The genocide of the Darfurians goes on unabated because

(i) Darfur has no oil fields and so the West is not interested.

(ii) No one gives a damn about the Darfurians because they are black African Muslims being killed by the Arab Islamists Janjaweeds. The Arab Islamists really don’t care about Muslims of other race or nationalities otherwise the Arab League would act to stop the killing of fellow Muslims in their backyard.
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4722
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/peacekpg/region/0525depends.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict

What is happening in Darfur is symptomatic of what has identified by ex-Islamist Anwar Sheikh. Islam is nothing more than Arab Imperialism. Mr. Sheikh has written a book about it. He is a Pakistani.
Islam:Arab Imperialism http://www.islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/index.html

Actually, the point about the west not being interested because there's no oil fields... I think that's an oversimplification.

There are resources in Sudan and the Chinese currently have a monopoly on them. The UN security council has voted on intervention in Darfur, though China, backed by Russia, keeps putting the kybosh on it using their vetoes.

I think blaming the west for disinterest isn't particularly valid in this instance, though the West certainly isn't kicking up as much of a stink as it should be.

Although the concept of Islam as Arab imperialism should be seriously considered, I must say that if Philip Tang had bothered to read my post, he should never have argued that nobody cares about Darfur because it has no oil. Thanks to TRTL for reminding him.

In response to StabInTheDark,

Regarding the argument that many feel they were intentionally misled over the reasons for the Iraq invasion:

I would argue that the “we were misled” argument is wrong. I would argue that the US and its allies firmly believed, however mistaken, that Iraq had WMD, but that this belief was as much the fault of the Iraqi government as it was of Western ones.

Here’s some comments from another post I’ve made:

“The Iraq Survey Group Final Report, headed by David Kay, illustrates how the Iraqi government consistently sent mixed signals about whether or not it had WMD- denying that it had WMD while behaving as though it had something to hide. It shows how Saddam believed he needed to continue to give the impression that he had WMD, to secure his rule from both internal and external enemies. The US administration failed to fully appreciate this motive, and after its sensitivity to threats was dramatically increased after 9/11, it seemed ludicrous, when intel proved inconclusive as to whether Saddam had WMD or not, that they should give him the benefit of the doubt.”

(While there was no genocide occurring, fear of how many people could be killed (ironically) if Saddam used WMD was an important factor.)

“In turn, Saddam failed to recognise that the US was serious about ensuring Iraq's disarmament, and continued his old patterns of behaviour, thus bringing about his own downfall. Importantly, the Report also indicates that Saddam was careful to maintain a latent WMD capability, and would most likely have started to rebuild Iraq's WMD arsenal once the sanctions were lifted and the UN's back was turned.”

cont...

The point I am making by comparing Iraq to Darfur is that the US will be damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t. Many on the left have tried to argue that the humanitarian intervention in Somalia, of all things, was an attempt at imperial conquest. What do you think the left will say if the US forces its way into Sudan, even with the Sudanese government’s approval? The US has found out the hard way what happens when it intervenes in the Middle East- look at Somalia and Iraq. If western UN peacekeepers go to Sudan, Al Qaeda will follow them. I am not arguing that western UN peacekeepers shouldn’t go to Sudan, but I am very worried that if they do go, and they start taking casualties (let alone what new terrors are unleashed on the civilian population,) the bleeding hearts here in the West will want to pull them out, and console themselves with the argument that it was just an imperial expedition anyway.

Yes, Saudi Arabia does get off lightly, but there is no genocide occurring in Saudi Arabia. It also has a lot of oil. More oil even than Iraq. We should invade, shouldn’t we?

Yes, Sudan/Darfur has been “engaged in brutal internal conflict and violation of human rights for a long time.” I assume that when you say it begs the question why Iraq was chosen, you are pointing to oil. But again, Sudan has oil as well. Sudan is also a softer target. We should invade, shouldn’t we?

Regarding Israel,

I think the author is suggesting that although Israel’s HR abuses do deserve attention, a little more progress in Darfur may be possible if the Arab and African world pays a little more attention to its own backyard, rather than distracting the UN with its pathological hatred of Israel.

Islam as Arab Imperialism? But the biggest Islamic countries in the world are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and India (in no particular order) which are not Arabic at all. Moreover, Iran which is becoming increasingly bellicose, is not Arabic either. Imperialism suggests the conquering of other countries or forcing other countries into a client state arrangement. As bad as the Sudanese regime is, I don't see this happening there. Sudan is behaving in a similar way to the Russians in Chechnya. That is, "ethnic cleansing" (horrible term) within what it regards as its own borders. The most clear-cut example of imperialism in the Arab world is Morocco's conquest of Western Sahara - an event that has been relatively unnoticed.

Militant Islam is a reaction against Imperialism. For example, the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded in 1979. It emerged when secular nationalists proved unable to combat Western or Soviet interference in the Middle-East. The only way to get rid of it will be the emergence of local secular forces strong enough to combat it.

DavidJS: It is precisely that the majority of Islamic countries are not Arabic that makes Islam an Arab spiritual imperialism. It is a spiritual hegemony over the mindset of non-Arab Muslims.

This is best explained by Anwar Sheikh himself in chapter 7 of his book. (Islam, the Self-Perpetuating Tool of Arab Imperialism)
http://www.islam-watch.org/AnwarSheikh/Islam-Arab-Imperialism7.htm

As early as 2004, Colin Powell described the situation in Darfur as a genocide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8364-2004Sep9.html

Till today the world community is still dragging its feet to stop the killing. On paper, the UN is sending in peace keeping troops to Darfur, but declared the killing as not a genocide http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/31/sudan.report/

The US and UK did not seek approval from the UN to invade Iraq, so why wait for the toothless UN now? Being the champions of human rights and democracy, the West should take the lead. Send in NATO forces as they did in the Balkan war. The only difference is that the aggressor Janjaweeds are riding camels mounted with AK47 and chanting Koranic verses.