Lethal Violence in Darfur: June
From Alex de Waal's blog Making Sense of Sudan
By Alex de Waal - Tuesday, 13 July 2010:
The number of confirmed violent fatalities, according to UNAMID figures, in Darfur during June was 221. Though a marked decline on the nearly 600 deaths during May, this is still well above the average for the last two and a half years. The major cause of fatalities was intra-Arab fighting in West Darfur state, which accounted for 139 fatalities. Fifty two combatants were confirmed killed, 51 government soldiers and one from the rebel side, implying a probable undercount of rebel fatalities. Twenty civilians died in violence, in all instances classified by UNAMID as criminal attacks, as well as two tribesmen, two soldiers and three rebel fighters who were victims of crime. Three UNAMID personnel were killed.Over 200 deaths due to armed conflict in Darfur in June
These figures show that the intensity of fighting between JEM and the Government has subsided.
The data show that the epicenter of Arab-Arab fighting has shifted from South Darfur to West Darfur. Whereas the South Darfur violence was mostly among the Baggara, this violence is between Baggara and Abbala. It is interesting that although intra-Arab fighting has killed more people in Darfur over the last three years than any other source of violence, it is still below the international radar screen, and does not figure high on the agenda for the peace talks.
From Sudan Tribune - Monday, 12 July 2010 - excerpt:
(KHARTOUM) - Over two hundred people were killed in Darfur in June as a result of armed conflict and criminality according to a report by the joint African Union / United Nations (UNAMID) peacekeeping force in Darfur.- - -
Of the 221 deaths, nearly 140 were due to inter-tribal fighting between the Rizeigat and Misseriya tribes.
No fighting was reported after the two tribes signed a peace accord on 28 June.
From SRS - Sudan Radio Service:
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
Headlines Around the Web
What's This?
AFTERDOWNINGSTREET
JULY 13, 2010
International Criminal Court charges Sudan's president with Genocide, Because Bush and Cheney Too Scary to Touch
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
JULY 13, 2010
Sudan leader charged with three counts of genocide - Washington Times
- - -
From The Africa Research Centre
By Dr David Hoile - 31 May 2010
Study shows the International Criminal Court to be European-driven, Africa-focused and irretrievably flawedFOR THE RECORD, here is a snapshot of Google's 3-page newsreel (in sequential order) as at 13 July 2010 c. 23:18 hrs GMT UK:
A new 345-page study of the International Criminal Court, The International Criminal Court: Europe’s Guantánamo Bay?, published by the Africa Research Centre to coincide with the ICC’s first ever review conference (in Kampala, Uganda, 31 May - 8 June 2010), has found the ICC to be manifestly unfit for purpose. The study demonstrates that the ICC’s claims to international jurisdiction and judicial independence are institutionally flawed and that the Court’s approach has been marred by blatant double-standards and serious judicial irregularities. The Hague-based ICC is increasingly being seen as the European equivalent of the US tribunal at Guantánamo Bay, which similarly claims international jurisdiction.
While the ICC presents itself as an international court this is quite simply not the case. Its members represent just over one quarter of the world’s population: China, Russia, the United States, India, Pakistan and Indonesia are just some of the many countries that have remained outside of the Court’s jurisdiction.
The truth is also that the ICC is as independent as the United Nations Security Council and the Court’s European Union funding lets it be. Far from being an independent and impartial court, the ICC’s own statute grants special “prosecutorial” rights of referral and deferral to the Security Council, or more specifically its five permanent members. Political interference in the legal process was thus made part of the Court’s founding terms of reference.
The Court is also umbilically tied to the European Union which provides over 60 percent of its funding. The English expression, “He who pays the piper calls the tune”, could not be more accurate. The ICC has ignored all European or Western human rights abuses in conflicts such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq or human rights abuses by Western client states. Instead, the Europeans have chosen to focus the Court exclusively on Africa. Despite over 8,000 complaints about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries, the ICC has started investigations into just five countries, all of them African. Given Africa’s previous traumatic experience with the very same colonial powers that now in effect direct the ICC, this must create an alarming déjà vu for those who live on the continent. The EU is additionally guilty of economic blackmail in tying aid for developing countries to ICC membership.
The Court’s proceedings have often been questionable where not farcical. Its judges – some of whom have never been lawyers, let alone judges – are the result of vote-trading amongst member states. The Court has produced witnesses who recanted their testimony the moment they got into the witness box, admitting that they were coached by non-governmental organisations as to what false statements to make. There have been prosecutorial decisions which should have ended any fair trial because they compromised the integrity of any subsequent process. The ICC’s first trial stalled because of judicial decisions to add new charges half-way through proceedings. Simply put, the Court has been making things up as it goes along.
The ICC claims to be “economical”, yet it has cost half a billion Euros to put on one deeply flawed trial, which subsequently ground to a halt for months. The ICC claims to be victim-centred yet Human Rights Watch has publicly criticised the ICC’s ambivalence towards victim communities. The ICC claims to bring “swift justice” but it has taken several years to bring the first accused to trial for allegedly using child soldiers. The Nuremberg trials, which addressed infinitely more serious charges, were over within a year. The ICC claims to be fighting impunity, yet it has afforded de facto immunity and impunity to several serial abusers of human rights who happen to be friends of the European Union and United States.
The study’s author, Dr David Hoile, has noted:
“Africa fought long and hard for its independence. It must reject this new “legal” colonialism. The ICC’s double-standards and autistic legal blundering in Africa has derailed delicate peace processes – thereby prolonging devastating civil wars. There is a clear lesson for countries in Africa and elsewhere: do not join the ICC and do not refer your country to the ICC. It is the equivalent of inviting a cancer into your system. The ICC does not have Africa’s welfare at heart, only the furtherance of Western, and especially European, foreign policy and its own bureaucratic imperative – to exist, to employ more Europeans and North Americans and where possible to continue to increase its budget.”
About the Author Dr David Hoile is an African scholar and public affairs consultant specialising in African affairs. He is the author of Darfur: The Road to Peace (2008), Images of Sudan: Case Studies in Propaganda and Misinformation (2003), Farce Majeure: The Clinton Administration’s Sudan Policy 1993-2000 (2000), Mozambique, Resistance and Freedom: A Case for Reassessment (1994), and Mozambique: A Nation in Crisis (1989). He is also the editor of The Search for Peace in the Sudan: A Chronology of the Sudanese Peace Process 1989-2001 (2002). Dr Hoile has been a Research Professor at the Sudan University of Science and Technology and a Visiting Professor at the University of Khartoum.
The author can be contacted either by telephone on + 44 207 872 5434 or by email at drdavidhoile@yahoo.co.uk
