Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:42 AM
Original message
Darfur's deep grievances defy all hopes for an easy solution,14658,1268773,0...
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
reorg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
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.<

>The two countries that signed the Rome Declaration but then withdrew from the Courts 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 didnt sign the Rome Declaration in the first place are two of the three members of Bushs Axis of Evil, Iraq and North Korea; the third Axis member, Iran, signed but hasnt 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 Courts 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 whos who in the world of World Institutions should warn us to beware of current efforts to make the UN irrelevant.<
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jan 23rd 2018, 09:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC