Moreover, there is another dimension which is conveniently overlooked by many.Interest in Darfur and Sudan is not purely and innocently humanitarian.There are interests which are part of the new scramble for Africa.They are not far removed from the factors which led to the invasion of Iraq.The original Neo Con list included Iran, Syria and Sudan.

As for Ocampo ; he reminds me of a Sudanese proverb which describes a man who spears the shadow of the nearby elephant. He dare not touch a hair in the elephant’s tail but demonstrates his “gauntlet” by targeting the safe shadow.The elephants of human rights violations are visible for those who are really interested in human rights!

His open confession of involvement in a conspiracy to hijack an aeroplane shows that he is a real loose cannon militating against cooperation between Sudan and the International Community.Such behaviour can only embolden the rebels(never called terrorists) in their irresponsible strategy of prolonging the conflict and the suffering in Darfur. Sudan needs a credible partner for peace . It has shown its serious pursuit of peace in Abuja in 06 and on other occasions. The urgent task now is to revitalise the peace process,not to sabotage it the way Mr Ocampo does. Those holding his leach should give it a pull the way my old English neighbours do during their morning constitutional.
Law does not exist outside society’s fabric or irrespective of a world context .To claim that a dysfunctional and lopsided world order can provide overall even-handed fairness is a delusion, Ocampo is the best proof of that.

Khalid al Mubarak is press officer for the Sudan Embassy in London.

People say that death and taxes are the only two things we can rely on. Alex De Waal has added a third certainty to life: the ability for the NCP to do whatever it likes without consequence.

De Waal views Sudanese citizens, humanitarians, and peacekeepers at the mercy of the Sudanese government’s despots. With this in mind, he politely prodded the UNSC to consider putting ICC justice on hold.

De Waal’s advice should give us pause. It is right, as he advices, for the UNSC to bend to the fear-mongering of the Sudanese government? If it does, won’t the UNSC be encouraging Sudan ’s dismal behaviour? I’ve lost a lot of faith in the situation in Darfur, but I’m not yet willing to ask the UNSC to adapt to Sudan ’s horrific behaviour.

De Waal co-authored a letter with Julie Flint where he said, “At this sensitive time, to lay charges against senior government officials and to criminalise the entire government, will derail attempts to pull Sudan back from the brink and could provoke retaliation against humanitarian bodies and the two UN peacekeeping missions in the country”.

Now he’s focused on the UNSC. Fearing “the priorities of accountability for human rights violations and peace will contradict one another”, De Waal wrote, “Ocampo is forcing the hand of the UN Security Council. When he issues his indictment next month against a man who instrumented Haroun, he will compel the international community to confront its toughest decision on where its priority lies. Which will prevail: the pursuit of justice no matter what, or the negotiations to secure peace and democracy? Or can a way be found to reconcile these objectives?”

If we cut through the kindness, de Waal is saying that the ICC only has a damaging role to play in Darfur . But why? Is he justified? He says despots won’t give up; peacekeeping and humanitarian operations will be jeopardized (Pierrette Quintiliani’s contribution to the blog drew attention to the aggravating factor of the world’s low food stocks); and peace will be jeopardized (not just in Darfur but also maybe between the North and South).

De Waal’s knowledge of the country and conflict make his warnings more than logical predictions or guesswork. The Sudanese government doesn’t pause to harm their people just to slap the international community across the face. I have my doubts to his concerns however.

De Waal treats his worries as unshakable truths. I ask again, it is right for the UNSC to bend to the fear-mongering of the Sudanese government? If it does, won’t the UNSC be encouraging Sudan ’s dismal behaviour? Are we willing to ask the UNSC to adapt to Sudan ’s horrific behaviour? Let’s not go down the road where we blame the ICC or UNSC for criminal retaliations the Sudan ’s government makes against peacekeepers and humanitarians.

De Waal and his supporters may label my thinking as principled, and not pragmatic. If the international community’s cycle of appeasement and softness could be broken the tangible results will far exceed the expectations of what peace talks could bring. Let’s not cower behind what the international community has not done, but let’s push them to do more. But if the UNSC ceases support for the ICC, it only reinforces what Sudan ’s leaders already know: that they can do as they wish without consequence.

De Waal’s concerns about the new ICC application are misguided for other reasons. A lot of time, money, and emotion have been put into Drfrur peace talks. Such talks are a chance to end the suffering of millions of people and bring Darfur into the New Sudan created by the CPA. Now with a new AU-UN mediator on the way, there’s fresh opportunity. But will this be the same as other “opportunities”?

Retrospect is a gift we don’t have the privileged of benefiting from. But when history is repeated we can become better at predicted the future. The history of peace negotiations don’t bode well for Darfur . Without success the international community has put faith in its peace brokering skills. It’s looked the fool. The rebels have their fair share of fuelling the conflict; and the various peace negotiators have been criticized for various reasons. But let’s remember that the Sudanese government has a history of using peace talks as delay tactics, not as honest opportunities for peace. They have done this in Darfur, with southerners, and with Chad .

With this history in mind, the Sudan ’s ambassador to the UN tossed the “don’t disrupt peace” red herring into the air after the Prosecutor of the ICC presented his report to the UNSC on June 5. Now De Waal is waving it in the nose of the UNSC. Logical as this concern may be, there is a depressing reality: currently there is no prospect for peace in Darfur to save. For domestic and geo-political reasons, the Sudanese government wants Darfur to stay a violent land, not a peaceful one. Peace negotiations, pre-peace negotiations, and plans for planning peace negotiations have been underway in Darfur since the conflict began. What peace process will the ICC damage?

The recent fighting in Abyei between northern soldiers and the SPLA raises the stakes. Perhaps there is no peace to save in Darfur , but their certainly is peace to save between the north and south.

When the armies fought in May 2008 and over 100,000 people were displaced, warnings that the northerners and southerners were going to return to war spread through the media, NGOs, and diplomats. There have been other serious problems between the SPLM And NCP as well. But in each case the problems are resolved. In some cases international pressure was applied. But the real reason that war has not returned between the north and south is that the SPLM, but also the NCP, has too much to lose if the CPA collapses. This balance may be tipped if the NCP doesn’t allow for election or the 2011 referendum. But a new ICC indictment will not throw Sudan back into a north-south war.

In Darfur the international community has gambled on Sudan ’s willingness to want peace too much. It’s bent to Sudan ’s fear-mongering too often. It’s been conned into thinking whatever it does will lead to war. It’s time to expose the smoke and mirrors, move in a new direction, and give full-fledged support to the ICC.

Although I am not familiar with the personality of Mr. Bashir, his game of mouse and cat seems too familiar to not attempt the use of other means to end this nasty game. The indictment of officials from Khartoum other than minor players would also be a sign for rebel or opposition groups that they cannot act without impunity since with time they will continue to move from grievance to greed, making any prognostic for a potential cease-fire elusive.

This attempt could come at an opportunistic period since the fall in the world food stocks has already had an impact on humanitarian assistance with the United Nations cancelling some flights. Tragically, the potential decline in humanitarian assistance (as you said earlier, the only alleviation brought to the suffering population) will have a deadly toll on civilians but it will also slow down the political economy of both the government and rebel/opposition groups and this possible window of opportunity must be seized.