http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4222899.stm

A genocide has not been committed in Darfur, a keenly awaited United Nations report says, according to Sudan's foreign minister.

If genocide was found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it.

The report has been given to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who said it would be published shortly.

More than 70,000 people have been killed and two million forced to flee their homes in Darfur.

"We have a copy of that report and they didn't say there is a genocide," said Mustafa Osman Ismail.

70,000 people you say? Rubbish, mate. That's no genocide, that's just peachy!

I'm speechless. Literally, speechless.


What was the slogan a few days ago? We will never forget? What a sick, demented joke.

I'm not surprised, actually...

Proving once again that white people really don't give a shit about Africans. And Saddam was a threat to his people worthy of engagement but this isn't? Look, I think people can be dicks and say they just don't care, but that's quite another thing than not acknowledging it at all.

Yeah, Krem, I'll agree that this is worthy of far more than even your fairly tame expletive.

I know, box, I'm ashamed for the memory of my dead relatives.

It's as if people will never learn.

I'm eagerly awaiting a report by the Washington Post as to what kind of pajamas Cheney was wearing when he heard of this.

Don't forget, according to the UN, Saddam was not a threat either.

Nor was Rwanda an engagement worth undertaking. Nor are North Koreans threatened by their fearless leader. Ad nauseum.

We live at a time in the world when we can solve real problems for real people living under real oppression. Instead, our leaders get to measure dicks as to who will donate more of the stolen money to the tsunami victims. Screw that. You and I will take careof the tsunami victims; we can't help the people who live under military regimes fearing for their lives. It's your job to take care of that, the UN, and for 50 years you have consistantly failed miserably to do so.

Isn't your outrage a bit too late and at the wrong people? Don't your ilk always harp that UN is worthless (which I do agree with)? Why are you not mad at GW? Too bad the Sudan did not have oil for your moral leader of the world (appointed by god himself) to save those 70,000 people or even worth considering saving them.

Wow. This seems really, really bad. Forgive my ignorance on this issue, but what exactly is going on here? What's the UN's problem? The UN has always been something I didin't know much about (foreign affairs has always been my weak point), so if someone could bust some knowledge on my ass...

Please, make yourself informed on the subjects you're talking about, before trying to be a smart-ass.

1) The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world calling on to UN to take action
2) Sudan actually has quite a lot of oil. As is the case with Iraq, France is one of the main players as far as that oil is concerned. As is the case with Iraq, France does not want to take action in the region. Notice the pattern.
3) you're trying to politicize a subject that needs not politics, but an international reaction. Save your wisecracks for the Iraq thread.

Basically, the UN is the only world body that has the authority to step in when there is a genocide. By not calling what's going on in Sudan a "genocide", the UN is basically saying that no action needs to be taken in Sudan right now. That is obviously wrong, with 2 million people displaced and 70,000 killed just last year.

Ok, maybe some others can fill in the gaps, but basically, the Arab militia in Sudan has driven about 1 or 2m Africans in eastern Sudan (where the Darfur region is) from their homes. In the process, they have also systematically killed 50-70,000 people.


The UN just now has refused to classify it as a genocide, although it says its close to it (basically). What the hell that means is beyond me. A group of people have been intentionally singled out, and thousands have been killed. That is genocide.

Part of the definition of what genocide is (officialy) is as follows:

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

That is what has been happening. Thing is, some of the officials in Sudan could face war crimes charges. So the UN acknowledges grave wrongdoing. Why they are so cowardly as to refuse to move to the next step is beyond me. This is yet another Rwanda, and it is once again being ignored. People who need help are not receiving it, but are instead mistreated twice.


P.S.: The US has referred to it as genocide; I believe Powell made that statement a while ago. So the US has taken some right measures here.

I know what I'm talking about. Truth hurts, what can I say?

US is one of the few countries trying to get UN to do something, don't make laugh. Why? Since the people in the admin. say UN is toothless and irrelevant, why didn't they do swomething about it. Maybe they were putting a plan together to save those people sometime in the future.

US did nothing during the Rwanda genocide and I hold Clinton responsible for it. Unlike you I am not a hypocrite and blame only republicans. I put blame where blame is due.

Wow. This is shocking. I tend to learn towards what Galia was saying - yet another example of white people not caring what happens to black people. That seems to be the only logical conclusion, since nothing else makes any sense.

I mean, even if this wasn't a genocide (which it clearly is), why not still step in and help?

Also, why isin't the US saying or doing anything about this?

Newsflash: there are other countries in the world, outside of the U.S. All those countries signed an agreement to prevent future genocides. The agreement is called the UN charter.

Not all that shocking, the West could really give a shit about Africa in general. Seriously, the diamond mines are already leased to foreign contractors, so what's left right? Slave trade??????

In all honesty though, is this a retrospective finding? I remember about two weeks ago hearing the Sudan had come to an agreement to split (slowly) by forming two autonamous districts that in a few years will fully seperate. Anyone else hear this? I'll see if I can find the article and post it. If its true, than U.N. doesn't want to disrupt the process. I think its wrong, they could easily say there was and still try to facilitate negotiations, because ignoring history doesn't really make it go away.

I'm a bit skeptical about the "black people/white people" thing. It's more about not wanting to confront your business partners (*cough* France *cough*).

If there is ever a question fo Saudi Arabia presented in the same light, the U.S. would probably not want to take action either. That's the sad truth.

I can't believe you of all the people think UN can do anything. Those morons put Libya (or was it Syria) on the Human rights commission. The UN could not save a cat from the tree. UN is a place where diplomats from a lot of countries just live larger than life with other people's money.

I've wondered what is the point of calling something genocide? Is murder worse if the victims are all the same race? I mean it seems like it buys into the criminal's mindset, the victimizer/dictator/whatever they are in each circumstance defines the victims by their race or religion, but should we? It sounds worse to say someone committed hundreds of thousands of murders of individuals than the sweeping term genocide.

Inevitably there will be someone who thinks I'm somehow diminishing the crime when it's the opposite. I'm saying that each soul killed was unique and an individual and special and not just a statistic of a race or religion.

Anyway I'm not sure where I stand on that issue I just raised, I go back and forth, but I think it's a legitimate question as to whether it helps to define things with that term, whether it inadvertently buys into the bad guy's outlook.

As to white people not caring what happens to black people. Well Europe did very little to stop the Bosnia genocide which they saw coming. So if they won't save white people on their doorstep, they won't save anyone.

Duh, that is my point. Unfortunately, the UN is the only organization in the world that has the right to prevent a genocide (a la Kosovo). To do that, it has to at the very least recognize that the genocide is happening.

Eh sorry, I think I got too abstract there heh. It's a topic for another day, another thread, what I raised.

That's a good point, Archie.

I always think of genocide as simply killing the masses. Stalin, in my mind, commited genocide, for instance, even though he did not discriminate against one ethnicity (well he did apply himself extra hard to get the Jews, but thats' besides the point). But even if the UN defines genocide narrowly as to mean singling out a group of people and wiping them out, that would still apply to Darfour.

What did you mean by the confronting your business partners part? Does France have a hand in the genocide, or something? Again, i'm sorry for my ignorance on this topic.

makeshift, read this article for the background on France and Sudanese oil: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3875277.stm

Well do you oppose the classification of Hate Crime then as well? I think there does need to be a distinction between "random" violence and targetted violence. That's not to say that if "random" violence killed 50 thousand people that it shouldn't be punished with equal severity, the coaching of it as targetted however is more for informational awareness and to understand the deeper rifts. Saying everything is random fails to address larger systematic clashes. It adds a level od diplomatic awareness, not just alevel of criminal awareness, which should be regardless.

And Krem/jb007 sure they might not be able to do anything, that doesn't mean they need to shy away from passing a judgement on it. I might not be able to stop anything either, but I can still see it for what it is, and express that opinion during negotiations.

Require defination of genocide. Thanks.

jb007, your quote is now my signature.