Showing posts with label genocide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genocide. Show all posts

Friday, April 26, 2024

Sudan & South Sudan: Adama Dieng appointed as first African Union (AU) special envoy for the prevention of the crime of genocide and other mass atrocities

Report from Human Rights Watch
Dated Tuesday, 23 April 2024 7:15AM EDT - here is a copy in full:

Can New African Union Genocide Envoy Curb Atrocities in Africa?
Adama Dieng has Mandate to ‘Combat the Ideology of Hate’

Adama Dieng, then-UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, New York, June 2019. © 2019 Luiz Rampelotto/EuropaNewswire/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images


Adama Dieng has been appointed as the first African Union (AU) special envoy for the prevention of the crime of genocide and other mass atrocities.

Dieng will drive the organization’s agenda to “combat the ideology of hate and genocide on the continent,” said AU Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat. The April 6 appointment could not be more symbolic, marking 30 years since the Rwandan genocide and harkening to the failure of the international community to stop the slaughter.

Dieng has occupied several positions within the United Nations human rights and justice system, including as a registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), then as UN designated expert on the situation of human rights in Sudan. From 2012 to 2020, he was UN special adviser on the prevention of genocide, with a mandate to raise the alarm over situations likely to spiral into genocide and mobilize UN security council action to prevent such atrocities.

Dieng’s new appointment comes at a time when Africa is witnessing spates of terrible mass atrocities and serious crimes, with dire humanitarian consequences, and little to no international attention.

April 15 marked the first anniversary of the fast-deteriorating conflict in Sudan between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). While both parties have committed egregious laws of war violations, the targeted attacks on ethnic non-Arab communities in West Darfur by the RSF and allied militias have evoked the spectre of the horrific Darfur war. That conflict killed 300,000 people in the early 2000s and led the International Criminal Court (ICC) to indict then-Sudan President Omar al-Bashir.

Government forces in Burkina Faso have carried out mass killings of civilians as part of a brutal campaign to tackle Islamist armed groups, who have also committed serious abuses. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, government forces and armed groups, including the Rwanda-backed M23, have committed atrocities against civilians in violence throughout North Kivu and Ituri provinces.

Atrocities and serious crimes are nevertheless not limited to war time, as illustrated by the October 30, 2022 crackdown on protestors in Chad, when scores of protesters were shot by security forces.

Dieng’s newly created regional mandate could be a timely boost to existing international mechanisms on atrocities prevention if it proves to be an indication of more genuine AU political willingness to end mass abuse and uphold accountability standards.


View original:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/23/can-new-african-union-genocide-envoy-curb-atrocities-africa


END 

Sunday, July 09, 2023

Sudan: Darfur rebellion in 2003 was not genocide

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: This is my attempt to clarify that anyone who refers to the Darfur rebellion and counterinsurgency of 2003 as genocide is in fact, most likely unwittingly, spreading US propaganda.

African (and European) leaders did not say that the Darfur rebellion started in 2003 was genocide because it wasn't. For the sake of simplicity, and to save trawling through the extensive archives of this 20-year-old site, here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the international response to the rebellion:

"The ongoing conflict in Darfur, Sudan, which started in 2003, was declared a "genocide" by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on 9 September 2004 in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Since that time however, no other permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has followed suit. In fact, in January 2005, an International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1564 of 2004, issued a report to the Secretary-General stating that "the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide." Nevertheless, the Commission cautioned that "The conclusion that no genocidal policy has been pursued and implemented in Darfur by the Government authorities, directly or through the militias under their control, should not be taken in any way as detracting from the gravity of the crimes perpetrated in that region. International offences such as the crimes against humanity and war crimes that have been committed in Darfur may be no less serious and heinous than genocide." - Wikipedia June 26, 2023.

A handful of US activists online were the first to shout genocide in Darfur. They and many others used Darfur and South Sudan as political footballs for personal gain and work. After the Bush administration (Republican) left office, most of the Save Darfur crowd faded away or moved on to pastures new, in media, govts, NGOs, UN, charity startups related to genocide etc. 

In 2003, social media platforms Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, Tik Tok, Bing etc., didn't exist. Global citizens took to the Internet and 4-yo Blogger like ducks to water. Power to the people. It was wild and exciting.

Thousands of bloggers put the spotlight on Darfur by piling enormous non-stop pressure on politicians and the UN to send aid to Darfur, stop genocide in Darfur and stop (mainly black) Darfuris being slain, starved or forced to flee by gun-toting (mainly Arab) militia on horses, camels or trucks. 

