Should the Sudanese President face charges of War Crimes?
As a child who lived in the Sudan, which in my opinion is a beautiful country blessed with vast resources, a beautiful people and untapped potential. As a son of the Sudan with family and roots in the region, I am deeply concerned about the conflict in Darfur and the lack of progress in resolving this complicated crisis.
As a witness of the eradication of a legitimate political process in Sudan through the authoritarian control of the country by loyalists of President Omar al-Bashir in a coup in 1989, I should be the first person applauding the actions of the ICC on President Omar Al-Bashir, but I am not.
You might wonder why? Well my answer is simple and it can be summarized in one word - hypocrisy.
Some background:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced that on Monday July 14th 2008 an indictment will be made in the Hague naming President Omar al-Bashir and at least one of his senior officials in connection with the widespread displacement, murder and rape committed by government troops and their militias against the people of Darfur.
ICC prosecutor Luiz Moreno Ocampo is expected to present evidence against the Sudanese leader and ask the court to issue a warrant for his arrest - the second time in history a sitting African president has been indicted for war crimes. In 2003, a U.N.-created tribunal indicted then-Liberian President Charles Taylor.
Khartoum, which has not signed onto the court’s statute, has rejected the legitimacy of the ICC and refused to turn over two Sudanese indicted last year.
Why is this relevant? The ICC is a court of last resort and legally has jurisdiction over citizens of the 106 countries that have signed and ratified the international treaty that gives the court its mandate. The United States of America like Sudan has NOT signed onto the court’s statute. Therefore hypothetically no citizen of the United States or Sudan should be prosecuted by the court.
So why has the ICC decided to go after the sitting president of Sudan Mr. Omar al-Bashir for crimes against the people of Sudan rather than George W. Bush for crimes committed against the Iraqi people or then-President P.W. Botha for crimes against the people of South Africa or the Chinese President Hu Jintao for crimes against the people of Burma? – The ICC claims that it only tries those accused of the gravest crimes. Is this is a fair analysis? I don’t think so. I believe the people who were prosecuted and murdered in Iraq, South Africa, Burma and others would beg to differ.
The hypocrisy is evident. How does the ICC expect favorable world opinion or in this specific point and case the relatively important opinion of the Sudanese people to be favorable to such a measure?
Although I disagree with the political process in Sudan under its leadership by President Omar al-Bashir and I am disgusted by the inhumane treatment of the people living in the region of Darfur and the inaction of the government in protecting its citizens. I still adamantly believe that the Sudanese people through its judiciary are ultimately responsibility to prosecute Mr. Bashir of crimes committed within the sovereign state of Sudan and not a pretentious process that could be described as a “Kangaroo court” at the ICC.
Some questions to ponder.
Would it be a violation of the country’s sovereignty and would have consequences? Absolutely and the consequences are not immediately measurable, but insecurity and instability are very imminent.
The effects could spread to the political environment of the Middle East. It is therefore no surprise that the Sudanese people are a very proud people who are not fans of American foreign policy or international involvement in what they contemplate as domestic policy. This move could be met by heavy resistance from the people of sudan, specifically those loyal to the Khartoum regime. This will jeopardies the peace process that was signed not too long ago in Naivasha.
According to the Associated Press – Sudan has asked for an emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers ahead of the expected indictment, according to Arab League spokesman Abdel Aleem el-Abyad Saturday.
The outcome of the meeting will be understood next week.
Who would benefit from this? Almost no one. The conflict in Darfur is too complex and the attempts to resolve it are too delicate for so one-sided and blunt an approach. The two previous cases where incumbent presidents were indicted by international courts (though not the ICC) were very different from Sudan. The Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, was under military attack from Nato. Negotiations had been cut off. Ultimately, they were renewed but only with the good offices of the Russians who had shown no enthusiasm for the Hague tribunal’s indictment. Charles Taylor, the Liberian president, was indicted by a special hybrid court for his activities across the border in Sierra Leone and at a time when the two countries were virtually at war.
The conflict in Darfur is essentially an internal issue with multiple facets, involving the government and various rebel groups, as well as criss-crossing tribal disputes. Atrocities have been committed on all sides. The degree of blame, the extent of the killing and the number of victims are hotly disputed. A hybrid African Union and United Nations peacekeeping force is in place. Although Bashir and his government have put up a range of obstructions to make it hard for them to deploy quickly and operate effectively, UN member governments are also at fault for failing to supply the men and equipment that they pledged. Hundreds of UN and non-governmental agencies are on the ground providing food, water and other aid to the camps for the thousands of displaced victims of violence. The situation on the ground is dire. Hijackings of aid vehicles and food, mainly done by rebel groups, are increasing, with the number of incidents for the first six months of 2008 already equal to the total for the whole of last year. The aid agencies have to work with the consent of the government. Short of a hostile invasion designed to topple the regime in Khartoum – a decision that would be foolish and sure to make the situation even worse – there is no other choice for them but to deal with Bashir and his people. As for the chance of finding a political solution to the Darfur crisis, the AU and UN are conducting fitful talks with Darfur’s rebels in the hope of getting them to resume negotiations with the government. How could the mediators expect to persuade the rebels to be reasonable if the other side’s president has been charged with war crimes?
Nor is Darfur the only seat of tension in Sudan. The peace deal between north and south, which ended a conflict that went on longer than Darfur’s, is still fragile. What would happen to the coalition government that currently runs Sudan in preparation for a referendum on the south’s potential secession? Could the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement remain in government with a party whose leader has been indicted? What of the road map for the disputed province of Abyei under which UN troops now patrol an area where there was high tension earlier this year? Would UNMIS have to freeze its contacts with Bashir?
The conflict between justice and pragmatism is never easy to resolve. Holding people to account for their actions is a desirable goal, but it has to be weighed against the difficulties it creates if the indictees still hold power. Bashir is not Pinochet, who was long out of office as well as out of favour in Chile when he was indicted (by a foreign judge, not by an international court). The list of practical problems that would flow from an indictment of Sudan’s president is long. It far outweighs the benefits. The ICC’s prosecutor should think again.
The ICC has to be consistent when applying the law or it will quickly loose credibility and be accused of being an arm length prosecuting tool of western powers and nothing more.
