Last Thursday, I cried with absurd joy when Secretary of State Colin Powell used the word genocide while testifying on Sudan in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. .A great deal of debate had preceded the event over whether or not he would say the "G" word, and discussion has followed since as to what the consequences of his word choice will be, if any.
Over the weekend, I have become less sentimental and increasingly perturbed over Powell's testimony. Sudan might have only entered my life this summer while playing a half-serious, half-comical game with a friend called "Worst Country in the World," but while I attempted valiantly to present a country more despotic and more purposefully violent toward its own citizens, I was eventually forced to admit defeat. And the disgusting state of Sudan's human rights record has been of great concern to me ever since. So why, I must ask, is the general public still passive and indifferent? Why was there so much debate over calling the violence in Darfur precisely what it is? Genocide. In my mind, it should not take the use of the "G" word alone to rally outrage at burning, pillaging, rape and mass murder. These acts, in their own right, should induce immediate responses from every citizen, every diplomat and every government. Otherwise, what can we pretend is "civilized" about a world where we tolerate such acts? I see neither civilization nor humanity in the deafening silence that has permeated the air in the media and the public just two days following Powell's declaration of genocide.
I am done waiting for the outcry. I have finally realized it will not come. Apparently not even saying genocide can make the world want to keep its promise of "never again." After all, we let Rwanda happen. Should Sudan surprise me that much? Maybe genocide just isn't sensational enough anymore for people to pay attention. Or maybe genocide only matters when the victims look like more than 14 percent of us (the approximate population of the United States that identifies as black). Maybe it only matters in a post-9/11 world when the victims are not Muslim, as many in Darfur are.
These are ugly speculations, yes. And perhaps I am trying to push some political, cultural and ethnic buttons. But if the answers to these speculations are really no, that genocide does still matter despite these factors, then that leaves an even more disturbing question to be answered: Why are we still silent?
Because there is plenty to say and plenty to be done. While there have been numerous diplomatic visits to Khartoum they have yielded no reward. The government has consistently been unresponsive to U.S. and U.N. demands for the disarmament of the militia believed to perpetrating the violence and complete humanitarian aid access. Khartoum has opened small aid routes, but "warned" the U.S. against imposing sanctions, and condemned the use of the word genocide.
How is such a regime to be reasoned with? Sanctions, which the U.N. is presently exploring, are a dubious effort at best, as they have rarely (if ever) met success, and a U.S. military intervention is out of the question with the military as overstretched as it is. Instead, perhaps a more pragmatic approach ought to be taken.
The African Union Commission (AUC) is eager to become a more effective entity both in Africa and in the international community. Its ambitions have not been met with sufficient resources though, and this is where both the U.N. and U.S. may be able to achieve a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Sudan. The AUC has already sent 300 troops to assist in the refugee crisis in Sudan, and Nigeria has independently pledged 1,500 troops to assist in peacekeeping. These troops, while small in number compared to the scale of the conflict, will undoubtedly be received more kindly than a U.S. or even U.N. force. Why doesn't the international community lend its support to those who are already helping? Chad, Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya have all played active roles in the refugee crisis, peace negotiations, and aid relief; why not give them the assistance they need to see the situation through?
No matter what, the silence must end. In no way should the US or any country waver in condemning the genocide in Sudan. And the inaction must cease, but running in headfirst, sanctions looming and armies of white soldiers close behind is not the answer. We need to seek answers elsewhere, and perhaps the AUC can be that elsewhere.
