World ignores genocide in Sudan 
By Norman L. Epstein 
May 15, 2005
Canadian Jewish News
http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=5750 http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=5750 
When the tsunami swept the shores of Southeast Asia, a seismic wave of grief and generosity swept the world. People and governments around the world opened their hearts and wallets to the survivors and to assist in the rebuilding in the wake of the devastation. 
In the span of a few minutes, nearly 200,000 people perished in the tsunami. It captured the imagination of the planet, and the relentless barrage of intense media coverage inspired many to give and act. 
It was indeed heartening to see humanity at its best in one of the worst natural disasters in recorded history. However, it begs the question of why a natural disaster deservedly receives wide-scale attention, but a genocide in Sudan, generating a death toll well in excess of that of the tsunami, barely registers a ripple of attention. 
The genocide, yet to be recognized as such by some, is being perpetrated by the government of Sudan and its proxy Arab militias, the Janjaweed, against African Muslims in Darfur – a region the size of France. 
Sudanese government aircraft bomb African villages indiscriminately and then government troops and the militias storm the village, Many people are routinely tortured and summarily executed, children are abducted into slavery and women are raped. Human Rights Watch has found incontrovertible evidence that the upper echelons of the Khartoum regime are orchestrating these attacks. 
Those fortunate enough to escape are exposed to famine and disease as their villages and crops are destroyed. Corpses, often those of babies and young children, are thrown into wells, to deny the survivors a source of fresh water. 
Ninety per cent of African villages have been systematically destroyed in Darfur and more than two million people have been forcibly displaced.With the exception of 200,000 refugees who crossed into Chad, the survivors live in Internally Displaced Camps in Darfur surrounded by Sudanese government troops and Janjaweed. One writer likened these camps to an “African Auschwitz” or “a virtual prison without walls,” where countless are dying every day. 
The violence continues unabated and humanitarian aid cannot reach those in dire need because of lack of security. Aid workers are targeted for attack. 
A recent authoritative epidemiological study has conservatively estimated that 306,000 have died since February 2003, making lower statistics cited by the media obsolete. With access denied by the Sudanese government, we do not know the precise numbers. There are even reports that the government is “sanitizing” mass grave sites by burning the dead. The death toll will rise exponentially without determined action by the international community. 
So I ask, again, why the difference in response to a natural disaster and to a preventable, man-made catastrophe? 
In a word, politics. 
The tsunami has remained largely apolitical. There are no sides – no victims and perpetrators, only the residue of nature’s transient onslaught. There is no government policy to undermine, and there is virtually no strategic advantage for countries to exploit. Tsunami relief is provided outside the ineptitude and dysfunction of the United Nations – a highly charged political arena. 
With the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of Auschwitz, and in the shadow of the Rwandan genocide, the international community under the auspices of the UN has stood paralyzed. The UN security council has passed weak and ineffectual resolutions trying to rein in the Sudanese government and its militias. These resolutions have consisted of hollow warnings, undefined measures and a mere hint of sanctions. The UN General Assembly has passed 22 resolutions, albeit non-binding, against the State of Israel, but not one against the nefarious regime in Sudan. 
At the UN Human Rights Commission, a disproportionate number of resolutions rail against Israel’s attempts to defend itself. As further insult, Sudan sits as a member of the commission judging Israel. It is akin to the fox guarding the henhouse. 
The 23 countries of the Arab League and its allies defend Sudan at every turn. They say the conflict in Sudan is a manifestation of “African tribalism” and the Sudanese government should have more time to solve the crisis. They emphasize that Sudan’s sovereignty should be respected. 
But does not a sovereign nation lose its right to sovereignty when its government is orchestrating the murder of its own population? 
China, Russia and France, who have vetoes in the UN Security Council, are all recipients of Sudanese oil. They threatened to use their vetoes unless resolutions were watered down. Clearly, allowing the flow of oil supersedes stemming the flow of blood. 
The U.S. Congress – the Senate and House of Representatives – in an unprecedented 422-0 vote has called the situation in Darfur genocide. The George W. Bush Administration called it genocide after the return of an American investigating team. The European Union parliament in an overwhelming vote did the same. Canada did not. 
So is it genocide? 
The definition of genocide in the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide refers to “acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” 
A UN team recently returned from Darfur and submitted a report to the Security Council. It reported crimes against humanity, including mass murder, torture, rape, wholesale destruction of livelihoods and war crimes. It went as far as to say these crimes are “as serious and heinous as genocide” and that “individuals” both within and outside the Sudanese government “have acted with genocidal intent.” 
The UN team compiled a list of 51 people who should be indicted and tried at the International Criminal Court. Despite this evidence, the commission fell short of calling the killing in Darfur genocide. 
Do we need a smoking gun? Does the threshold have to be so high to need a Wannsee Conference (where the Nazis drew up their plans for extermination) to demonstrate indisputable evidence of genocide? 
Does it really matter what you call it? On an intuitive level, it should not. These crimes are so unspeakable by whatever name, we should be morally compelled to act. However, calling the crimes genocide would make it impossible for the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII. That would force the UN to send peacekeepers to protect civilians, disarm the militias and ensure safe passage of humanitarian aid. A no-fly zone needs to be implemented to protect citizens from indiscriminate aerial bombings. It is morally reprehensible that these measures have not already been taken. 
If the UN is unable to act as in previous genocides – Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo and Bosnia – then a multinational coalition outside the UN needs to be assembled, and fast. It could consist primarily of African Union troops, and would require immense help from NATO and the developed world. There is a precedent for acting outside the UN, such as when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo. 
Can Canada play a vital role? Canada could be a key facilitator in energizing the international community to do the right thing – protect innocent civilians in Darfur. Prime Minister Paul Martin has made strong speeches at the UN, but he has to take bolder steps to put together a coalition that would intervene. Thousand of African lives hang in the balance. 
What can the Jewish community do? Many Jewish organizations have proudly stepped up and many individuals have become activists. No one should underestimate the impact of writing to the prime minister, the Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew, foreign affairs critics, members of Parliament, or even requesting a meeting to discuss the issue with your MP (visit www.parl.gc.ca for addresses). 
Politicians are more willing to take stands on issues when a significant number of constituents voice their concern. 
It is unacceptable for us to say the world let the us down during the Holocaust if we are not willing to speak up forcefully for the silent victims of another genocide. Our painful legacy compels us to do so. 
The tsunami should be a point of reflection. As a world community, we need to examine our success in responding to one type of disaster and our failure to act in another. 
People have cited other reasons for the outpouring of tsunami relief. It is relative easy and safe for the media to report on post-tsunami destruction, but there is a lack of security in covering a war-ravaged region. Some say the world was stirred by the number of western lives lost. 
Lt.-Gen. Roméo Dallaire, who led the UN Mission to Rwanda, proclaims that “all lives are equal.” Are African lives just as cherished? 
We have to ask other crucial questions. When will humanitarian interest trump a country’s strategic interest? Was the tsunami response an aberration or are we really becoming a global village? 
How can the UN, besieged by corruption, disarray and political expedience, serve as the final arbiter of justice and just action? Will Canada transform itself from a respected middle power to a moral superpower and seize international leadership? 
When will we finally see the fiery inferno of genocide and act more quickly to douse the flames? 
The flames in Darfur need to be extinguished now. If not now, then when? If not in Sudan, then where? If not by determination, then how? If we as humanity cannot, then why not? 
Norman L. Epstein is the founder and co-chair of Canadians Against Slavery and Torture in Sudan (CASTS).