The initial word on the Darfur Report is that it stops short of calling the situation in southern Sudan genocide:

A U.N. commission investigating atrocities in Sudan has concluded that the government did not pursue a policy of genocide in the Darfur region but that Khartoum and government-sponsored Arab militias known as the Janjaweed engaged in "widespread and systematic" abuse that may constitute crimes against humanity.

The report is available for anyone to read here, all 176 pages of it. In the summary they do decline applying the label of genocide but they are not soft in their condemnation of the crimes of Darfur:

The Commission concluded that the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide. Arguably, two elements of genocide might be deduced from the gross violations of human rights perpetrated by Government forces and the militias under their control. These two elements are, first, the actus reus consisting of killing, or causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of life likely to bring about physical destruction; and, second, on the basis of a subjective standard, the existence of a protected group being targeted by the authors of criminal conduct. However, the crucial element of genocidal intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities are concerned. Generally speaking the policy of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who planned and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from their homes, primarily for purposes of counter-insurgency warfare.

The Commission does recognise that in some instances individuals, including Government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent. Whether this was the case in Darfur, however, is a determination that only a competent court can make on a case by case basis.

The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide. [Emphasis added - Ed.]

While this summary attributes the motives of the planners/organizers of the attacks to counter-insurgency, accounts of the actual attacks would easily cause one to define the motives of those actually involved in the attacks as a combination of tribal differences and material gains.

Section II (starting on page 124) defines genocide and explains why this situation doesn't fit that definition. I was angry when I heard they failed to classify the murder, rape and pillage of Darfur as genocide, but the content of the document provides an adequate explanation of why it doesn't fit that description.

I think sometimes there is a tendency to split hairs when defining a concept like genocide, but I also understand the wisdom in having a valid working definition - lest every unsavory action be labeled the same. I am curious if the same committee would have characterized the half million killed by the Saddam regime as genocide or not.

At least the report defines the atrocities as 'Crimes Against Humanity' which is a true statement. The report is full of confirmed stories of death, rape and property confiscation. Stores that break your heart, like this one:

The army was there and everybody was wearing khaki. There were around two to three white and green planes, which came very low. One white plane was attacking. One of the victims stated as follows: "It was around 04h00 when I heard the shooting. Three of us ran together. We were neighbours. Then we realised that we did not bring our gold. When we returned, we saw soldiers. They said stop, stop. They were several. The first gave his weapon to his friend and said to me to lie down. He pulled me and threw me on the floor. He took off his trousers. He ripped my dress and there was one person holding my hands. Then he "entered" [a word for intercourse]. Then the second "entered", and the third "entered." I could not stand afterwards. There was another girl. When he said lie down, she said no. Kill me. She was young. She was a virgin. She was engaged. He killed her." The third woman who was also there stated that she was raped in the same way.

Genocide or not, it is criminal for the rest of the world to observe the situation in Darfur and take no action. The recommendations from the report are both excellent and worthless. They do understand what has to happen in Sudan:

The need to do justice. The magnitude and serious nature of the crimes committed against the civilian population in Darfur, both by the Government forces and the Janjaweed, and by the rebels, demand immediate action by the international community to end these atrocities. Authors of these crimes must be brought to justice. At the same time measures to bring relief and redress to the victims must be initiated to complete the process of accountability.

Unfortunately, all the tangible recommendations from the report will do little to bring the justice described above:

• Involve the International Criminal Court
• Establish a Compensation Commission
• Establish a Truth and Reconsciliation Commission
• Strengthen the Sudanese Judicial System

Each of these may have merit, once the 'Crimes Against Humanity' have been stopped. Unfortunately, they continue. The ICC and these committees may have some value in cleaning up the aftermath once the attacks have ended, but they are powerless to stop the attacks of tomorrow. Remember that the abuse in Sudan is the work of the established government, in concert with several militia groups. Who is strengthening the Judicial System of this same government going to help?

Neither sanctions nor peacekeepers have a decent record of success in these kinds of situations. I'm no fan of either but even I recognize that both at least have the potential to help in this kind of situation. Contrast that to the little if any hope offered by committees, reports and inaction. (Who knows how many died during the 3 months spend compiling this comprehensive report.)

I'm not trying to be critical of this report as I am very impressed with the detail and honesty it contains. I just wish it provided a viable solution for the people in Sudan.