The UN has decided that no genocide took place in Darfur.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-02-01 07:58pm

Linka

U.N. Panel Finds No Genocide in Darfur but Urges Tribunals

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A01

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 31 -- A U.N. commission investigating atrocities in Sudan has concluded that the government did not pursue a policy of genocide in the Darfur region but that Khartoum and government-sponsored Arab militias known as the Janjaweed engaged in "widespread and systematic" abuse that may constitute crimes against humanity.

The five-member U.N. commission of inquiry "strongly recommends" that the U.N. Security Council invite the International Criminal Court to pursue a war crimes prosecution against those suspected of the worst abuse. The Sudanese justice system, it concluded, "is unable or unwilling" to address the situation in Darfur.

The 177-page report documents a concerted campaign of violence directed primarily at Darfur's black African Fur, Masalit, Jebel, Aranga and Zaghawa tribes. Since the violence began in early February 2003, more than 70,000 people have died from violence and resulting disease, and more than 1.8 million have been driven from their homes.

The commission's work is the most extensive international effort yet to document the atrocities in Darfur and to analyze their legal implications. In doing so, the commission was more cautious on the question of whether the violence amounted to genocide, the position taken by former U.S. secretary of state Colin L. Powell.

Nevertheless, the commission set the stage Monday for international war crimes prosecutions, charging the government and the Janjaweed of engaging in violence that included murder, torture, kidnapping, rape, forced displacement and the destruction of villages.

Senior U.S. officials said the commission's findings were serious enough to prosecute rights abusers as war criminals, despite the panel's decision not to declare that genocide had occurred. A finding of genocide -- an attempt to systematically destroy a nation or ethnic group -- would have been considered a more powerful and symbolic statement, experts said, but its practical and legal impact would not have been significantly different from the commission's finding of possible crimes against humanity.

"Our interest here is accountability for the perpetrators of the atrocities, and there are obviously various ways that can be achieved," said Anne W. Patterson, acting U.S. representative to the United Nations.

The report's author, Antonio Cassese of Italy, said the commission placed the names of suspected war criminals, and the supporting evidence of their crimes, in a sealed file that will be presented to a future prosecutor.

The report's long-anticipated release precedes what many expect will be an intensified political battle in the Security Council over how to pursue such prosecution.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and European governments on the council want the International Criminal Court, based in The Hague, to oversee prosecution of Sudan's alleged war criminals. "This is a case which is tailor-made for the ICC," said Emyr Jones Parry, Britain's U.N. ambassador.

But the United States opposes the ICC and wants to create a new African court to handle the prosecutions. The Bush administration refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC out of concern that U.S. citizens could be subject to politically motivated charges before it.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes, has cautioned European supporters of the ICC not to force the Bush administration into a "thumbs-up or thumbs-down" vote in the council on an ICC prosecution.

Instead, he sought to rally support for a new tribunal in Tanzania that would be headed by the African Union and supported by the United Nations.

Stuart Holliday, the U.S. representative to the United Nations for special political affairs, said: "We're still in the process of discussing a variety of options, including with our African colleagues."

The violence in Darfur began in February 2003, when rebels from the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement took up arms against the government. Khartoum organized and equipped the Arab militias known as the Janjaweed, which participated in a counterinsurgency campaign aimed at expelling many of the region's black tribes.

Khidir Haroun Ahmed, Sudan's ambassador to the United States, did not respond to a request to comment Monday before the report's release. But the Sudanese government has long denied that it has targeted civilians as part of its military campaign against the rebels.

The U.N. commission's report said a court could still determine that government officials or militia leaders did commit acts "with genocidal intent." But the panel found that "the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing" from policy pursued by the government. "Generally speaking," it said, "the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds."

That, however, should not "detract from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated" in Darfur, the report said, adding that they may be "no less serious and heinous than genocide."

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-02-01 08:17pm

well, on the bright side, it's good to see Mohammad Sayeed Al-Sayif found work.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-02-01 10:34pm

This is an excellent place for that Euro Military to step in. But they didn't,
and let lots of people die, because if they intervened in Sudan, then by god,
they would have tactictly endorsed the US position on Iraq.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-02-01 10:43pm

Senior U.S. officials said the commission's findings were serious enough to prosecute rights abusers as war criminals, despite the panel's decision not to declare that genocide had occurred. A finding of genocide -- an attempt to systematically destroy a nation or ethnic group -- would have been considered a more powerful and symbolic statement, experts said, but its practical and legal impact would not have been significantly different from the commission's finding of possible crimes against humanity.

