Daily Darfur: The Cost of Looking the Other Way

The US Holocaust Memorial Museum's Committee on Conscience announced yesterday that it is changing its categorization of conditions in Darfur from a "genocide emergency," which was first declared in July 2004, to a "genocide warning." The museum notes the controversy over the genocide designation in Sudan, but stands by its pervious assessment of the first years of the conflict, when the scale and character of the violence demanded the "highest level of alert."

The change, however, reflects expert analysis of the evolving nature of the conflict, now of a distinctly different character from the government's systematic military campaign against Darfuri civilians between 2003 and 2005. USHMM also notes, though, that the "situation across Sudan remains perilous," with millions of Darfuris stuck in displaced persons camps, unable to return home because of the security situation, and an alarming rise in violence in South Sudan.  "We also believe," the statement says, "that the Sudanese government must be held accountable for its past and current behavior."

This is good news. The fact that the Sudanese government halted its scorched earth policy in Darfur is cause for at least a sigh of relief, though its ongoing behavior in Sudan, which continues to imperil and abuse civilians and deprive them of basic rights, are still cause for alarm. Though it's a topic of debate and difficult to prove, I do find it likely that international attention played a role in stopping acts of genocide in Darfur --- and perhaps continues to play a role in keeping them at bay. Khartoum still gets away with a substantial array of nasty tricks throughout the country, but it could be doing worse. It could be bombing IDP camps

.

The change in designation, however, should not change our approach to Sudan. Just because acts of genocide have largely ceased is not a reason to divert our attention, nor is it reason to give the perpetrators a pass. Just because the perpetrators of the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide eventually stopped killing did not mean that we said "let bygones be bygones" --- the international community sought to hold them to account for their egregious crimes. The fact that the government in Khartoum is responsible for genocide should factor heavily into international dealings with the government, and attempts to secure peace in Darfur and beyond.

I find it difficult to imagine how a genocidal regime can transition into peace-loving proponents of democracy, and I find it even more difficult to imagine how a country's citizens can ever feel secure with such a government still in place. Bashir and the National Congress Party have used similar tactics throughout its 20-year rule, and have done little to convince anyone of their intent to change. (Except, perhaps, Scott Gration.) In its efforts to broker sustainable peace in Sudan, the international community should not forget exactly who is responsible for the majority of the outrageous violence across the country. The rebels have committed their fair share of atrocities, but they are by no means on equal footing with a regime responsible for genocide.

We can't force instant regime change in Sudan, but we can support efforts to hold individual perpetrators accountable for their acts. We've already seen, too many times, the cost of looking the other way.