Sitting in the sands of Northern Darfur last month, there seemed little to suggest that the UN ban on offensive military flights over Darfur was being taken too by the Khartoum Government. Flying at high altitude above us two Antonov aircraft took it in turns to roll barrel bombs off their cargo ramps on to the sub-Saharan desert.
I suppose they were targeting the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebels with whom we shared the only cover - a thorn bush in a dried wadi. A few bombs fell quite close, a few hundred metres away, sending chunks of the wilderness skyward in grey, rolling banks of smoke. But a lot more exploded miles from the rebel position, suggesting that they were being used more as weapons of indiscriminate terror than specifically to target insurgents who are fighting attempts to force out ethnic black Africans in the region in favour of government-backed Arabs.
If the UN is taken as rather a joke by Sudan it only has itself to blame. Sudan has flouted just about every UN resolution on Darfur with total impunity. Little surprise then that President al-Bashir is not taking the International Criminal Court (ICC) very seriously either. Since it issued an arrest warrant against him last month for crimes against humanity and war crimes, the Sudanese leader has been on a regional cock-a-snook tour, sticking two fingers at international justice at every opportunity.
In this endeavour, his neighbours have served him well. Five Arab and African countries have greeted the indicted head of state in the past four weeks. The Arab League, which invited Mr al-Bashir to its summit in Qatar ten days ago, issued a statement of support for “his Excellency” the Sudanese President. Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, attended and was in the same room as Mr al-Bashir. He did not speak to him, but did not mention Darfur either.
With blood from Rwanda and Srebrenica indelibly staining UN hands you might think the Secretary-General would have bothered to say something while at a summit with a head of state indicted for crimes against humanity; a man who only four weeks ago, reacting to the arrest warrant with a fit of vindictive spite, closed 16 aid groups in Sudan; the man whose forces have displaced 2.7 million civilians during their operations in Darfur and caused the deaths of 300,000 more.
The past four weeks appear to have vindicated the ICC's critics. Not only is Mr al-Bashir still free to travel abroad (albeit only to nations that are not signatories to the ICC), but his standing at home appears to have been consolidated among those who like to see a regional strongman standing up to the West.
Furthermore, by issuing its arrest warrant the ICC appears to have set off a negative chain reaction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of Darfur's humanitarian needs, including food, healthcare and drinking water will be affected by Mr al-Bashir's expulsion of 16 aid organisations. The JEM, in turn, realising that it could not be seen to participate in a new round of talks with a government that was punishing its people in such a way, has refused to return to the negotiating table. Darfur seems in freefall - again. Peace is as elusive as ever and the plight of displaced civilians worse than a month ago.
Mr al-Bashir has achieved what he wanted, undermining the ICC's authority. Yet while he crows and postures, he may have overplayed his hand and galvanised the opposition.
The past two years have marked a dramatic shift in the fortunes of the JEM rebels, drawn traditionally from the black African Zaghawa tribe. Last May the JEM sent 3,500 fighters in mobile columns 1,200km across the desert to Omdurman, a suburb of Khartoum, in an operation designed to topple the al-Bashir regime. They might have succeeded, had not the assault column sent to take the presidential palace become embroiled in rush-hour traffic en route. (Point to note, next time - do it at night.)
Riding the wave of prestige that followed, the JEM has attracted volunteers from other tribes including Arabs, as well as weapons, money and matériel. It has defeated government forces in several engagements and is unequivocal in its desire to overthrow Mr al-Bashir.
Considerable international pressure was put on it to attend peace talks in Qatar in February. Now that those talks have been killed by the NGOs' expulsion, the rebels have turned their attention to war once more.
“If there is no help from the international community then this [war] is the only avenue for us,” the JEM leader, Dr Khalil Ibrahim, told The Times last month. “If we succeed then we can deliver to our people. If we fail, a massive crisis will happen.”
His words require careful scrutiny. The sum of Sudan's problems is far bigger than Darfur alone. More than two million Sudanese died in the 21-year civil war in southern Sudan, fought by Khartoum against the largely Christian south. That war was ended in 2005 by a peace agreement now under severe strain. The oppressive nature of the al-Bashir regime has given southerners little faith in the reform process that was part of the agreement and every wish support independence in a referendum due in 2011. The JEM has made significant overtures to the south, even offering it the presidency in the interests of national unity.
If the war in Darfur spreads without clear advantage to the Government or rebels, there is every chance that Dr Khalil's “massive crisis” could occur as Sudan breaks apart in a new conflict involving the south as well as Darfur. “We could end up with three Sudans, all at war,” one diplomat warned.
The ICC indictment was never going to fix Sudan's problems. It was a judicial response to criminal action and should be seen, and respected, as this, rather than as a cure-all for the political diseases afflicting Africa's largest nation. To suggest that it should never have been issued for fear of upsetting Mr al-Bashir is as ridiculous as to suggest that his arrest would end Sudan's crisis.
But the Arab League and African Union should hesitate in trumpeting their support for Mr al-Bashir and their denouncement of the ICC, and instead recognise the severity of Sudan's problems.
History may not be kind in remembering their gratuitous display of loyalty for the Sudanese President, which may be contributing to a meltdown that will involve dismemberment of the country. The impact of a widescale civil war in Sudan would be felt by all. Its neighbours would feel it worst of all.
Anthony Loyd