a U.S. Secretary of State in 26 years. Although Powell was clearly concerned over the obvious humanitarian disaster unfolding before his eyes, he stopped short of calling it what it is: genocide. The dictionary defines genocide as “the systematic killing of a racial or cultural group.” The 1946 international Convention on Genocide, adopted in the wake of the Holocaust, places specific responsibilities upon the international community to intervene on behalf of those targeted for extermination. Tragically, and ironically, the U.S. Administration’s recent (though long overdue) efforts to broker a peace accord in Southern Sudan has been cited as a reason they are stopping short of labeling this situation genocide. To do so would jeopardize the agreement between the rebel forces in the south and the government in Khartoum, which has agreed to allow the south to move toward independence in 6 years. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, all states have an obligation to "undertake to prevent" genocide, if necessary, presumably, by military means. Rep. Barbara Lee, who issued a strong statement on July 1st in response to Powell’s hesitation over the use of the word genocide. “I am pleased that Sec. Powell has gone to Sudan to view this horrible crisis, but I am disappointed that, once again, we are seeing a lot of talk from this administration, but no real action,” said the congresswoman. “The Administration’s rhetoric and concern over the situation in Sudan is simply not enough. They need to push the Khartoum Government to take responsibility for their role in this genocide. We demand action…without emergency assistance, the killing of thousands of lives will continue. That assistance will begin as soon as the Bush Administration says what the world already knows: genocide is occurring in the Sudan.” Powell, when asked whether the situation constituted “genocide,” responded to reporters: “Let’s not put a label on things. We know what the situation is like, we know what we have to do and we’re going to do it.” In July the US House of Representatives voted by 422 votes to nil to describe Khartoum's actions as genocide, a conclusion shared by several analysts who say there is no other term for the systematic slaughter, rape and expulsions. The key metric is the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which was ratified on December 9, 1948 and which entered into force on January 12, 1951. Article II defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious groups; a) Killing members of the group b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to the group c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part d) Imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group According to the Convention, a finding of genocide can only be made if there is proof of "intent", documentation of systematic measures in an overarching plan to eliminate "in whole or in part" a targeted group. So do the abuses being carried out in the Darfur region of Sudan really constitutes genocide? Well maybe if you’re a politician not wanting to get your hands dirty or you have business interest in Sudan that you don’t want to risk disrupting then maybe you would hesitate to label these abuses as genocide. The rest of us that can weigh the facts for ourselves can clearly see what is really occurring in Darfur. For the sake of argument though here’s a few positions taken by those who have spent a lot of time researching and documenting what has been happening in Darfur: "Unlike the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry, the Sudanese government does not have a rational, methodical, massive scheme to liquidate a particular group or people…On the contrary: the NIF doesn’t want to eliminate the southerners…it wants to dominate, exploit, and enslave them."- Robert O. Collins (co-author of Requiem for Sudan: War, Drought and Disaster Relief on the Nile) "We must consider not only the vast numbers of individuals that have been killed…but also the communities whose existence as identifiable cultural entities has been destroyed: The Nuer and the Dinka, who are among the best-studied peoples in the world… If you eliminate a cultural community as such, that to me is genocide." –Francis Deng (Professor at CUNY and the Special Representative of the U.N. Secretary-General on Internal Displacement) Sondra Hale, (Professor of Anthropology and Women’s Studies at UCLA and co-editor of Perspectives on Genocide in Sudan) says that the prohibition of language, destruction of books, documents, monuments, and religious objects constitutes "cultural genocide." She argues that "the intentional war of attrition against the Nuba has the effect of genocide," and highlights sex crimes and other forms of repression directed at women. Randolph Martin (Senior Director for Operations, International Rescue Committee) emphasized that "it is not the mission of the IRC to make declarations about genocide. Whether scholars call the situation genocide is of course extremely interesting to us, but it does not dictate the way we do our work… What everyone knows is that the war is as intractable as ever, and that starvation, illness, and displacements are more often than not objectives rather than by-products of the war. The aerial bombings of civilian targets in the south are a clear indication of the Khartoum government’s clear disregard for its own people." Although humanitarian and aid groups have been trying to shed light on the genocide in Darfur for the last few years only recently has the western governments of the world chimed in. Why is it that the United States and the European Union are finally staring to come around and trying to confront the situation in Sudan? Although they have not wholeheartedly taken a position they have increased the pressure on the Sudanese authorities. Why now? Why now are the nations of the first world beginning to show concern for those who have been facing genocide for the last few