TALKING POINT: What makes genocide?

By Katherine Arie

LONDON, Feb 2, 2005 (Reuters) – A United Nations commission has ruled that the atrocities committed by the Sudanese government and government-backed Arab militia in Sudan’s Darfur region does not amount to genocide, surprising human rights groups and political leaders worldwide.

In July 2004 the United States took the lead in describing the violence in Darfur region as genocide and urged the world to respond.

Rights groups concurred, encouraging the international community to use the g-word in condemning attacks on villagers that have displaced a million people and killed as many as 70,000.

But Sudan rejected Washington’s declaration as political posturing, and several U.N. Security Council members raised objections. Genocide, they said, was too strong a charge.

Why all the quibbling over a single word? Why does it matter?

First, politicians and human rights experts alike agree the term shouldn’t be bandied about without care. Genocide is as serious a war crime as they come, and using the term indiscriminately undermines the seriousness of the charge.

Second, no one wants to cry wolf.

It is legitimate to ask whether a situation like Darfur, with its mass killing and displacement of tens of thousands of villagers, compares to previous genocides like the Holocaust and Rwanda.

But however terrible the situation in Darfur, fewer people have been killed and fewer are expected to die than in undisputed genocides in the past.

Finally, where political responsibility is concerned, states may be reluctant to live up to their obligations.

As soon as a situation is officially labeled genocide, countries that have ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, are bound to intervene and take action to punish the perpetrators.

ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION

Trouble is, the legal definition is anything but clear-cut.

According to the fine print, genocide is the intent to destroy a people because of their religion, race or ethnicity — and the act of doing it.

That already leaves plenty of room for interpretation. But the definition also includes causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions designed to cause physical destruction, preventing births or forcibly transferring children.

The mere attempt to commit genocide is punishable under the convention, as is conspiracy to commit genocide, incitement to genocide and complicity in genocide. And punishment is to be meted out to leaders, public servants and private citizens.

In the case of Darfur, the situation is arguably far from obvious, especially where intent is concerned, according to the U.N.

The only thing for certain about Darfur is that the jury is no longer out.