A squabble over semantics is leaving Darfuris in the lurch
Guest Room | Amy Pearlman ’09
For the first time, Colin Powell called the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan a genocide. The date was Sept. 9, 2004. Powell’s statement, corroborated by President Bush a year later in June 2005, broke with the U.N. and the international community, who continue to avoid using the term. The leadership role the United States had apparently taken was seen as a momentous victory for anti-genocide activists calling attention to Darfur. You could almost hear a communal sigh of relief from the Darfuris in refugee camps scattered across Sudan and in neighboring Chad as they anticipated that the largest power in the world was coming to save the day. Unfortunately, armed intervention — the action theoretically mandated by the term “genocide” — did not come. What happened instead was an exhausting debate over whether or not the word “genocide” had been used appropriately. The semantics distracted the world’s able political leaders from the facts on the ground. Meanwhile, the systematic killings of the “non-Arab,” disenfranchised citizens of Darfur continued by the “Arab” government militia, the Janjaweed. Both groups, “Arab” and “non-Arab” are Muslim, don’t forget. Instead of inspiring full-force intervention and protection, the U.S. use of the term “genocide” acted as a substitute for any action at all, according to Samantha Power in the documentary Sand and Sorrow,
Three years later, the debate continues: genocide or not genocide? So I’m going pose a different question to you, the concerned citizens of Cornell and this nation: Does the definition of the word really matter? Who cares about technicalities, semantics and minute details when the facts speak for themselves that action is warranted?
2.5 million Displaced. 400,000 Dead. Unknown Numbers Raped. Countless Starved, Malnourished, Diseased in the confines of the inhumane refugee camps.
I’m tired of hearing people ponder over the legitimacy of calling Darfur a “genocide.” By not invoking the word, are we morally absolved from inaction? Does that blurry, ambiguous line that separates true genocide from ethnic cleansing and other humanitarian crises separate necessary action from action-if-we-feel-like-it? Countless times Darfur has been called one of the worst humanitarian crises in our time. Our time — yours and mine. We are facing the same hatred, violence, and devaluation of human life that occurred 60 years ago during out parents’ and grandparents’ time. Have we not learned the lesson of “Never Again?” Our actions are the only answer.
I say “we” because I am calling upon those of us — the young, active, dedicated people — to be the ones to take up the cause. The cause of Darfur, yes, but also the cause of human life. I know that we are divided in interests, passions and careers goals, but I believe we can be unified as a community around the prevention of senseless death. The Darfur crisis is tremendously complex and there are many forces intertwined tying the hands of leaders and organizations. But our hands aren’t tied. When it comes down to the decision of taking action or not, the only issue that we should be considering is the value of human life, not the definition of a word. Life is in the balance. Any time wasted is life lost.
Yes, there are political and economic concerns that need to be addressed. I believe in a responsible, well thought-out internationally synthesized resolution. Our generation cannot afford silence any longer because in 60 years we will regret our entire lives if we look back and realize we did nothing when something was needed.
I write this column on the backdrop of significant dialogue, both here at Cornell and all over the world, addressing the issue of Darfur and the international community’s responsibility in ending ethnic conflicts. With the upcoming Olympics in Beijing, we are presented with a tremendous opportunity to confront the tacit role of China and the rest of the world in allowing the conflict to continue. China is the world’s biggest supporter of the Sudanese government. It purchases more than 70 percent of Sudan’s global exports, primarily oil, and keeps the African country’s struggling economy afloat. By using its veto power in the United Nations, China is able to protect Sudan diplomatically. More than economic ties, China also provides many of the weapons being used to execute the genocide. This support allows the Sudanese government to continue to systematically murder, rape and dislocate the people of Darfur.
A campaign led by Dream for Darfur, an anti-genocide organization, has galvanized activists to use the Olympics as a way of igniting dialogue and action. The purpose of the campaign is not a hapless boycott of the Olympics or a condemnation of the Chinese people, but rather a jumping-off point to confront the international community’s complicity in the genocide. The high ideals and morals represented by the Olympics—fairness, sportsmanship, honor, justice — become completely compromised in the context of the current human rights violations in Darfur and in China’s own borders.
The issues that arise in even beginning to think about the Darfur conflict, a conflict that has leaked out of the confines of Sudan and permeated every continent of this world, are important to think about and discuss intelligently. But hiding behind the definition of a word undermines the legitimacy of our international “community.” I urge you all take the time to learn more and face the hard facts. Time is of the essence. The feats of our generation will only have meaning if we can look upon our contributions to society and the world without regretting our tacit allowance of needless human suffering. Let us put aside the semantics of “genocide’s” definition and, instead, unite around the value of human life.
Amy Pearlman is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is president of Cornell Hillel and STARS, the genocide awareness group. She can be contacted at arp44@cornell.edu [1]. To learn more, check out savedarfur.org. Guest Room appears periodically.
Links:
[1] mailto:arp44@cornell.edu