After four years, it's time for action

The Save Darfur Coalition recently launched a campaign urging President Bush to enact Plan B — "a three-tiered plan to push Sudan to end the genocide" in recognition of the failure of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir to respond to diplomatic efforts. Since 2003, Sudanese government-backed militias known as the Janjaweed have been responsible for the deaths of more than 400,000 citizens of Darfur while more than two million people have been displaced. The rapes, murders and destruction of villages have been committed as the world watches.

Not everyone has remained silent. Ordinary people are calling on their governments and the United Nations to take action. A major UN human rights document, the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" (hereafter referred to as GC), should provide the impetus for action. Unfortunately, the permissive language of the GC does not legally bind anyone to take action, allowing for the promise to "never again" allow genocide to be broken.

The GC finds its roots in the world's reaction to the Nazi Holocaust. Rafael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer personally affected by the Holocaust, aimed to criminalize suffering imposed upon millions. After coining the term "genocide," Lemkin presented his proposal to the newly formed United Nations, and it became law in 1951. While imperfect, the GC was a victory for human rights, representing the world's resolve to take a moral stand.

Yet it seems we no longer have that resolve and possibly never did. The 20th-century bore witness to numerous genocides: Armenians in Turkey, the Nazi Holocaust, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, Kurds in Iraq, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo. Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" chronicles nations' responses to these genocides and arrives at the chilling conclusion that "consistent [...] nonintervention in the face of genocide" has no political repercussions for politicians who do nothing.

Darfur is compelling evidence. Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, after rightly labeling the atrocities in Darfur as genocide, proclaimed that according to the GC, "no new action is dictated by this determination." That politicians can invoke the GC in an argument for inaction is highly disconcerting.

The United Nation's spirit of reform in human rights work, with the creation of the new Human Rights Council and Special Advisor on Prevention of Genocide, should extend to transform the GC from an ineffective, outdated document into one with great force and relevance.

The new GC must demand obligations from its contracting parties. Without upgrading the permissive language, with words like "may" and "undertake," to stricter language compelling states to act, they will not intervene in issues outside their political interests.

The uncertainties political leaders raise about the language reflect their own uncertainties about choosing between morally right action and politically safe action. The definition of genocide — acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group — prolongs debate about taking action. States question whether intent must be established for crimes to be labeled "genocide"; what portion of a group constitutes "in part"; and whether the groups targeted fall into one of the mentioned categories.

Concrete consequences for genocide should give the new GC the teeth that the current GC is missing and direct states to act during genocide.

Those contemplating involvement in genocide should know that their actions have repercussions, which range from economic sanctions and multilateral military intervention to capture, trial-by-jury and conviction. A global court of justice, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), would enforce the currently absent legal deterrent. While not all nations have accepted the ICC's authority (including the United States), many others have conferred legitimacy upon the body. The ICC's permanent presence allows it greater freedom to administer a longer lasting justice than the ad hoc tribunals of Nuremberg or Rwanda.

As a final revision, the new GC's title must be changed, to reflect its more inclusive aim — Convention on the Prevention, Suppression, Cessation and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Governments prefer the original GC's language, which reflects the ambivalence they have about humanitarian intervention, but the ratification of such a powerful convention would oblige UN member states to address the Darfur genocide — a genocide that has raged for almost four years. Past political maneuvering held little sway with al-Bashir, and advocates are calling on President Bush to turn to Plan B. Our failure to act will be seen as "complicity in genocide," and under the current convention, we should be found guilty.

In the spirit of Rafael Lemkin, in the spirit of protecting the rights and dignity of all people, let us put an end to genocide. Let us enact Plan B and take action today. Meghan McNulty is a freshman from New Milford, N.J. She can be reached at mmculty@princeton.edu.