Strangely enough, the U.N. refused to even apply the term “genocide” in their latest briefing, reports CNN:
The United States described the Sudanese Darfur campaign as “genocide,” but the United Nations has shied away from using the term, which compels specific reactions under international law.
Genocide is legally defined by international conventions as the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
Annan said on Sunday that “gross violations of human rights” had occurred in Darfur and recommended the Security Council consider sanctions on the oil-exporting country.
Western powers argued for imposing sanctions on Khartoum last year, but opposition by China, which has oil interests in Sudan, and Russia, which supplies arms, blocked the motion.
The United States is considering a new U.N. resolution that would impose an arms embargo and sanctions against those responsible for gross human rights abuses.
Ismail said “sanctions will not help Darfur.”
Other than the semantic squeamishness, I’m shocked by the relative nonchalance with which Annan seems to have approached the issue.
This has been going on for how long, and we’re just now getting around to THINKING about POSSIBLY applying SOME economic sanctions?
In all seriousness, these men need to attend a screening of Hotel Rwanda. Still comfortable with isolationism?
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.