The Internet, home computing and smartphones now used by billions worldwide, have taken massive leaps with Artificial Intelligence. Evidence of atrocities can be gathered, checked and verified to stand up in a court of law.

Going by the report below, it's easy to see why Sudan's military junta is against Kenyan President Ruto helping to bring peace to Sudan: it quotes President Ruto as saying "there are already signs of genocide in Sudan". 

Now in 2023, ill informed people and others with vested interests, media included, write of genocide in Darfur in 2003 based on conjecture without doing any homework or citing verifiable sources and facts. 

Social media is mainly a free for all soapbox from which anyone can say almost anything. Recently, I saw some displaced Darfuris interviewed on camera (English subtitles) using activists' buzz words and "genocide". 

AI wizardry is moving at lightening speed and is now used to spread propaganda and fake news online to great effect. Experienced journalists with access to fact-checking technology are needed now more than ever.  

In Sudan, fighters from several different countries (and prisons) use heavy weapons and custom-made trucks to help the belligerents grab land and power. There is no functioning government in Sudan, anarchy reigns.

From what I can gather, the only way to stop Sudan's collapse is for a unified civilian-led government to claim its right to govern now, even in exile, backed by the AU, IGAD, NAM, LAS, UN and the international community. African solutions to African problems, African land for African people.

________________________


Report at France24

By Marc Perelman 

Published Friday 23 June 2023 - here is a full copy:


Kenyan President William Ruto: 'There are already signs of genocide in Sudan'

In an interview with FRANCE 24 on the sidelines of the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact, Kenya President William Ruto said the world's multinational financial architecture needs to be "fixed". He also reacted to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, saying "there are already signs of genocide". More than 2,000 people have been killed there since fighting broke out on April 15.


"We pay, especially those of us from the Global South and on the African continent, up to eight times more for the same resources, because of something called risk," Kenya's Ruto said. Calling the current system "broken", "rigged" and "unfair", Ruto said the multinational financial architecture needs to be "fixed". He also insisted on the importance of clarifying climate financing in order to deal with poverty and the "existential threat" of climate change.


Ruto narrowly won re-election in August 2022, but his opponent Raila Odinga claims to have won instead and has since been organising protests. Ruto said: "I don't have a problem with Raila Odinga, we are competitors. I have no problem with Raila Odinga organising protests (...) It's part of democracy." 


Turning to the deadly conflict in Sudan, he said: "There are already signs of genocide. What is going on in Sudan is unacceptable. Military power is being used by both parties to destroy the country and to kill civilians. The war is senseless, the war is not legitimate in any way."


Ruto said he had a regional meeting about the situation in Sudan two weeks ago in a bid to stop the war. But he added: "The issue will not be resolved until we get General al-Burhan, General Hemedti, political leaders and civil society – women's groups and youth groups – to the table." He insisted that this was "feasible".

View original: https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-interview/20230623-kenya-president-william-ruto-there-are-already-signs-of-genocide-in-sudan


[Ends] 

____________________________


Further reading


Sudan Watch - April 08, 2006

What is the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

https://sudanwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/what-is-difference-between-genocide.html


- - -


From ICC website - Darfur, Sudan - excerpts:


Situation referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council: March 2005

ICC investigations opened: June 2005

Current focus: Alleged genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur, Sudan, since 1 July 2002 (when the Rome Statute entered into force)

Current regional focus: Darfur (Sudan), with Outreach to refugees in Eastern Chad and those in exile throughout Europe.  ...

The situation in Darfur was the first to be referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council, and the first ICC investigation on the territory of a non-State Party to the Rome Statute. It was the first ICC investigation dealing with allegations of the crime of genocide. 

Former Sudan's President Omar Al Bashir is the first sitting President to be wanted by the ICC, and the first person to be charged by the ICC for the crime of genocide. Neither of the two warrants of arrest against him have been enforced, and he is not in the Court's custody. 

See the ICC Prosecutor's reports to the UNSC on the investigation.

Read more: https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur

- - - 

Darfur: A Short History of a Long War and Darfur: The Ambiguous Genocide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2006


Extract

Darfur: A Short History of a Long War. By Julie Flint and Alex de Waal. New York: Zed Books, 2005. 176p. $60.00 cloth, $19.99 paper.