Anybody who is a legal hawk, how much of this is bullshit? I've always thought that the UN declaring anything as genocide would be a legally binding act forcing its members to intervene. Is there anything in the charter which specifically binds its members legally to intervene once the word "genocide" is used?

Brian

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2005-02-01 10:59pm

MKSheppard wrote:This is an excellent place for that Euro Military to step in. But they didn't,
and let lots of people die, because if they intervened in Sudan, then by god,
they would have tactictly endorsed the US position on Iraq.

Hush now. Everything we do is wrong, but that doesn't mean anyone else should do anything themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice though? To look at a newspaper and see "International crisis breaks out, Europe handles it, US says nice work, rolls over and goes back to sleep."

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2005-02-02 04:32am

LordShaithis wrote: Hush now. Everything we do is wrong, but that doesn't mean anyone else should do anything themselves.

Wouldn't it be nice though? To look at a newspaper and see "International crisis breaks out, Europe handles it, US says nice work, rolls over and goes back to sleep."

First:
Europe can not handle anything, there is no european military in place. (thanks partially to the obstructing of the US)
Second:
Ivory coast, for example ?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2005-02-02 05:22am

Hardly surprising, if there had been a Genocide the UN would have been either forced to act or explain why it failed yet again to do something. It is much easier to declare a no-genocide and bury the issue in an investigation until the Sudanese are through with Darfur.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-02-02 06:52am

CJvR wrote:Hardly surprising, if there had been a Genocide the UN would have been either forced to act or explain why it failed yet again to do something. It is much easier to declare a no-genocide and bury the issue in an investigation until the Sudanese are through with Darfur.

Precisely. Yet another example of how toothless the U.N. is.

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-02-02 09:07am

Ah, look at the wittle UN and its furious bullshit.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2005-02-02 01:15pm

Thinkmarble wrote:Europe can not handle anything, there is no european military in place. (thanks partially to the obstructing of the US)

Actually, I've heard that Darfur would have been an excellent place for the
European militaries, Germany, etc etc to get blooded, their opponents had
no heavy weapons, and there was no landmine threat.

Ivory coast, for example ?

You mean the French trying to keep control of their former colonies
as part of the informal french colonial empire which exists to this
day?

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-02 05:13pm

CJvR wrote:Hardly surprising, if there had been a Genocide the UN would have been either forced to act or explain why it failed yet again to do something. It is much easier to declare a no-genocide and bury the issue in an investigation until the Sudanese are through with Darfur.

Because prior to this the UN HAD NOT deemd Darfur to be genocide, but the US State Department had (and stated as much in press conferences) and what did they do about it besides squat, fucking and diddly?

Look at who cried wolf first, before you say who should be strung up.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-02 07:35pm

Europe can not handle anything, there is no european military in place. (thanks partially to the obstructing of the US)

Please you honestly expect us to beleive that because Europe doesn't have a unified millitary you couldn't cobble togethor an alliance from seperate and distinct forces and use such a force to stop the Sudanese? It worked twice against the Germans, I find it remarkedly stupid to say that it couldn't be done against a pissant state like Sudan.

Look at who cried wolf first, before you say who should be strung up.

Right, America has forces in Iraq, Afhgnanistan, and Haiti. Pluse forces in bases that the host countries are pleading not to have reassigned.

Even assuming the American bodies were to be had, do we really want to paint a giant bloody bullseye on Darfur and ask all the African Jihadis to come dick them over the Darfuris while fighting the Great Satan?

Whatever the hell you want to call it, Darfur makes Kossovo look downright peaceful and harmonious. The question is would an American troop presence actually help the situation or simply inflame dumbasses all over Africa to come fight the Americans?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-02-02 07:42pm

Most people in Africa are too busy fighting amongst themselves, they only usually attack peacekeeping forces if the opportunity arises.

This is still bullshit though, the UN has spent fuck knows how long arguing semantics of whether the current shithole fits a given definition of 'genocide', and doesn't seem inclined to do thing one about the real problem.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-03 01:33am

tharkûn wrote:snip

Thanks for so skillfully dodging my point - which was that the UN hadn't deemed Darfur to be genocide, but the US had... And now who's bitching about nothing happening?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-02-03 04:31am

tharkûn wrote:Please you honestly expect us to beleive that because Europe doesn't have a unified millitary you couldn't cobble togethor an alliance from seperate and distinct forces and use such a force to stop the Sudanese? It worked twice against the Germans, I find it remarkedly stupid to say that it couldn't be done against a pissant state like Sudan.

