The report is now in the hands of Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Sudanese government, and is expected to be made public this week after being presented to the Security Council.
"We have a copy of that report and they didn't say there is a genocide," Sudanese Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail told reporters at an African Union summit in the Nigerian capital.
The report was commissioned by the Security Council in October specifically to determine whether genocide had occurred and identify perpetrators.
Instapundit beat me to the punch:
Calling it genocide means you have to do something. The U.N. isn't calling it genocide. Problem solved! And with the added advantage that it can be spun as a defeat for the U.S., which has called it genocide.
But I'm sure it was a very nice report. Professionally bound with those nifty gold foil seals and everything. Very official looking.
Of course, this is what happens when you confer the mantle of moral authority on such an immoral body as the United Nations.
Back in the day when the UN got out of the way in Rwanda to let genocide happen, actually pulling their people out, it was easier to blame the US for not going in when we weren't even in the country.
So in order to look good, the UN grandly proclaimed that from now on genocide will be met with the firm response of the international community. I'm sure the accompanying report was properly festooned with bright ribbons and important-looking wax stamps. And it was in two official languages! Then there was much toasting with French champagne and Belgian chocolates on the side. Surely they jetted off to some wonderful location for a self-congratulatory conference on their mighty determination to stop evil.
Now, of course, as Instapundit notes, when the time comes to do something about genocide they simply deny there is genocide. Very sophisticated.
I have to wonder about the international community. Genocide is bad--if it ever happens. Anything less than that is just fine until you get down to panties on prisoners' heads. Then it gets very bad again. Oh, I'm sorry, I make the mistake of looking at the actions to be judged instead of the nation being judged. Once you get away from that error you can more easily predict the moral indignation: was America involved? If "yes," whether panties or liberation, it is bad. If "no," then even genocide (or near genocide) is a quaint local custom on the order of native dress to be respected and understood.
I still think that the EU could do something about Darfur. We could even help. I was way off in June 2004 thinking action was imminent. Of course, I didn't know the UN would commission a report.
I can hardly wait for the next report!
