In The Name of Genocide and Its Horror

For my Political Science 325 class I wrote a brief paper on the theme of genocide and of course its horror. The basis of my paper was to highlight the actual concept of "genocide"--which I will use quotes for the moment--and the creators possible intention of the word. My theory, came from Raphael Lemkin, who used the Greek word genos meaning clan, group, etc and the Latin cide meaning to kill. In Lemkin's papers, I concluded that the actual term is not what the UN General Assembly gave it in the convention on the prevention of genocide; in fact, the term itself calls for the near annihilation of said group. My paper discussed these issues, yet for the purpose of this article, I am now goind to redirect it in a different manner.

In my POL352, we were asked to in about 45 minutes to come up with a plan on intervening in the Darfur region. At first, the group I was in contemplated the UN coalition Ideal, or the UNCI as I will call it. After a brief recap on the Darfur "crisis", we concluded that the UNCI could not be attained due to the Chinese and Russian opposition to intervention. With this background, we followed the USCI, the United State's Coalition Ideal where we discussed it in terms of an American political standpoint. During this discussion, a member stated that the Darfur region could not be classified as a genocide per the reason that both the rebels and the Sudanese Government was committing these acts.

Normally, in this instance all of us would be rallying for his humiliation. Yet, this member may have a point of inquiry. At what point do we conclude that state's right of sovereignty is accepted and we could not intervene? In this case, both sides are committing the "genocidal" acts; yet, is it certainly "genocidal" or even "genocide?" According to the Bush Administration it is a genocide and that we are obligated to protect the innocent victims by certain rules of intervention and by the UN Convention on Genocide. Notwithstanding, we have an "obligation" to stop or deter the Sudanese government or other actors from continuing. The real question is whether or not there is any classifiable difference to acts of war that mingle with elements of genocide. Is genocide, in its used term now, only classifiable for a single group and not for a multi-clash of others? This is the primary and of course a secondary question we must ask ourselves. War in its own is horrible yes; inevitable? In some cases a good rationale could conclude so. In this case now? Maybe.

So how do we now classify it? I'm not sure a considerable argument could be conclusively be met to understand the issues of sovereignty--the linchpin of all international law and recognition of states as dealing with their own domestic issues without interference from other powers, small or large.

What thoughts are there for your consideration to classify Darfur as a "genocide" or "civil-war"? Could you make a good distinction from the facts above in 45 minutes to make a good plan and option?