The genocide in Darfur is complex, unclear, and yet unmistakably horrifying to study. The most recent conflict starting in 2003 display roots in colonization and conflicts dating back to the 1800s and range from ethnic tensions to differences in religion. The state of genocide in Darfur is ambiguous in that the United Nations and some countries disagree on whether the violence constitutes genocide or not, and whether there is “intent to destroy”. Perhaps most troubling of all is the Sudanese government’s reaction to and lack of cooperation with aid and attempted justice. THESIS SENTENCE The causes of the Darfur genocide are vast and include both long-term and short-term causes related to issues of colonization, religion, and natural causes.
…show more content…
The first time that religion became an issue for the region was in 1881 when Muhammad Ahmed ibn Abdallah staged a rebellion against the Egyptian army under the control of the British with the tribes who followed him. The tribes believed that he would bring an end to the slavery in the region. However, he forced many conversions to Islam. After the Berlin Conference, the North, mainly Muslims who spoke Arabic, were combined in one country with the South, who were mainly Christians who had been taught English by the British. In 1921, the British passed the Ordinance Act which prohibited travel in some areas and regulated migration between the north and south regions of the country. Consequently, the country was further separated. Additionally, desertification and famine created perfect conditions for civil war in the …show more content…
However, action later slowed because of disagreement over the conflict was really a genocide. On September 9, 2004, the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell was the first to refer to the ethnic cleansing in Darfur as genocide when he spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (World Without Genocide). The United States further took action when President George W. Bush asked for an increase to international troops to Darfur in February of 2006. Despite declaration of genocide by the United States and public outcry for action, the United Nations did not agree that the conflict constituted a genocide. In January 2005, an United Nations International Commission of Inquiry found that the conflict could not be called genocide because of they claimed there was lack of “intent to destroy” (Genocide in Darfur 132). The Commission based its decision on camps that the Sudanese government provided for Internally Displaced Persons and accounts of villages that had not been attacked. Progress slowed because of their determination. Samuel Totten and Eric Markusen compared the deliberation to bystanders during another obvious crime going; they said, “It is as though one man is clubbing another on a street corner while bystanders respond with a prolonged reflection on whether the incident is premeditated murder or simple assault or even self-defense. Meanwhile, the crime
The first time that religion became an issue for the region was in 1881 when Muhammad Ahmed ibn Abdallah staged a rebellion against the Egyptian army under the control of the British with the tribes who followed him. The tribes believed that he would bring an end to the slavery in the region. However, he forced many conversions to Islam. After the Berlin Conference, the North, mainly Muslims who spoke Arabic, were combined in one country with the South, who were mainly Christians who had been taught English by the British. In 1921, the British passed the Ordinance Act which prohibited travel in some areas and regulated migration between the north and south regions of the country. Consequently, the country was further separated. Additionally, desertification and famine created perfect conditions for civil war in the …show more content…
However, action later slowed because of disagreement over the conflict was really a genocide. On September 9, 2004, the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell was the first to refer to the ethnic cleansing in Darfur as genocide when he spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (World Without Genocide). The United States further took action when President George W. Bush asked for an increase to international troops to Darfur in February of 2006. Despite declaration of genocide by the United States and public outcry for action, the United Nations did not agree that the conflict constituted a genocide. In January 2005, an United Nations International Commission of Inquiry found that the conflict could not be called genocide because of they claimed there was lack of “intent to destroy” (Genocide in Darfur 132). The Commission based its decision on camps that the Sudanese government provided for Internally Displaced Persons and accounts of villages that had not been attacked. Progress slowed because of their determination. Samuel Totten and Eric Markusen compared the deliberation to bystanders during another obvious crime going; they said, “It is as though one man is clubbing another on a street corner while bystanders respond with a prolonged reflection on whether the incident is premeditated murder or simple assault or even self-defense. Meanwhile, the crime