Genocide or not Genocide

I and my family watched Hotel Rwanda earlier this week on DVD. In the film, there is a scene where Paul (the lead character) listens to a totally absurd debate on the terminology used to describe the slaughter in Rwanda, with the speaker being very careful to avoid the word "genocide." The UN and many nations around the world have been playing the same word games regarding Sudan. I gave President Bush and the Congress credit for calling it like it is. But Eric Reeves writes

The ultimate purpose of this statistical and semantic lowballing of Darfur’s urgent requirements and brutal destruction is evidently to forestall any need for a US commitment to humanitarian intervention. Unable to fashion a policy that halts genocide in Darfur, the Bush administration has instead committed to a strategy of re-definition. The administration’s previous genocide determination---formally rendered by former Secretary of State Colin Powell in Senate testimony of September 9, 2004---has devolved into a “former Secretary of State” simply “making a point” to Congress (Financial Times, April 15, 2005). “I don’t want to get into a debate over terminology,” [Zoellick] said, when asked if the US believed that genocide was still being committed in Darfur against the mostly African villagers by Arab militias and their government backers” (Financial Times, April 15, 2005).

(The FT article Reeves writes about is linked to and excerpted here.) I don't know if that's totally fair to say the administration is backing off its finding of genocide. Just last week, Senator Frist said

I urge the United Nations to formally recognize the reality of the Darfur crisis. What is happening there is genocide. The Khartoum government will not stop the killing until it is faced with stiff international pressure.

While he is obviously not part of the administration, this speech does show that the US government is not backing down.