years? Have the scores of victims finally gotten into the conscience of the first world or is there another reason? Well the most likely reason is the same reason why the Bush administration couldn’t bear the suffering of those living under Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. The potential profits to be made from their natural resources, specifically: Oil. Just like in the Middle East the nations of the first world drool at the prospects of investing and extracting profits from Sudan’s burgeoning oil export industry. Is this the motive behind the Bush administration’s newfound concern for the refugees of Darfur? Is this the beginning of an effort by Bush to justify an Iraqi-style invasion of Sudan to achieve a regime change and seize the control of it’s potentially massive oil reserves? Not to mention the British and Australian governments' volunteering of troops for a phantom UN intervention force. The US and European governments' goal is renewed access by their countries oil corporations to Sudan's oil wealth, Washington's latest threats against Sudan are part of an approach that it has pursued with Sudan since the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that Sudan is desperate to normalize relations with the US, Bush is attempting to lure Sudan back into the fold using the promises to lift US economic sanctions imposed in 1997 or the threat of further sanctions. Such an approach was successful with neighboring Libya. Washington too is eager to lift its economic sanctions. Since 1997, US oil companies have been excluded from profiting from the massive expansion of Sudan's oil industry since 1999, which has been dominated by Chinese, Malaysian, Indian, Canadian and some European companies. Fighting in the 21-year-long civil war in Sudan's oil-rich south, as well as pressure from human rights activists, has forced Canadian and most European firms to sell off or suspend their operations in southern Sudan over the last few years. When they took power in 2001, one of the Bush administration's earliest foreign policy objectives was to secure a peace agreement between the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Sudanese government, allowing Washington to lift sanctions. Bush appointed former US senator John Danforth, now Washington's UN ambassador, as his "special envoy for peace in Sudan." In July 2002, Danforth, led an international team of US, British and Norwegian officials, succeeded with bribes and threats in convincing the SPLM and the Sudanese authorities to sign a draft peace agreement that promised a referendum six years or so after a final peace agreement is signed and an autonomous secular government in the south (while Islamic law would continue to govern the northern two-thirds of the country). An informal cease-fire agreement was reached in October 2002. Sudanese authorities and the SPLM agreed that government revenue from the export of oil from the southern oil fields would be split between the SPLM-dominated southern regional government and the central government in Khartoum. When the Darfur rebellion erupted, in the beginning of 2003, Bush and the EU all but ignored the genocide taking place in Darfur in the hope that it would not impact their oil interests. Only when the escalating crisis in Darfur threatened to derail the north-south peace deal and prevent the opening up of Sudan's lucrative oilfields to Western exploitation did the US start waving the threat of UN sanctions against Sudan. Returning stability to Sudan would allow Bush to lift existing sanctions and permit US oil corporations to return to southern Sudan. Bush is anxious to lift its economic sanctions. Since 1997, US oil companies have been excluded from profiting from the expansion of Sudan’s oil exploration, and its production since 1999, while Chinese, Malaysian, Indian and European companies have taken the lion’s share. And of course Bush, Cheney and their oil buddies won’t have that. After all no one is going to stand in the way of American imperialism, especially when there’s the payoff in the form of oil fields involved. Bush’s biggest problem here is that he doesn’t have the troops to commit to Sudan, since they’ll be tied up in Iraq for years to come. So he has little choice but to resort to threats of more sanctions or the reward of lifting them. It’s really despicable that once again the Bush administration was fine with turning a blind eye to the genocide being committed in Darfur but when there’s American oil interests at stake then something must be done. Isn’t it amazing that the situation in Darfur was merely referred to as a “humanitarian crisis” but once there’s oil at stake then the American government adopts the strong stance that “genocide” is occurring in the Darfur region, and of course must now be stopped. Political labeling is crucial in describing a situation and figuring out a course of action. Since the committal of genocide demands international action to end, the international community is care to not refer to a situation as such or to instead create new language that in turn create loopholes that relinquish responsibility. Then when there are actually interests, like oil, at stake then we see the language used become stronger and stronger. It’s the same building of dialogue that we saw in the effort by the Bush administration in selling the war in Iraq to the American people. Debate and make a case for action while escalating the language and emphasis used. In the meantime you have millions of people dying by violent and oppressive means. We have an American occupying force in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they’re not wanted by the people. Then we have the people of Sudan hoping for some kind of international intervention and for the last few years it’s only been a subject of debate. Well more recently it’s been a subject for debate, the last few years it’s been quietly swept under the rug while people were being brutally murdered