BBC

So why stop short of calling it genocide when 70,000 people are massacred and 2 million more displaced?

Simple. Call it genocide, and the United States is forced to act. This way, the US might (might not) act, but they aren't forced to.

So, what in your mind consitutes geoncide? How many, or even according to the UN, how many must die before we are forced to act?

I would say genocide is systematic violence on the part of a power-wielding entity (i.e. government) against unarmed civilians who are not seeking to overthrow.

Are you serious? The US has been one of the few nations pushing for the UN to actually do something about the Darfur crisis, without which we wouldn't have even gotten this far. The genocide label (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with the United States, it's the UN getting bogged down in petty procedures again.

Actually, they may have a point, since they're using a very technical definition of genocide (mass murder for religious or ethnic reasons), thus far they're only labeling it "crimes against humanity".

I would disagree with you when you state it wouldn't have gotten this far, but after it happened the US was pushing for limited aid and looking into it. However, they, along with most of the UN, do not wish to be bogged down. While I do not blame the US for this at all, no, I am rather pleased that they are making some effort to help, it's one of the reasons why its not labeled.

Not just the US, many nations are forced to aid.

And as for your definition psycholopher:
"The commission found that [Sudan's] government forces and militias conducted indiscriminate attacks," the report by the five-member commission said.

It said those included "killing of civilians, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur".

Rather fits it does it not?

yep.

and actually,

BBC

I guess it's starting to spill over into other countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_...arfur_spillover

The Darfur crisis is, like most situations difficult to lump under one specific label. I would say there is a genocide going on, but there's also a civil war, and an international conflict. The reason why I'm uneasy about coming right out and demanding US intervention in the case of genocide is there's alot of local history that's being marshalled into a grand US/Israeli narrative, especially with the advent of the "war on terrorism", meant to destabilize Khartoum and gain access to Sudan's oil. Now while China and Russia are already partaking in the oil, the US's also doing the same albeit in neighbouring countries. If the US is currently supporting dictators all around Sudan- such as Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia, Idriss Deby in Chad, and Yoweri Museveni in Uganda- I highly doubt the State Department's rhetoric about stopping ethnic cleansing and genocide when the same's going on in other countries and has received official US backing.

Currently in the Congo MILLIONS of people have died as a result of US-backed destabilization by Rwandan and Ugandan forces (along with other local proxies), but you don't really hear much about that. Now while I'm sure Khartoum is arming the janjawid and using its airpower to massacre civilians in Darfur, we have to seriously ask what intervention by say, the US, would entail. I'm not going to assume too much about the various State Department bureaucrats and their intentions, but I can say that when the US has intervened in Africa, almost 99% of the time it's been for the worse.

As I've already pointed out, the US has given significant military training to Ethiopian, Ugandan and Rwandan forces which are all complicit either in carrying out ethnic cleansing in their own countries or in others, such as Ethiopia and the ethnic cleansing of the Anuak and Nuer peoples in the Gambella region. Sudan's Darfur crisis is very much embedded in local histories, especially concerning conflicts between sedentary farmers and herdspeople over water resources (and oil when it comes to the federal/national level), but there's a real danger now that the US is becoming involved because this is giving legitimacy to dictators next door to carry out their own forms of ethnic cleansing. This is also an international battle between the US, China and other countries over control of oil resources, something we must never forget. If we truly want to end our own complicity with the crimes happening in Darfur we must call an end to US support for all dictators in the region so that a genuine political process might begin to end the conflict. It won't end by sending peacekeepers, I can say that much.