In the last two years, the Darfur region in western Sudan has moved from relative international obscurity to become a symbol of humanitarian crisis and mass violence. Political scientists who research genocide, ethnic conflict, civil war, humanitarianism, and African politics all have taken interest in the region, and Darfur is likely to command scholarly attention in years to come. Yet the academic literature on the region remains thin. To date, scholars have relied primarily on journalistic accounts and human rights reports, which detail the violence but, by their nature, provide only cursory historical background. With the publication of these two short but informative books, Darfur's political history and the path to mass violence are substantially clearer. That said, the books are not designed to build theories of ethnic violence or genocide, nor do the authors explicitly engage in hypotheses testing. The books are useful primarily as detailed, lucid case histories from two sets of well-informed observers. 

View original: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/darfur-a-short-history-of-a-long-war-and-darfur-the-ambiguous-genocide/49A0DF3736227EA14A61989D66F98D14

- - -

Darfur, the Ambiguous Genocide
By Gérard Prunier
212pp, Hurst, £15

Review by Dominick Donald published in the Guardian - here is a full copy:

During 2003, occasional reports emerged in the international media of fighting in Darfur, a huge tract of western Sudan bordering Chad. Over the next year the picture became confused, as - depending on who was doing the talking - a minor rebellion became a tribal spat, or nomads taking on farmers, or Arab-versus-African ethnic cleansing, or genocide.

An outside world that understood political violence in Sudan through the simplistic lens of the unending war between Muslim north and Christian/animist south - a war that seemed to be about to end - had to adjust. And nothing that has emerged since has made that adjustment easy. If Darfuris are Muslim, what is their quarrel with the Islamic government in Khartoum? If they and the janjaweed - "evil horsemen" - driving them from their homes are both black, how can it be Arab versus African? If the Sudanese government is making peace with the south, why would it be risking that by waging war in the west? Above all, is it genocide?

Gérard Prunier has the answers. An ethnographer and renowned Africa analyst, he turns on the evasions of Khartoum the uncompromising eye that dissected Hutu power excuses for the Rwanda genocide a decade ago. He is never an easy read. While his style is fluid, there's too much brilliant, obscure but pivotal erudition, too much confident summarising, and not enough readiness to compromise for the reader cramming in another five pages on the tube.

He isn't helped by the fact that he is usually offering an incisive user's manual for a machine most of us have never seen before. But stick with him. For he deploys his fierce logic to a powerful moral purpose. He builds an understanding of a community and a culture in all its complexity to then strip away the convenient truths and confused equivocations that guilty or disinterested politicians use to explain why nothing should be done. Read Darfur and you will be in no doubt at all that the government of Sudan, whatever it says, is responsible for what is happening there. The killings are the consequence of a logical, realist's policy, stemming from a racial/ cultural contempt. You will also wonder whether anything substantive will be done to stop them.

Prunier's Darfur is a victim of its separateness - not just from Khartoum, but from everywhere else in Sudan. Geographically, culturally and commercially it always looked west, along the Sahel, rather than east to the Nile, north to Egypt, or south to Bahr El Ghazal. Its Islamic practices fused Arab with African, unlike the more ascetic, eschatological Muslim brotherhoods prevalent along the Nile, or the animism or polytheism adhered to in the south. Above all it retained a political and cultural identity apart from the homogenising forces of what became Sudan. The Sultanate of Darfur tottered on, essentially independent, until 1916; the Ottomans never established a foothold there, the Mahdists were resisted and co-opted, while once the British brought it into the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, they ruled through paternalistic neglect.

Even when Darfur was key to politicians in an independent Sudan - for instance, as a bedrock of support for the neo-Mahdists who ruled the country for much of its first two decades - it was ignored. Ravaged by the 1985 famine - Khartoum effectively denied it food aid - and proxy battles for Chad, it saw in the new century with a marginal economy and a government which, when it paid attention to Darfur, did so through the medium of militias encouraged to define tribal or cultural groups as the enemy.

As Prunier shows, it is the economics and the militias that lie at the heart of the atrocities in Darfur. The Sudan Liberation Army, recognising that the Naivasha power-sharing peace process between Khartoum and the SPLA/M in the south was going to leave Darfur even further behind, took up arms in 2002. All the government could do was unleash the militias in the hope that it could deal with the problem before southerners arrived in government and vetoed any repression. Now probably half of Darfur's population has been driven into camps for internally displaced persons (IDP), beyond the reach of international food aid, where malnutrition and disease are carrying them off at the rate of perhaps 8% a year. This suits Khartoum just fine. For while the international community havers about what it cannot see, Khartoum is free to pay lip service to the Naivasha peace process that will ensure regime survival, keep the Americans off its back, and allow the élite to exploit Sudan's oil.

