Genocide in Darfur

The crisis in Darfur, Sudan is a continual debate on whether the international community should intervene or not. The war started in 2003 when Darfurian Rebels attacked and fought against the Sudanese government. Government and murderous Arab militias known as Janjaweed have struck back sending more than two million refugees into camps set up by the UN. The United Nations estimates that 450,000 lives have been lost due to malnutrition and combat (Murphey). This atrocity is worsening everyday and the international community does not feel obligated to act unless this crisis is defined as genocide. My own view is that the crisis in Darfur is genocide and that there is a lack of international help. Though I concede that classifying this crisis as genocide is a heavy assertion, I still maintain that the war is a racial cleansing and needs international aid. For example, the Sudanese government supports the raping and killing taking place. Although some might object that this makes these killings genocide, I reply that thousands and thousands of lives continue to be taken simply because of a person’s ethnicity. This issue is important because if the international world will declare Darfur as genocide, then their help will be a priority, which is exactly what Darfur needs. Although labeling the crisis in Darfur has been a controversial issue, the international community needs to define it as genocide and make up for their negligence by taking immediate action.

The biggest debate concerning Darfur is whether or not genocide is taking place. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines genocide as, “The use of deliberate systematic measures (as killing, bodily or mental injury, unlivable conditions, prevention of births) calculated to bring about the extermination of a racial, political, or cultural group or to destroy the language, religion, or culture of a group.” This definition perfectly describes the mass killings in Darfur; one race/ political group (the Arabs) is bringing about the extermination of the black Africans. Prunier emphasizes the reality of the genocide, “The attakers were shouting that “the black” had to go, that “the land now belonged to the Arabs” (Prunier). This shows the intent of the militias and further places the Arabs at fault for the ethnic cleansing taking place. In addition, Marquand describes the current situation in hopes that the world will open their eyes and except the reality of the sitituation, “Darfur has spawned a dynamic in which Arabs are killing Africans, and lighter skinned and darker skinned groups are set against eachother. …A confession by a high ranking Sudanese official isn’t needed to prove genocidal intent. It can be shown via a common standard of “practice and pattern” of crime” (Marquand). Although making these assertions brings on a huge obligation to the internationally community, we should not sit back and deny that facts of this crisis, because it would require intervening. Children, wives, and families have been raped and murdered while the government either turns their cheek to the situation or supports it. Millions have been forced to abandoned their burned villages and now reside in camps that aren’t much safer. Moszynski shares a story of Dr. Bashir who became a victim herself, “[She] knows better than almost anyone the horror of the crimes committed in Darfur. She not only witnessed them first hand and treated the survivors but was arrested and gang raped by members of the security forces for speaking out” (Mozynski). It is unethical to know that security forces are involved in these malicious acts and still the only help sent internationally has been humanitarian aid workers. I leave you to ponder the question Marquand asks, “So is Darfur a genocide? A US Holocaust Memorial Museum committee and Colin Powell have said it is. So do at least two human rights reports. One French expert, Marc Lavergne, calls it “worse than a genocide” since mass killings are not done out of racial hatred, but because Darfurians are simply “in the way” of Sudan’s plans to control land” (Marquand). The internationally community cannot let the situation in Darfur continue to get worse because they refuse to except that it is genocide.

On the contrary, many will not except or assert the deaths in Darfur caused by government and militias to be genocide. However, is it ethical to wait until the situation can be labeled as genocide for the community to take action like in Rwanda? Often times genocide is hard to convict until after it has occurred, but this is the perfect situation to stop it “before” it occurs. Marquand simplifies the reason Darfur has not been labeled a genocide on an international level, “Yet prosecutors and world courts are even more cautious about leveling the charge, even when it may apply – since it raises a requirement to intervene” (Marquand). Nations have taken on a responsibility to protect if the case of genocide arises. Nations are failing to do this, because they are too worried about finding reasons to prove that genocide is taking place. If it is not taking place now, it will be in the future. Intervening with another country can be a sensitive and overwhelming situation, but if aid is not given thousand of more lives will be lost. The word genocide brings many connotations and is a politically sensitive word. So even if many do not want to define the crisis in Darfur as genocide because it brings back images of the Holocaust or shows how terrible the situation has become, someone needs to take action and the people of Darfur deserve international help. We have an opportunity to potentially stop genocide and save lives of thousands; let’s not pass this up because it is not yet and international obligation because many oppose that genocide is taking place.