Please don't be an idiot. Washington has done everything short of military blockade to stop Europeans from developing any kind of indipendant capability. Outside of the UK (with the possible exception of France) no one in the EU (which we are calling 'Europe' in the context of this thread) has a force projection capability. And any talk of aquiring it has been met with vehement reaction from Washington. Tell me you didn't notice the exchange over the EU's 60,000 'Rapid' Reaction Force? Washington practically went ballistic.

Then on the other hand, we have Washington Hawks who enjoy nothing more but to bitch about how the 'Euros' don't pull enough of the weight. Puh-lease.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2005-02-03 04:42am

Then on the other hand, we have Washington Hawks who enjoy nothing more but to bitch about how the 'Euros' don't pull enough of the weight. Puh-lease.

The fundemental disconnect between realist political agendas and conservative rhetoric is amusing, to say the least.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-03 11:08am

Washington has done everything short of military blockade to stop Europeans from developing any kind of indipendant capability. Outside of the UK (with the possible exception of France) no one in the EU (which we are calling 'Europe' in the context of this thread) has a force projection capability. And any talk of aquiring it has been met with vehement reaction from Washington. Tell me you didn't notice the exchange over the EU's 60,000 'Rapid' Reaction Force? Washington practically went ballistic.

Washington doesn't wanted a unified European Military that reassigns NATO military assets to a seperate, duplicate force. Seriously want part of the 'Rapid Reaction Force' wasn't going to be canabilized from NATO? Yes I know Europe has piss all for force projection capability, that would be because for years defense budgets haven't done squat to acquire it. But we are talking about invading decently armed state here, this is Sudan. What assets would Europe need that Europe doesn't have?

Then on the other hand, we have Washington Hawks who enjoy nothing more but to bitch about how the 'Euros' don't pull enough of the weight. Puh-lease.

Washington hawks look at European budgets, note the exceedingly low (by American standards) percentage going towards defense, and want Europe to actually put more resources into defense. Rumsfield is pushing the Nato Response Force because it doesn't double hat units like the ERRF, lends itself to less duplication, and seems to have more real world value than the light conflict capabilities the ERRF is egineered to have.

Virtually every conservative hawk wouldn't have a problem with the ERRF if it was totally new military capabilities and neither major funding nor substantial assets were sacrficed to make it happen.

Thanks for so skillfully dodging my point - which was that the UN hadn't deemed Darfur to be genocide, but the US had... And now who's bitching about nothing happening?

I see and the point that US intervention would likely make the situation worse is dodging how? What exactly is you beleive the US should do?

Frankly I have every suspiscion this is a cath 22. Go in and the world talks about imperialism, massive collataral casualties, and the idioacy of bringing foreign Jihadis into the conflict. Stay out and the world talks about bitching while doing nothing.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-02-03 11:51am

tharkûn wrote:Washington doesn't wanted a unified European Military that reassigns NATO military assets to a seperate, duplicate force. Seriously want part of the 'Rapid Reaction Force' wasn't going to be canabilized from NATO? Yes I know Europe has piss all for force projection capability, that would be because for years defense budgets haven't done squat to acquire it. But we are talking about invading decently armed state here, this is Sudan. What assets would Europe need that Europe doesn't have?

Dude they couldn't even move into the Balkans ... we're talking about a land bridge here, and you expect them to be able to sail around to the horn of Africa, deploy their troops and support them for an extended period and resupply them .... HHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Sorry, pretty rude of me to laugh.

Most of Europes armies are strictly defensive, and most of them are conscript, not exactly the best troops to deploy outside of one's boarders no?

And since you brought it up; why can't Europe have a 'R'RF (I enphaisise 'rapid' because the one we got aint rapid anything) outside of NATO? You want Europe to do this remember; not NATO. This was the exact situation for the E'R'RF; to get involved in situations where the UN wasn't there and where NATO wouldn't go, and Washington spent all the political capital they could to make sure the EU wouldn't have this capability.

Washington hawks look at European budgets, note the exceedingly low (by American standards) percentage going towards defense, and want Europe to actually put more resources into defense.

The EU spends 60% of the cash on their militaries that the US does on its, but only has 10% of the capability; because they spend it disjointedly, which you know kinda makes sense when you have 15 (25 now, but the quote is from Romano Prodi on a BBC interview when it was just the 15) different militaries. Now if the EU were to pool its spending it would have more capabilites, but the US hawks don't want that. Why? Because;

Rumsfield is pushing the Nato Response Force because it doesn't double hat units like the ERRF, lends itself to less duplication, and seems to have more real world value than the light conflict capabilities the ERRF is egineered to have.

Ahh, NATO

Virtually every conservative hawk wouldn't have a problem with the ERRF if it was totally new military capabilities and neither major funding nor substantial assets were sacrficed to make it happen.

NATO has its problems; namely it is made up by a bunch of coutries and it has to be put to a vote as to whether or not its resources are put to use. Guess who's in NATO? And provides the bulk (let us not go too far and say all) of the force projection capability? If you answered 'the US' to both of the questions you'd be right.

But this discussion is about Europe not NATO, remember? You know, Europe doing its own thing and not having the US to either force it or block it.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-03 08:35pm

Dude they couldn't even move into the Balkans ... we're talking about a land bridge here, and you expect them to be able to sail around to the horn of Africa, deploy their troops and support them for an extended period and resupply them .... HHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

It is more a matter of wouldn't rather than couldn't. The Brits and the French have sent forces on far flung missions and supported their troops there, the problems in the Balkans were more a matter of diplomatic will than logistical impediments.

Most of Europes armies are strictly defensive, and most of them are conscript, not exactly the best troops to deploy outside of one's boarders no?

It depends on why and under what conditions you are deploying conscripts. The truth is if Europe wants a volunteer army it need only pay for one.

And since you brought it up; why can't Europe have a 'R'RF (I enphaisise 'rapid' because the one we got aint rapid anything) outside of NATO? You want Europe to do this remember; not NATO. This was the exact situation for the E'R'RF; to get involved in situations where the UN wasn't there and where NATO wouldn't go, and Washington spent all the political capital they could to make sure the EU wouldn't have this capability.

Washington doesn't want a ERRF that canabilizes NATO assets. If the ERRF is nothing more than taking existing military assest, slapping on a new label, and running it with a NATO-like command structure ... what the hell is the point?

The EU spends 60% of the cash on their militaries that the US does on its, but only has 10% of the capability; because they spend it disjointedly, which you know kinda makes sense when you have 15 (25 now, but the quote is from Romano Prodi on a BBC interview when it was just the 15) different militaries. Now if the EU were to pool its spending it would have more capabilites, but the US hawks don't want that. Why? Because;

Yes we all know how well the Eurofighter 2000 ... err just Eurofighter turned out when you had different governments pooling spending. Pooling the money is only going to work when you have common defense priorities and you aren't subject to individual governments retaining the power of the purse.

Washington doesn't like the ERRF because virtually all of its assets come out of NATO assets; if Washington saw an ERRF formed without double hatting or canibalizing Washington wouldn't take it so hard. When all you are doing is retagging the door plates, why on earth would Washington support cutting itself out of the loop?

But this discussion is about Europe not NATO, remember? You know, Europe doing its own thing and not having the US to either force it or block it.

The point is there is absolutely nothing that prevents the formation of an ad hoc alliance of European states to deal with Sudan, much as an ad hoc alliance of states went into Iraq. For all your talk of 60% the EU is spending 1/3rd as much per capita and even in terms of GDP Europe carries a lower defense budget.

I see absolutely zero reason why a common military is a prequisite for independent military intervention. If Germany, Denmark, Spain, and France thought the situation Darfur required military intervention, why in hell couldn't they do so as an ad hoc alliance of independent sovreign nations?

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-03 10:32pm

tharkûn wrote:
Thanks for so skillfully dodging my point - which was that the UN hadn't deemed Darfur to be genocide, but the US had... And now who's bitching about nothing happening?
I see and the point that US intervention would likely make the situation worse is dodging how? What exactly is you beleive the US should do?

Frankly I have every suspiscion this is a cath 22. Go in and the world talks about imperialism, massive collataral casualties, and the idioacy of bringing foreign Jihadis into the conflict. Stay out and the world talks about bitching while doing nothing.

By calling it genocide and then NOT DOING ANYTHING CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE MATTER, the US has fundamentally eroded the power of the genocide acts and their requisite enforcement.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-03 10:36pm

By calling it genocide and then NOT DOING ANYTHING CONTRARY TO INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE MATTER, the US has fundamentally eroded the power of the genocide acts and their requisite enforcement.

Right so if Iceland calls it genocide they automatically erode the genocide acts?

What exactly are the obligations inherent to the "requisite enforcement" of the genocide acts.

In other words:
What exactly is it you beleive the US should do?

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-03 10:47pm

tharkûn wrote:
Right so if Iceland calls it genocide they automatically erode the genocide acts?

Sure - if they don't do anything about. But then again Iceland don't walk around calling themselves the "Bastion of Democracy" and "The World's Policeman"

What exactly are the obligations inherent to the "requisite enforcement" of the genocide acts.

A copy of the convention

In other words:
What exactly is it you beleive the US should do?

[quote="UN Convention on Genocide]Article 8
Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.[/quote]

The US having called it genocide, should have undertaken action either themselves or within the UN to ensure that action in line with the convention was undertaken, not just provided a "we care" soundbite for C-SPAN.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-04 09:23pm

Sure - if they don't do anything about. But then again Iceland don't walk around calling themselves the "Bastion of Democracy" and "The World's Policeman"

Iceland has no standing military and as far as I know neither diplomatic nor trade ties with Sudan.

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3.

Sending in US military and making the center of African Jihad against the great Satan would not rank all that "appropriate" on my list. The goal here is to quell the violence and killing, not to ask every African Muslim fanatic to come pick a fight with the US.

The US having called it genocide, should have undertaken action either themselves or within the UN to ensure that action in line with the convention was undertaken, not just provided a "we care" soundbite for C-SPAN.

In other words rather than give a specific answer you plan to BS about vague "action in line with the convention". Do you think it is obligatory for the US to intervene militarily? Special forces, occupation, or air strikes?

Assuming US military action won't alleviate the 'genocide' what is appropriate action? Lobbying the UN to call it genocide? Supporting a blue hat peacekeeping force? Putting up a trade embargo? Cutting diplomatic relations?

Some of the above has already been done. Frankly either come up with some specific action the US should have done, but failed to do, or be honest and admit you have piss all to rant about.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-02-04 09:44pm

tharkûn wrote: In other words rather than give a specific answer you plan to BS about vague "action in line with the convention". Do you think it is obligatory for the US to intervene militarily? Special forces, occupation, or air strikes?

Assuming US military action won't alleviate the 'genocide' what is appropriate action? Lobbying the UN to call it genocide? Supporting a blue hat peacekeeping force? Putting up a trade embargo? Cutting diplomatic relations?

Some of the above has already been done. Frankly either come up with some specific action the US should have done, but failed to do, or be honest and admit you have piss all to rant about.

How about you shove your head where you think the sun shines from before you open your festering herpes-riddled pie-hole again cockhead...

The US said that genocide was taking place and then DID NOTHING, not even attempt to rally support in the UN for a UN declaration of genocide. I don't want US bombs dropping but I don't want the US to be the boy who cried wolf either...

So, what do I think should have been done - SOMETHING, I don't dictate US policy, but I can confidently say that something SHOULD have been done even if it was purely diplomatic at that point. Genocide is something that riles up the masses and for Dick Cheney to be standing around Auschwitz waving his dick in the wind and prattling on about genocide in the past while the nation he represents does NOTHING about something that they've called genocide now - then something is fucking wrong - and if you can't see that then your head is already firmly jammed up where you think the sun shines forth from.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2005-02-04 10:09pm

So, what do I think should have been done - SOMETHING

Again either state something specific or admit you have piss all to rant about.

I don't dictate US policy, but I can confidently say that something SHOULD have been done even if it was purely diplomatic at that point.

What? There is already a frikking embargo and there was even legislation to hammer multinationals who try to skirt it. This America, land of Coca Cola, Microsoft, and McDonalds - embargo is the last resort of the diplomatic playbook, beyond that you start calling in the CIA, USN, or USMC.

Essentially your entire rant is that the US didn't leverage the UN hard enough. Nevermind the fact that any hardball negotiate would be by necessity confidential. Nevermind that six members of the House specifically lobbied for it in Chad. Nevermind that having the frikking secretary state go on record that is genocide IS lobbying.

Nooo because the US didn't grandstand while lobbying in the UN, they must be negligent. And of course it is more reprenhensible to correctly identify the problem and be unable to do anything about that to deny it exists to CYA.