Darfur and the Genocide Debate

Abstract

IN SUDAN'S western Darfur region, a massive campaign of ethnic violence has claimed the lives of more than 70,000 civilians and uprooted an estimated 1.8 million more since February 2003. The roots of the violence are complex and parts of the picture remain unclear. But several key facts are now well known. The primary perpetrators of the killings and expulsions are government-backed Arab militias. The main civilian victims are black Africans from three tribes. And the crisis is currently the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet. The bloodshed in Darfur has by now received a great deal of attention. Much of the public debate in the United States and else where, however, has focused not on how to stop the crisis, but on whether or not it should be called a genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention. Such a designation, it was long thought, would inevitably trigger an international response. InJuly 2004, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution labeling Darfur a genocide. Then, in early September, after reviewing the results of an innovative government-sponsored investigation, Secretary of State Colin Powell also used the term and President George W. Bush followed suit in a speech to the United Nations several weeks later-the first times such senior U.S. government officials had ever conclusively applied the term to a current crisis and invoked the convention. Darfur, therefore, provides a good test of whether the 56-year-old

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 154 citations exist upstream.