Memorandum submitted by the Aegis Trust[3]
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY[4]
International law allows wide scope for preventing
genocide. There are huge moral and political obligations to do
so. Resolve and action to prevent depend however on the political
will to do so.
Darfur is suffering the outcomes of ethnic and
tribal conflict, power struggles and competition for land in the
south. In recent decades however, an exclusionary ideology has
driven policies of the current and previous government of Sudan
that have led to jihad and outcomes that can be regarded as genocide.
The crisis in Darfur is happening in that context
and is also driven by the supremacist/racist ideas of the Arab
Congress, ideas congruent with those of central government.
When civilians are being systematically targeted
during a crisis and an exclusionary ideology exists, the situation
should be described as genocidal regardless of whether a consensus
is reached about whether it is genocide or not. This should signify
a change in the priorities in the management of the crisis.
In such a situation security must be regarded
as much a priority as providing humanitarian aid and achieving
political settlement. In a genocidal situation compromising security
in favour of peace-talks may cost lives.
In Darfur either the Sudanese Government was
actively supporting the Janjaweed or had lost control of them.
Both scenarios demanded outside help. Yet it was the Government
of Sudan that was asked by the UN to provide protection for the
vulnerable.
Insecurity for those under threat of genocide
and impunity for international crimes is a combination that allows
Governments to get away with murder. When a conflict is recognised
as genocidal in nature, addressing this duo must become more central
to the management of the crisis. Both have been insufficiently
prioritised in managing the crisis in Darfur; this has impeded
efforts to prevent genocide.
If there is broad consensus that the Government
of Sudan bears responsibility for mass murder, why is there not
an unequivocal message that they will be brought to account?
Asking the Sudanese Government to "rein
in" those responsible must have given the Janjaweed perpetrators
great comfort. Because the world does not have the moral strength
to end impunity or protect the vulnerable we have to rely on probable
sponsors of genocide to provide security.
The UN and member states hid behind the humanitarian
aid effort. The need to protect citizens was understood more in
the African Union than it was among the wealthy member states,
including the UK. However the AU mission languished in an under-resourced
state and atrocities continued and even the recently expanded
force is still a sub-optimal arrangement to avert the threat of
"genocide by attrition."
Political settlement will always be harder to
achieve if security for those under threat is not provided concurrently.
In a climate of fear it has been predictably hard to keep the
Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement around
the negotiating table.
Justice is often perceived as a post-conflict
issue. Impunity, though, in a genocidal situation is a brother
to insecurity; both tell the perpetrator that there is insufficient
resolve or political will to stop genocide.
Documentation is the first step in bringing
about accountability. But a library of reports will not end impunity
if there is no resolve for it to lead somewhere. International
inquiries have in the past led to the formation of Ad Hoc Tribunals.
The US refusal to support the International Criminal Court (ICC)
is not helpful in ending impunity. Upholding international law
at an early stage in this genocidal process by referring the situation
in Darfur to the ICC could have deterred the perpetrators. So
far, the perpetrators are not trembling in fear of justice.
Despite the 1948 Convention and the signing
of the Stockholm Declaration in January 2004 (Appendix C), despite
many great efforts by Governments and NGOs in respect to the humanitarian
crisis in Darfur the genocidal crisis remains extremely difficult
to contain or mitigate without a massive shift in political will.
Leo Kuper's contention continues to bear truth that Governments
still have the "sovereign right to commit genocide".
Dr James M Smith
Ben Walker
November 2004
3 Founded in 2000 the Aegis Trust developed from the
work of the Holocaust Centre in North Notts (opened in 1995).
Aegis addresses causes and consequences of genocide and crimes
against Humanity. It works closely with survivors, educationalist,
academics and policy makers in areas relating to genocide education
research and prevention. Back
4
The full report-Darfur: Blueprint for Genocide-has not
been printed. Available at: http://www.aegistrust.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=175&Itemid=183 Back
| 