It is this peace process that ensures the tragedy of Darfur goes on. The UN Security Council has passed powerful-sounding resolutions demanding the Sudanese government behave in Darfur. But it doesn't have the physical tools to coerce anyone. The African Union force it dispatched there is small, immobile, unsighted and with a weak mandate, and neither the US, UK nor France has the troops to send in its place. Above all, it won't apply too much pressure on Khartoum for fear of scuppering Naivasha - the deal that will end 50 years of on-and-off fighting, and bring a recalcitrant Sudan back into the embrace of the international community.

Yet Naivasha will almost certainly fail anyway. The Sudanese government probably has no intention of sticking to the Naivasha deal; it has never stuck to its deals before, choosing to obscure non-compliance with sorrowful tales of lack of control and warnings that enforcement will bring in the bogeyman. The process is driven by external actors, and so is hostage to their brief, easily distracted political attention spans. And it will bind the international community to Khartoum as tightly as vice versa - who will be coercing and who will be coerced? The international community believes it can't pull out of Naivasha in the face of Sudanese non-compliance for fear of losing oil deals, or an Islamic supporter in the war on terror, or of ushering in something worse. In reality it has saddled up a spaniel and sent it over the sticks, ignoring the sturdy point-to-pointer waiting in the wings.

Is what is happening in Darfur genocide? As Prunier points out, in the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention ("deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part"), it is - particularly what is happening in the IDP camps. Yet in his superb book on the Rwandan genocide, Prunier argued for a different definition, namely "a coordinated attempt to destroy a racially, religiously, or politically pre-defined group in its entirety". Why quibble about definitions? After all, they're irrelevant to Darfuris - their suffering will be the same, whatever tag is used. They're a concern for the international community alone. But for them, he concludes, the "G" word really matters.

In the west, "things are not seen in their reality but in their capacity to create brand images ... 'Genocide' is big because it carries the Nazi label, which sells well." Unfortunately what is happening in Darfur doesn't look like Treblinka. So the international community finds itself fixated on a distraction - a legal genocide, that doesn't look like a genocide.

Instead it should ignore the "G" word and focus on the key issue. The Sudanese government is responsible for the deaths of perhaps more than 200,000 Darfuris as an instrument of policy. It is weak, profoundly unpopular, and hugely vulnerable. It needs the pretence of Naivasha. It can be coerced. Let's get on with it.

· Dominick Donald is a senior analyst for Aegis Research and Intelligence, a London political risk consultancy

[Ends]

Tuesday, July 04, 2023

Sudan: Towards intervention?

NOTE from Sudan Watch Editor: Although some parts of this article are inaccurate and misleading, particularly about ICC v Bashir (no time to correct it) it is documented here to lay the groundwork for understanding future posts regarding the birth of Sudan's civilian-led government.   

Article at Al-Ahram online
Written by Asmaa Al-Husseini 
Published Tuesday 04 July 2023 - here is a full copy:


Sudan: Towards intervention?

As Sudan’s warring parties refuse to compromise foreign intervention looms ever closer, writes Asmaa Al-Husseini

The Sudan war has been raging for three months with no realistic prospects for a peaceful resolution. Initiatives to halt the bloodshed have all failed and the warring sides - the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and Rapid Support Forces (RSF) - continue to target civilians who are subjected to air strikes, looting, sabotage, and intimidation, circumstances that have created an opening for international and regional intervention.

 

In recent weeks, the international community has indicated it is unwilling to remain a passive spectator as the conflict in Sudan not only continues but expands. Several international and regional players have hinted that they may resort to more stringent measures to halt the fighting which has spread to Kordofan, Darfur, and other regions, and assumed a growing ethnic and tribal dimension.

 

There are growing fears the conflict may become a civil or regional war, and in recent weeks Darfur has witnessed horrific atrocities which some international officials classify as war crimes.

 

Sudanese officials have called for the intervention of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a commission to investigate these crimes. Mona Arko Minawi, the governor of Darfur, Darfur lawyers, and other groups have described events in the western region as genocide.

 

The atrocities, taking place away from media coverage amid the interruption of essential services and communication, evoke memories of the war in Darfur between 2003 and 2018 which resulted in the ICC indicting president Omar Al-Bashir and other regime leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. They resulted in Sudan being subject to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, allowing UN and African forces to be deployed to the region.

