Darfur's deep grievances defy all hopes for an easy solution

[muriel_volestrangler]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sudan/story/0,14658,1268773,00.html

There is no quick fix in Darfur. But after the first round of mediation by the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, a week ago, the elements of a settlement are coming into focus. The first of these is removing obstacles to relief operations. The second is enforcing the ceasefire, agreed by the parties in the Chadian capital of Ndjamena in April, but flouted - far more egregiously by the government and Janjaweed. For hungry villagers, the ceasefire is a survival issue, as their skill at harvesting wild foods has no value if they are confined to camps by fear of rape, mutilation or murder.
...
Last month, President Omer al-Bashir promised to disarm the Janjaweed. In doing so, he has put himself in a corner. There's overwhelming evidence, circumstantial and documentary, that Khartoum supplied the militia with arms, logistics and air support. But it doesn't follow that it can so easily rein them in. Darfur cannot be disarmed by force.

The principal Janjaweed camps can be identified and the militiamen cantonised there. This demands a tough surveillance regime, overseen by international forces. But the armed Bedouin cannot be encamped: they rely on their herds for livelihood and hence need to move, and they are too numerous and scattered to disarm. In fact, 'disarmament' is a misnomer. What will work is community-based regulation of armaments, gradually squeezing out bandits and criminals.
...
Another issue is human rights: investigating claims of genocide and who's responsible. This issue is best parked with an international commission - perhaps a special investigator from the International Criminal Court.

Much more in the article - the author has been writing books on Sudan for more than 15 years.

[reorg]

1. very fine article

I like the idea that a special investigator from the ICC would be tasked with the investigation of war crimes. There may a problem with this, however: Sudan has signed but not ratified the Rome Declaration.

> ... limitation of the ICC in relation to several conflicts where there have been serious allegations of war crimes. In Darfur the ICC cannot intervene ”because Sudan is not a party to the ICC,” he said. ”I have no authority to start a case there, I can do so only if the United Nations Security Council gives a referral.” To date the United Nations has not referred any case to the ICC.<

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0625-06.htm


>The two countries that signed the Rome Declaration but then withdrew from the Court’s jurisdiction were the USA and Israel. Israel is the other country currently in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, the one no one is proposing to invade or ‘regime change’ for its wilful disregard of the Oslo Accord and Palestinian rights. Among the countries that didn’t sign the Rome Declaration in the first place are two of the three members of Bush’s Axis of Evil, Iraq and North Korea; the third Axis member, Iran, signed but hasn’t ratified. Other non-signers include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Mauritania while non-ratifiers include Yemen, Syria, Liberia, Congo and Sudan. The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi (as is Osama bin Laden) and Yemeni. Pakistani radicals aided and abetted the Taliban regime which in turn harboured bin Laden. Mauritania and Sudan are the only two countries where chattel slavery is still widely practiced. When you remember that the Court’s mandate is to persecute crimes against humanity and genocide, it becomes much clearer why some countries have declared their acceptance of this international body while others have sought to reject it. But knowing who’s who in the world of World Institutions should warn us to beware of current efforts to make the UN ‘irrelevant.’<

http://www.globalaware.org/Artlicles_eng/icc.html