In July 2004, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum declared a “genocide emergency” in Darfur, Sudan. This week, after extensive research and an assessment of conditions on the ground, the Museum is changing its categorization of conditions in Sudan to a “genocide warning” for the entire country.

As part of its mandate, the Committee on Conscience at the Holocaust Museum is charged with alerting the national conscience and stimulating action to prevent or halt acts of genocide and related crimes against humanity. For some time now, we have evaluated situations based on three graduated categories of urgency:

Emergency: Acts of genocide or related crimes against humanity are occurring or immediately threatened.

Warning: Organized violence is underway that threatens to become genocide or related crimes against humanity.

Watch: The circumstances indicate a serious potential for the eruption of mass violence that would be within the Committee’s mandate.

Drawing distinctions between these alert levels is important, albeit difficult, because doing so helps shape the proper policy for saving lives. Under the 1948 Genocide Convention, genocide is defined as the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, religious or racial group through killing or other acts. It is a difficult crime to prove because of the high standard involved with documenting intent. It is also a very specific crime -- and should not be used as a catch-all term for all mass killing or atrocities.

Choosing how to categorize a particular situation, moreover, is not an exact science. At any given time, regrettably, there are often several wars or conflicts in the world where extreme violence against civilians is being perpetrated. Experts will often disagree where on the continuum to genocide a certain situation ought to be placed. Here at the Holocaust Museum, we pay extremely close attention to the facts on the ground in order to arrive at our own judgments.

Mindful of the power of the word genocide, we have always tried to be judicious. As the scale of the violence in Darfur became increasingly apparent in 2003 and 2004, circumstances demanded that we place the situation at our highest level of alert. The Sudanese government and allied militias conducted a series of offensives that drove civilians in the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit ethnic groups off their lands. More than two million people were displaced from their homes, and the government obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance from international groups. Mortality rates skyrocketed: the World Health Organization estimated that up to 200,000 people died during this period.

While reasonable people disagreed with our assessment -- the United Nations, for instance, never labeled the events in Darfur a “genocide” -- we strongly believe that our “emergency” designation was accurate.

But now conditions in Sudan have changed. Although violence persists in Darfur, it is of a different character, with rebel groups and criminal elements responsible for violence along with the Sudanese government. The Sudanese government has halted major offensives against civilian groups. Humanitarian assistance is being provided. Mortality rates have been significantly reduced: The United Nations estimates that about 1,500 people died as a result of violence in each 2007 and 2008. New satellite assessments by the U.S. government, highlighted in “Crisis in Darfur”, the Museum’s initiative with Google Earth, clearly show the level of destruction of Darfurian villages has decreased from the height of the Sudanese government’s systematic military campaign between 2003 and 2005.

The situation across Sudan remains perilous. In Darfur, millions remain at risk in displaced persons camps because it is too dangerous to return home, and those chiefly responsible for the crimes in Darfur remain in power in Khartoum. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the situation in South Sudan, where hundreds of civilians have been killed in fighting over the past several months. Over the course of the next year, the country faces significant political challenges -- with national elections and a referendum on southern independence. Our concerns focus on the challenges for Sudan as a whole and the imminent risks to large segments of the civilian population. By our own criteria, we believe it is most accurate to place Darfur and the rest of Sudan in our “genocide warning” category.

We also believe that the Sudanese government must be held accountable for its past and current behavior. The International Criminal Court has sought an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir and other Sudanese officials for their roles in orchestrating violence in Darfur. When this warrant was issued in March, the government responded by evicting 13 humanitarian organizations working in displaced persons camps -- another possible violation of international law. This is unacceptable: the Sudanese government must fulfill its responsibility to protect its own citizens.

We recognize that there is a significant public debate about how to describe what is happening in Darfur. We will continue to closely monitor conditions in Sudan, and we are ready to raise our alert level if necessary. Our hope is that an accurate description of the evolving situation will help elicit the appropriate policy and public response -- and lives will be saved.

--- Mike Abramowitz, Director of the Committee on Conscience

On July 30, the Museum updated its Google Earth initiative Crisis in Darfur with the latest U.S. Department of State data that sheds new light on the extent of the genocide in Darfur.

The new data shows that more than 3,300 villages have been damaged or destroyed, primarily between 2003-2005, in the Darfur region of Sudan. This is more than twice the number that was identified in previous U.S. government assessments and strengthens the evidence of a vast, targeted campaign of destruction against civilians.

This is the most detailed picture to date of the scope and nature of the destruction that occurred during the genocide in Darfur and after. That thousands of villages were destroyed has been known for some time; this data documents the true enormity of the destruction. The data also includes hundreds of "before and after" satellite images of villages throughout Darfur, as well as additional details about when the villages were destroyed. This data also confirms that most villages were destroyed between 2003 and 2005, during the height of the brutal Sudanese government-backed campaign targeting civilians in Darfur.

