One of the ongoing political controversies surrounding the violence in Darfur is the debate over use of the term “genocide.” Genocide, as defined in Article 2 the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, means “Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; …Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” In July of 2004, the United States declared that the situation in Darfur constituted genocide. However, the United Nations, European Union, and most other governments and non-governmental organizations have avoided using the term.

Declaring that a crisis is or is not genocide not only carries serious legal implications, as defined in the Convention on Genocide, but a heavy rhetorical force. “Genocide” is a politically and emotionally charged term that can awaken strong feelings of rage, disgust, indignation, grief and shock in both those who believe the situation in Darfur is genocide, and those who do not. Furthermore, applying this specific and provocative label to the Darfur conflict implies a certain political stance regarding the violence there. As journalists, we believe that maintaining neutrality in our reporting is of utmost importance, and use of the term “genocide” could jeopardize that neutrality. In the spirit of other news sources, such as The New York Times and The Economist, who have avoided the term, we have decided not to employ the term “genocide” when referring to the conflict in Darfur.