 

The SAF and RSF have turned down several ceasefires proposed in Jeddah by the US and Saudi Arabia as well as initiatives put forward by the African Union (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

 

The SAF rejected AU mediation on the grounds that the organisation had suspended Sudan’s membership following what it deemed a coup when, on 25 October 2021, the army dissolved its partnership with civilian forces. The SAF has also declined IGAD mediation, claiming that Kenya, the leader of the initiative, has sided with the RSF, providing its members with shelter. The army has said statements by Kenyan President William Ruto and his foreign minister constitute interference in Sudan’s internal affairs and undermine its sovereignty and requested that South Sudan take the lead in the Quartet for mediation, replacing Kenya.

 

The IGAD initiative had proposed a direct meeting between SAF leader Abdel-Fattah Al-Borhan and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti) in an attempt to forge a lasting solution to the crisis. The initiative also recommended a dialogue between Sudan’s civil forces and the opening of humanitarian corridors.

 

Malik Agar, the new deputy head of the Sovereignty Council, has visited several regional countries as well as Moscow, seeking assistance and mediation. The move may be interpreted as an attempt to alleviate US, European, African, and Saudi pressures, though the step is unlikely to achieve the changes desired by the Sudanese army.

 

The army is perturbed that the RSF is being treated as an equal partner in the proposed initiatives. The SAF describes the RSF as a rebel force and as the vanguard of a foreign invasion, alluding to the RSF’s use of fighters from neighbouring African countries.

 

The SAF has welcomed Turkey’s involvement in mediation efforts. Media outlets aligned with the army have expressed optimism that Turkey will provide support, just as it did to the Libyan government in Tripoli.

 

During its latest session, the African Peace and Security Council endorsed the IGAD initiative. IGAD’s plan calls for the demilitarisation of Khartoum, an unconditional cessation of hostilities and the initiation of a comprehensive political process. While stressing that a political solution is the only exit from the current impasse, the 15-member-State Council warned that violators of international human rights laws in Sudan would be held accountable for their actions.

 

IGAD has proposed a 50 km buffer zone around Khartoum and the deployment of African forces to safeguard key institutions in the capital, with the police and security forces responsible for securing key public facilities. Agar dismissed the proposals as an occupation rather than a solution to the crisis. He emphasised his government’s opposition to any initiative that does not respect Sudanese sovereignty.

 

Following SAF and RSF responses to the Jeddah initiative, the US has indicated it will adopt stricter measures to stop the war in Sudan. The European Union is also speaking about imposing sanctions against parties involved in the conflict.

 

Some observers anticipate international intervention — involving a collaboration between Western powers, the African Union, and IGAD — under Chapter VII if the warring factions do not heed calls for peace. Others believe Russia and China may veto such intervention unless it is mediated by the African Union given that the Sudan war threatens regional security and international interests, including those of Moscow and Beijing.

 

Meanwhile, Sudan’s civil forces are busy holding meetings of their own to launch initiatives and form a unified civil front to end the war and restore the country to a democratic course.

 

Al-Baqir Al-Afif, a Sudanese writer and representative of the Civil Front to Stop the War and Restore Democracy, told Al-Ahram Weekly a unified front could help fill the void and prevent armed groups from determining Sudan’s future in the absence of a strong civil force. To this end, steps are being taken to convene a meeting that includes political parties, trade unions, professional federations, resistance committees, civil society organisations and public figures in Sudan with the goal of agreeing a declaration of principles.

 

“There are proposals to create a representative committee to join international initiatives aimed at ending the war and kickstarting the political track. Some have suggested the formation of a shadow government or a government in exile,” he said.

 

“Having a group representing the civilian voice in Sudan is crucial. It will help convey the Sudanese people’s point of view to the world and be part of these international initiatives, which must also be unified.”

 

The priority is to end the war and the bloodshed and brutal massacres in Khartoum and Darfur, added Al-Afif. Regional and international communities should collaborate to exert pressure to stop the conflict and establish mechanisms to effectively monitor the ceasefire. It is also essential to provide urgent relief to those affected by the war, including displaced persons, refugees and those stranded at crossings.

 

It is also essential to engage civilians in future peace negotiations to ensure a democratic transition led by civil forces, he said.

 

Major General Kamal Ismail, head of the Sudanese National Alliance and leader of the Forces for Freedom and Change, told the Weekly meetings to unify Sudan’s civil forces have already taken place in an attempt to restore stability and advance a democratic civil path.


* A version of this article appears in print in the 6 July, 2023 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly


View original:  https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/504119.aspx


[Ends]

Thursday, June 22, 2023

US Attorney General visited the ICC on 19 June 2023

NOTE from Sudan Watch Ed: The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague relies on international cooperation and lots of money for support.