Stay tuned for additional features in Crisis in Darfur, including a narrated flyover tour and a map of destroyed villages by year.

To access the Crisis in Darfur layers in Google Earth, visit Mapping Initiatives: Crisis in Darfur.

Learn more about the current situation in Sudan; view the press release announcing the update; and read about it in The Washington Post.

On July 22, 2009, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague delivered the final ruling on the boundary dispute over Abyei, an oil rich region claimed by both north and south Sudan. In May 2008, fighting in Abyei between the north and south resulted in the displacement of 50,000 people and destroyed the town. Today's ruling by the Court determined that several areas -- including the Heglig oilfield -- were not part of Abyei. Inhabitants of areas that are within the newly established borders have the right to vote on a referendum in 2011 on whether they want to be permanently a part of north or south Sudan. Both Sudanese parties have agreed to abide by the Court's decision.

Learn more about the history of Abyei and South Sudan.

Explore World is Witness and read about the 2008 attack on Abyei.

Listen to our podcast interview with Sudan expert Roger Winter, who was in Abyei shortly after it was destroyed.

John Heffernan discusses his recent trip to the Congo and the importance of genocide prevention in an editorial piece published on May 22 in the Huffington Post:

Last week, the United Nations Security Council traveled to Ethiopia, Rwanda, Congo and Liberia to discuss Africa's hotspots -- areas that are threatened by genocide and mass atrocities. In a report on preventing genocide, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Cohen make the case for why preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities is in the moral and strategic interests of the United States. The 140 page report lays out 34 recommendations to point out a choice between doing nothing and embarking on large-scale military interventions. A recent trip I took to the Great Lakes region of Africa dramatically illustrated why this "blueprint" should be taken seriously, and why U.S. leadership is so important in this area.

In the dirt courtyard outside the United Nations-funded hospital wing, in the war-affected border city of Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I met Jean Paul, his tiny legs barely holding up his small torso. Inside the white stucco building, other children from the nearby displacement camp were not so lucky as they clung for life, skin hanging off their bones. Jean Paul, who had the most endearing brown eyes, managed to muster enough energy to lift his little hand to give me the internationally recognized high five. Although he appeared to be on the road to recovery, this child of war, who looked to be no more than two years old, held up five fingers when I asked him his age. Jean Paul, a vivid reminder of the consequences of the horrific human toll exacted by mass atrocities and genocide inflicted by man, may also be a reminder of humanity's capacity to prevent such episodes; episodes in which tens of millions have lost their lives over the last century.

I have seen it before in Darfur, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Kosovo and most recently Rwanda and Congo, the direct assault on human values through systematic massacres, forced displacements, mass rapes and the plundering and destruction of homes, wells, crops, livestock and assets meant to sustain life. I know how these horrific acts destroy lives and livelihoods. But these most heinous crimes, genocide and mass atrocities, also threaten U.S. national interests, and we must be better prepared to prevent them.

In Rwanda today significant problems persist, but with assistance from the U.S. and other international donors, the country has worked hard to recover from one of the most brutal massacres of modern times. While vigilance is required to prevent repetition of the past violence in Rwanda, neighboring Congo, a huge country where the Rwandan genocide sparked successive wars involving 7 neighboring countries and resulting in an estimated 5.4 million deaths in the last ten years, needs worldwide attention to help end the reoccurring violence.

Evidence of the spillover effects of the Rwanda genocide were nowhere more apparent than in the displaced persons camps just outside of Goma in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo where Jean Paul lives - camps that the U.S. and other international donors have been supporting since 1994. While aid to Rwanda and Congo supports many important reconciliation and emergency relief projects, early preventive action would surely have been less expensive and could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

There's a pattern. We know from past examples that genocide and mass atrocities in one country fuel threats in other weak and corrupt states, and can prompt the type of long term conflicts that know no boundaries. In Rwanda, with refugee flows spreading to Congo and beyond, the international community, including the U.S. was called on to absorb and assist displaced people, provide support for a massive and ongoing humanitarian relief effort. The longer we wait the more exorbitant the price tag. In Bosnia alone, the U.S. invested an estimated $15 billion to support peacekeeping forces in the years since we belatedly intervened to stop the atrocities.

What's needed in these cases is early, high-level attention, facilitated by standing institutional mechanisms within our own government, and then strong international partnerships that can form the basis for effective and coordinated action. We need a comprehensive prevention approach that begins with early warning mechanisms, and involves early action to address high-risk situations, timely diplomatic responses to emerging crises, and greater preparedness to employ military options when those are required.

