Darfur: Blueprint for Genocide - Archipielago Libertad

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
International law allows wide scope for preventing genocide. There are huge moral and political obligations to do so.
The United Nations Genocide Convention (1948) sets a clear legal framework enabling prevention. Resolve and action to
prev ent depend, however, on the politicalw ill to do so.
The presence of an exclusionary ideology (usually meaning institutionalised or organised racism) helps to differentiate
a genocidal situation from a two-sided conflict. Genocide is organised violence on a massive scale, but it is more akin to
ex treme racism than ex tremeconflict.
Exclusionary ideology sets the scene for future genocide. It justifies in the mind of a dominant group extreme measures
that can be taken against the perceived inferior and vulnerable group. What matters in a genocidal situation is how a
dominant group perceives both itself and the vulnerable group. Perpetrators of genocide do not invent the identity of
groups, but they are obsessedwith identify . They augment it, simplify it andcreate an enemy.
Darfur is suffering the outcomes of ethnic and tribal conflict, power struggles and competition for land. In recent decades,
how ever, an exclusionary ideology has driven policies of the current and previous Government of Sudan (GoS) 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 Gathering,
ideas congruent w ith those of central government in Khartoum. (Arab Gathering documents which as yet Aegis has not
been able to authenticate are presented in the Appendices. How ever, we believe it is likely that these are genuine
documents and regard it as important that they are seen.) Since the emergence of these ideas in a letter addressed to the
Sudanese Prime Minister in 1987 (See Appendix D), v iolence against Africans in Western Sudan has increased and
becomemore organised.
In Darfur, despite the complexity of ethnicity that ex ists, Arab supremacists are now promoting the words ‘Zurga’ (nigger)
and ‘Abid’ (slav e), drawing on stereoty pes and discrimination of the past where an ‘African’ identity was regarded as being
synonymous with slav e.
When civilians are being systematically targeted during a crisis and an exclusionary ideology exists, recognising the
genocidal threat is more important than defining a situation as genocide. In such a situation, the crimes being committed
may be referred to as crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing or genocide. Such instances should be described as
genocidal regardless of whether a consensus is reached about whether it is genocide or not. The political and moral
obligations to prevent are as strongwhen genocide is threatened, as when it is agreed that it is happening. Indeed by the
time the situation is defined, it may be too late to prevent. So the term genocidal may be used to indicate a risk
assessment, not provide a legal conclusion.
The term genocidal should signify a change in the priorities in the management of the crisis. In such a situation, security
for those at risk must be regarded as much a priority as providing humanitarian aid and achieving political settlement. In a
genocidal situation, compromisingsecurity in fav our of peace-talks may cost lives.
In Darfur either the GoS was actively supporting the Janjaweed or it had lost control of them. Both scenarios demanded
outside help. The InternationalCommission for Interv ention and State Sov ereignty concluded in 2001 that w hen sovereign
states are unwilling or unable to protect their own citizens, the responsibility must be borne by the broader community of
states. Yet it was the Government of Sudan that w as asked by the United Nations (UN) to provide protection for the
vulnerable. Attacks on internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in November by Sudanese security forces demonstrate
that the need forsecurity is as pressing as ever.
vii