IT IS the most blatant threat of genocide since Rwanda in 1994. Sudan’s Government is continuing to obstruct humanitarian access to more than a million black Africans in Darfur, who have been displaced from their homes in a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. Thousands are dying already; hundreds of thousands more are set to die.

The UN Security Council was established to protect people under such a threat. In coming weeks its members could make history and do something amazing for humankind. Or they could further undermine the council’s credibility. On June 11, it “called” on the parties to halt the fighting and “urged” them to conclude a political settlement. Not quite the step to cause the Janjaweed militiamen and their sponsors in Khartoum’s dictatorship to quake.

Hilary Benn must be disappointed. The Secretary of State for International Development returned from Darfur last week full of passion for urgent action. Having witnessed the vast tragedy inflicted by the Government on its civilians, he might wonder, even if he cannot say so, why an intelligence dossier can lead to the invasion of Iraq, while the nations of the world merely wag a finger at Sudan’s crimes. Wonder he might.

The UN Genocide Convention obliges us not only to punish, but also to prevent, the crime of genocide. Mass graves do not need to be filled before action is taken. The convention defines genocide as: “Deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, in whole or in part.” That describes Darfur.

UN Resolution 1547, passed last Friday, was no stronger with regard to Darfur than the one which was passed two weeks into the genocide in Rwanda. Books have been written about the caution that cost hundreds of thousands of lives in that case. The resolution on Rwanda of April 21, 1994 ended with a decision to “remain actively seized of the matter”. The words “while people perish” should be appended to this, and all similar UN resolutions, as an appropriate reminder of the consequences of delay.

THE vulnerable of Darfur are relying on Tony Blair, Jack Straw and their counterparts. If they do not show leadership on the Security Council, they too will be shamed by events. They have said how much they care. Now the strength of their political will is being tested.

A stronger Security Council resolution is required which should be clear about the consequences if there is no change within two weeks. In Rwanda the international community wasted time on ceasefires, which allowed the militias, supported by the army, to continue killing. The resolution should impose a no-fly zone, to stop the Sudanese bombing civilians, and economic and political sanctions. The UN should also reserve the right to send a peacekeeping force. The thought of foreign troops entering a Muslim nation so soon after the Iraq war is unlikely to stir enthusiasm. We should remember, though, that it is Muslims who need to be rescued. The Islamic world should take the lead in saving them, especially Pakistan and Algeria, which are currently Security Council members.

Investigators should be sent to gather evidence of atrocities, whether committed by the militiamen on the ground or planned by the generals in Khartoum, so that the perpetrators can be held to account at the International Criminal Court.

Britain can be proud that it is the second-largest contributor to the humanitarian effort in Sudan. But it does not make sense to send aid while treating the architects of the crime with such normality. The Sudanese Finance Minister was in London yesterday to discuss debt relief. His country is in debt in part because it buys aircraft which it is using to kill civilians. Debt relief should be granted only when Darfurians can return home in safety.

Now is an opportunity to bring hope, to show that a world can exist in which the strong will defend the weak irrespective of their national interests. Britain should use its position as a permanent member of the Security Council. We can encourage Pakistan or Algeria to propose a new resolution on Darfur that has teeth. Unlike the one last week, in which the 15 member states decided “to remain seized of the matter” — while people perish.

The author is Director of the Aegis Trust

Join the debate at comment@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• Bank charges hit us for being human
• Sorry, Father, thou still shalt not steal
• The shed where Santa’s failures go to die