This footage tweeted by ICC shows US Attorney General Merrick Garland visiting ICC Headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands on Mon 19 Jun 2023.

It shows Mr Garland meeting ICC President Judge Piotr Hofmanski, ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan KC and ICC Registrar Osvaldo Zavala Giler.

The end of the clip shows Mr Garland sitting at a table signing a document.

Maybe the US is signing up to the ICC or just wants to be seen as supporting it by sharing intel evidence to help catch people accused of war crimes etc.
Post script by Sudan Watch Editor:

Countries that are part of the ICC
123 countries are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Out of them 33 are African States, 19 are Asia-Pacific States, 18 are from Eastern Europe, 28 are from Latin American and Caribbean States, and 25 are from Western European and other States.

- - -

Countries that are not part of the ICC
At the time of writing and after a quick search, it seems at least 22 countries of are not part of the ICC, namely: United States, Russia, China, India, Israel, Egypt, Ethiopia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Cuba, Haiti, Crete, Turkey, Indonesia, North Korea, Burundi, Philippines, Sudan, South Sudan.


Note, in 2020, the largest contributions came from Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Some countries, notably Brazil and Venezuela, have run up millions of dollars in overdue payments.


Washington has backed ICC efforts on several occasions, however. In 2005, the Bush administration allowed the Security Council to refer the Darfur case, and it later offered to assist the court’s investigation, which legal experts saw as a softening of the US stance. In 2011, the Barack Obama administration voted in favour of the Security Council referral for a Libya investigation. It also helped deliver several fugitives to The Hague and offered to pay millions of dollars as rewards for information on individuals accused of atrocities.


Source: CFR https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-international-criminal-court

- - -

[Ends]

UPDATED on Sat 24 Jun 2023 15:17 BST
Ref list of countries not part of the ICC: changed number 20 to 22 and added Sudan, South Sudan.
- - -

[Ends]

Thursday, June 15, 2023

UN: Sudan conflict displaced more than 2 million

Report at Radio Pakistan - https://www.radio.gov.pk/

Dated Thursday 15 June 2023 - full copy:


Sudan’s raging war forces over two million from their homes


In Sudan, fighting has again intensified in and around the capital Khartoum as the governor of West Darfur has been assassinated.


Governor Khamis Abakar was abducted by gunmen after a TV interview in which he accused the paramilitary fighters of genocide and called for international intervention.


The United Nations said the conflict has so far displaced more than 2 million people and escalating attacks in Darfur could amount to crimes against humanity.


View original: https://www.radio.gov.pk/15-06-2023/sudans-raging-war-forces-over-two-million-from-their-homes


[Ends]

___________________________________


Analysis at UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Last updated: Tuesday 13 June 2023 - excerpts:


Sudan Situation Report - Situation Overview


Conflict-related sexual violence is a major concern. Since the fighting began, civil society organizations have reported increasing cases of gender-based violence in particular sexual violence and kidnappings targeting women and girls. Due to sensitivities and fear of reprisals including against survivors and service providers, many cases have not been formally reported, with the priority focus being on the provision of emergency care, protection and support to victims/survivors. While OHCHR continued to receive reports, the numbers are expected to be much higher. 


Nearly 1.9 million people have been fled to safer locations inside and outside the country since the conflict began on 15 April. Over 1.4 million are internally displaced within Sudan, according to the International Organization for Migration’s Displacement Tracking Matrix as of 6 June. Most of the internally displaced people have taken refuge in West Darfur (19 per cent), White Nile (15 per cent), River Nile (13 per cent) and Northern states (13 per cent). They originally displaced from six states, including Khartoum (66 per cent), West Darfur (19 per cent), South Darfur (7 per cent), Central Darfur (6 per cent), North Darfur (2 per cent) and North Kordofan (0.2 per cent). Before the crisis, Sudan had already approximately 3.8 million displaced people, the majority of whom (an estimated 79 per cent) were based in Darfur and in severe need of humanitarian assistance. In addition, 460,000 people, including refugees, asylum seekers and returnees, have crossed into neighbouring countries, including Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, Ethiopia and South Sudan, according to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) as of 8 June.


View original: https://reports.unocha.org/en/country/sudan/


[Ends] 


UPDATE & POSTSCRIPT from Sudan Watch Editor: Each post at this site has tags. Instead of clicking on a tag, type a tag into the Search Sudan Watch box in top right sidebar of this site to see archived posts. For example, see water tag here below, go to the search box and type water.