"LOS LÍDERES AFRICANOS tocan la lira mientras arde Sudán", es el título de este artículo desgarrador aparecido en un diario botswanés:
I BELEIVE it was the BBC that first focused worldwide on the invasion of Darfur province by the Janjaweed, a militia drawn from neighbouring Arab cattlemen; and it was the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan who, reportedly, first visited the area to express their concern about the crisis and make demands on the Sudanese authorities to protect the Darfur farmers.Desgraciadamente no son solamente los africanos, los líderes que miran hacia otro lado. Ni tampoco son sólo los líderes.
The African Union took note of the crisis only last week, and refrained from describing the massacres that took place as “genocide” or as “racist”, according to press reports.
“Though the crisis in Darfur is grave, with unacceptable levels of deaths, human suffering, and destruction of homes and infrastructure, the situation cannot be defined as genocide,” reads the communiqué of the Heads of State summit in Addis Ababa issued late last week.
This is probably technically correct, given that genocide means “the deliberate extermination of a people or nation”, but was it necessary to make this qualification, which, to some extent, modifies and limits the gravity and unacceptability of the Darfur killings? It’s almost like saying “It’s bad, but not so bad”. Was it meant to downplay the earlier intervention of the UN and US, or to spare the Sudanese regime?