The genocide prevention report clearly lays out a way forward, starting with the recommendation to create an interagency Atrocity Prevention Committee to analyze threats of genocide and mass atrocities and that warning of these threatened acts be an automatic trigger of policy review. Moreover, the report calls of an investment of $250 million - less than a dollar for every American each year -- in new funds for crisis prevention and response.

We know that the long-lasting consequences of genocide and mass atrocities are enormous. Reconciliation after the fact is possible and essential, but if we shift our focus to prevention rather than response, lives and livelihoods will be saved and threats to our national interest will be mitigated. But, as the Genocide Task Force report emphasizes, for it to work, leadership is the indispensable ingredient. Leadership from the president, Congress, and the American people --, nothing is more central to preventing genocide and mass atrocities. Time is not on the side of Jean Paul. We owe it to him and the millions like him, to make genocide prevention a priority, now.

On March 4, 2009, a Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced its historic decision to issue an arrest warrant charging Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes for his leadership role in orchestrating the conflict in Darfur.

The charges against Mr. Bashir include murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape, intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population, and pillaging. Notably absent from the warrant is the charge of genocide.

This decision marks the first time the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state.

Some have contended that an ICC indictment of the President of Sudan, which enforces international law and holds him accountable for his crimes, is necessary for sustained peace. Others are concerned that such an indictment could negatively impact the peace negotiations, prolonging war or perhaps even accelerating it – resulting in more deaths, sexual violence, destruction, and misery. These debates intensified in July 2008, when the ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo presented evidence of crimes to a panel of ICC judges and asked them to issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President al-Bashir on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes for his leadership role in orchestrating violence in Darfur.

The Sudanese government has said it will resist the ICC request, contending that Bashir is innocent. Two others in Sudan – Ahmad Harun, Minister in charge of security, and Ali Kushayb, a janjaweed militia leader – were indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC in 2007. They were not considered senior enough to impact peace negotiations.

Following the announcement of the arrest warrant, the Sudanese government expelled several humanitarian aid agencies from Sudan, jeopardizing the lives of millions.

On March 5, 2009, the Museum issued a press statement, decrying the eviction of aid agencies in Darfur and Southern Sudan.

Podcast Interviews with Experts

Click here for a podcast interview with Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, formerly a judge and president of the ICTY, who discusses the significance of the ICC’s March 4 decision.

Click here for a podcast interview from July with international law expert William Schabas, who discusses the decision of the prosecutor for the ICC to request an arrest warrant for President Bashir.

Background on the International Criminal Court

Based in The Hague, the Netherlands, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first permanent judicial body established to try individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It prosecutes individuals when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. The Court emerged from the 1998 Conference in Rome and came into force in 2002, after the 60th nation ratified the treaty. Presently, 108 state parties have joined the treaty.

Heavily engaged in ICC negotiations, the United States signed the Rome Statute under the Clinton administration in 2000, but identified certain aspects of the treaty requiring further negotiation. President Clinton recommended that the Senate delay ratification until U.S. concerns were met about the treaty’s jurisdiction over nationals of states that were non-parties for acts committed on territory of states party to the treaty and the prosecutor’s authority to initiate cases on his/her own. Citing these objections, the Bush administration effectively deactivated the U.S. signature on the Rome Statute in 2002.

Since 2002, the Court has received one referral from the United Nations Security Council for Darfur, Sudan and has accepted three state referrals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and the Central African Republic.

In 2005, the Security Council referred allegations of crimes in Darfur to the ICC. The council referral exempted the nationals of nonparties from any claim of jurisdiction on the part of the court and consequently the U.S. abstained from vetoing the resolution. The ICC subsequently opened an investigation into the crimes committed in Darfur.

Background on President Bashir

Born in 1944, Omar al-Bashir orchestrated a military coup in 1989 that overthrew President Sadeq al-Mahdi’s democratically elected government. He assumed control by banning all political parties and cracking down on the press and other rights. Shortly after attaining power, Bashir appointed himself chief of state, prime minister, and minister of defense.

In 1999, President Bashir consolidated his dictatorial control when he removed his chief threat: once ally and former leader of the National Islamic Front, Hassan al-Turabi, who was then serving as Speaker of the National Assembly. That same year, Bashir declared a state of national emergency, suspended the constitution, and disbanded the National Assembly.

In 2004, Bashir’s government negotiated an end to the two and a half decade civil war between north and south Sudan that killed at least 2 million people, mostly civilians, and displaced more than 4 million people. Around that same time, Bashir’s government started receiving criticism for its role in Darfur, Sudan’s western province where hundreds of thousands have died and millions have lost their homes since 2003. In July 2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked the court to issue an arrest warrant for President Bashir, charging him several counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes for the government’s role in orchestrating violence in Darfur.