“70,000 dead and 1.6m homeless, but the UN says it’s not genocide”

What’s in a name? Is 70,000 enough murders to count as genocide? If it is, it legally obliges the UN member countries to take action in Sudan. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, UN members must actively “prevent and punish” other countries who systematically murder people. Seems fair.

Yet the UN has not conclusively stated that the Sudanese military slaughter campaign is genocide.

But the label is the least of the issue. Britain, France, Denmark and Greece want the Sudanese government to be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. Kofi Annan is also pushing for this course of action. The majority of the 15 Security Council members will support this view.

An open and shut case? Nope.

The USA opposes a prosecution, because it sees the International Criminal Court as “a threat to its national sovereignty… The Bush Administration revoked President Clinton’s signature of the Rome Treaty, saying that it feared that the court would be used for political prosecutions of American soldiers and officials.”

Afterthought:
Would 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians count as genocide*, just out of interest?

(* Is it ever called genocide when we do it?)