and abused. It is interesting, but also unfortunate, how this type of situation will be debated before any action will ever take place. It’s unbelievable how the world will dispense more time and energy on creating new descriptive terms for an abhorrent situation in order to take a step back from responsibility. Euphemisms will always be invented to throw some cold water on a situation, providing the world with the luxury of not having to relive the mistakes of the past, the mistakes that we obviously never learned from. Ethnic cleansing has replaced genocide as the description of choice, why? Because by creating a new euphemism, like ethnic cleansing, the world leaders don’t have to comply with international law that calls for nations to step in and come to the aid of those that are being slaughtered. Language is a powerful tool; it’s these types of semantics that allow the world to bask in ignorance, disavowing all responsibility in order to continue on with our lives with a clear conscience. After all it’s not genocide it’s merely “ethnic cleansing” or a “humanitarian crisis”. Be realistic, these types of things happen everyday. It’s a part of human nature right? If we spent half the amount of time and energy, trying to confront these injustices, as we do rationalizing, justifying and trying to redefine them we would rid the world of these types of atrocities in no time. After all it’s also language that makes it possible to desensitize people in order to carry out these types of atrocities in the first place. Language has that unique power that is required to justify the unjustifiable. Actual battles are always pre-empted by a war of words. Language is the end that justifies the means. Language can be used to manipulate people into carrying out the vile actions that politicians don’t want to dirty their hands with themselves. Language has the ability to conjure up hatred and loathing in order to carry out these vile actions without the guilt that would be present if the language actually used was a more blunt or realistic account of a situation or perception. It’s just not possible for most people to imagine carrying around that kind of hatred and contempt for people; the kind of hatred that would make ordinary people behave in such ways as to inflict such brutality upon others, to commit such heartless abuses, to murder in cold blood without the slightest bit of guilt or remorse. People always paint the perpetrators of these crimes as vile monsters and while it is true that their crimes are certainly horrific they are not monsters. They are human beings, just people, people that would not have been able to carry out these atrocities against just anyone. These types of atrocities always have a specific target. The criminal acts that these perpetrators so willing commit against another group would be, to them, unthinkable to a member of their own group, race, etc. or to a member of another group that they do not consider to be below themselves. The dehumanization of a specific group is an essential part in paving the way for such crimes to be carried out. People do not like to view themselves as monsters nor do they like to view their actions as criminal or morally reprehensible. It’s necessary to dehumanize those that are to become the victims of such abuse; it’s necessary to be able to carry out the otherwise unthinkable with a clear conscience. This is why there are always such efforts taken to dehumanize the targeted group of people. This is why there is so much emphasis placed on the rhetoric, the derogatory slurs, the scapegoating and the need to paint the victims as the abusers. It’s noble to think of yourself as defending your home, your land, your livelihood, even your very life against those who would seek to rob you of these things. It’s an entirely different thing to take on the role of the perpetrator of unwarranted abuses and crimes against humanity. It’s not something that people can live with. This is why it’s necessary to dehumanize the victims, why it’s necessary to take the moral high ground. And it’s not only the perpetrators of such horrific crimes that need to have a clear conscience. For the rest of us that sit silently by, watching from the sidelines as if we don’t really see what’s happening. It’s necessary for us to have a clear conscience as well. Even those of us that are not committing these crimes can’t live with the guilt that we could’ve prevented such crimes if only we had acted, if only we had cared, if only we had known. Well we can’t use the excuse that we don’t know. Ignorance is a comfortable stance to take but it’s not a realistic one. In doing so we are just in denial. It’s all of our responsibilities to know what’s occurring in the world we live in and confront what we know is wrong, to try to put an end to these types of atrocities. We know in the backs of our minds and in our hearts that we should be doing something to help these victims. But instead we claim ignorance and abandon them to their fates, smugly assuring ourselves that it’s a cruel world or that it’s human nature or that we’re just one person and surely our actions are insignificant. What can one person possibly accomplish? We cling to any sort of excuse we can in order to justify our inaction, in order to sleep at night, in order to escape our responsibility. The world has just become numb and rather than go through all of the pain again, it experienced from the holocaust, the world instead turns it’s head and refuses to acknowledge that these atrocities are still being committed today. History is repeating itself and the world has obviously not yet learned form the past, learned from our mistakes. It’s easier for all of us to turn a blind eye to what’s happening than to confront the problem and try to stop the crimes being carried out against defenseless civilians. We selfishly opt to turn our backs on those that are being slaughtered so that our lives aren’t interrupted by the ending of theirs.