| 
The ICC issues an arrest warrant for Sudan's President
Man At The Top Generally held
responsible as one of the causes behind the 20 years lasting civil war and the
Darfur conflict, Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has been indicted last March
by The International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Such decision might have turbulent and unpredictable consequences, or simply be
a step towards a long-awaited peace By FABRIZIO
COLIMBERTI from Palermo, ITALY
On
March 4, ending months of deliberation, judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber of the
International Criminal Court, an independent judicial body of the United Nations,
issued a warrant arrest for Sudan President Omar al-Bashir. In the warrant, Mr.
Bashir is indicated as having played an "essential role" as indirect
co-perpetrator of the Darfur conflict and the consequences suffered by the locals;
specifically, he is being indicted for attacking, murdering, exterminating, raping,
torturing, forcing out of their home and pillaging the properties of a large number
of civilians. A charge for genocide has not been confirmed, as the judges have
not found Mr. Bashir guilty of having specifically sought the destruction of the
large ethnic groups of Fur, Masalit and Zaghwa, which constitute most of the population
of Darfur. However, the Court reserved the right to reconsider its position if
more substantial evidence should emerge in this direction.
The arrest warrant
is not being considered legally binding from Sudanese authorities, the country
not being one of the signatories of the Rome Treaty that instituted the ICC, and
it is unlikely to be enforced within Sudanese borders despite international pressure.
In addition, the President's high popularity in the central and northern regions
of Sudan remains an issue, and the institutional response was to expel several
NGO's from the country. At the moment, it is unclear who will prevail between
Bashir and The Court. Instability in the whole Sudan - and Darfur in particular
- is far from being over, but the Court's decision at least renewed the debate,
and might capture the interest of the new American administration.
Held
up without a gun
Within hours from receiving the news from The Hague,
where the ICC is based, the government revoked the operating licences to 13 humanitarian
organizations working in Darfur, that according to the New York Times constituted
60% of the material aid to the region. Some now fear the explosion of the umpteenth
food or hygienic crisis. At the same time, a crowd of thousands gathered in Khartoum
to show its support to Mr. Bashir. Sudanese officials ran to - at least, publicly
- condemn the ICC's decision and defend the President.
The influence of
the Khartoum-based leader remains a puzzling issue for whoever tried to intervene
in the Darfur case in these last years. As reported by The Economist, this ICC's
last move comes after a period of intense moral suasion in which Mr. Bashir has
not been persuaded to loosen up his iron fist on the country. It is reasonable
to imply that the ICC judges considered the risks as well as the political and
humanitarian consequences implied by their actions.
Reactions to the Court's
announcements from the international community were mixed. Most Western countries
backed the decision; it was the UN Security Council that referred the case to
the ICC in the first place, as prescribed in the case of countries not being part
of the Rome Treaty.
At the same time, the ruling has been negatively received
from the African Union, a major player in the region's long struggle for peace,
the League of Arab States, Russia and China, with the former power once more confirming
its non-interfering external policy. In the last few years, with multimillionaire
infrastructural and transport investments and an unprecedented political capital,
Beijing has by far become the first investor in the Sudanese oil industry and
it has a clear interest in protecting its grip on the oil-rich area of southern
Darfur.
All ICC opposes punctually denounce American and European interests
in Sudanese oil fields and disclaimed the judges' decision as merely driven by
diplomatic manoeuvring. Such reactions were also due to the fact that such pronouncement
represented the first international warrant of arrest ever issued for a sitting
Head of State by the ICC. Other warrants had been previously issued to sitting
Head of States by UN-backed tribunals, The International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia for Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia) and The Special Court
for Sierra Leone for Charles Taylor (Liberia). Notably, such decisions contradicted
a ruling from the International Court of Justice, a UN organ that had previously
established that Head of States detain international immunity from criminal prosecution
while in office.
Sudanese expatriates and human rights activists such as
The Enough applaud the Court's decision, not only as a sign of interest from the
international community but reminiscent of the beneficial effects that internationally
established tribunals had in changing the regional dynamics towards reaching a
peace process both in Yugoslavia and Liberia.
Yet, these two cases were
very different compared to the Sudanese one. The Balkans were a bleeding scar
at the heart of Europe, and Liberia was a regional instable player in the midst
of a civil war. Nowadays, Sudan has been repeatedly forgotten by international
media, it shows no clear signs of an alternative Islamic civil society or grassroots
movement to deal with from the outside and has a fierce friend in a stable and
determined China, covering for the actual establishment. Within the current state
of things, there not seems to be room for solutions of any sort for Darfur. Still,
a 2006 peace agreement between Khartoum and Chad has proved unsuccessful because,
according to many, the President's figure itself represented an obstacle to an
effective ceasefire.
A new chapter?
Remarkably, the ICC judges'
warrant resulted in a general increase of the international pressure on Mr. Bashir.
In the last month, defiant of the warning, laid back and in the aftermath of ICC's
decision, he paid a visit to Eritrea, Egypt, Libya and Ethiopia. However, the
warrant is still likely to restrict President Bashir's movements outside Sudanese
borders.
Despite a general approval for the judges' move, external observers,
such as The New York Times, whether supporting such decision, stressed how the
proceeding could prove disastrous not only for the future of Darfur but even for
its effects on the still fragile North-South peace agreement. Besides, international
experts agreed with the views articulated by several African governments that
the same success of the UN peacekeeping forces in Sudan could now be in peril,
being their track record enough weak already.
In general, as other observers
pointed out, the first effect of the warrant has been of showing who in the international
community is on the side of justice and who is not. Moreover, as underlined by
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the ICC move has sent a clear message
to other sitting Head of States not falling under its own jurisdiction - Robert
Mugabe of Zimbabwe, above all.
An obvious case is being made to urge President
Obama to re-ratify the ICC treaty, after President Bush had it 'unsigned' during
his first term in office. Such move would certainly increase the legitimacy of
the Court's actions. The US has been very supportive of the ICC until today, but
without formally agreeing to the Treaty, the Court will always be easily accused
of partisanship.
In definitive, what will happen in Sudan is unpredictable,
and largely dependant on foreign governments. A consolidated custom in the history
of modern Sudan.
A profile of Omar Hasan Ahmad
al-Bashir
Omar
al-Bashir is a defining figure in contemporary African politics. A colonel in
the Sudanese army, Bashir led a military coup in 1989 that, apart from establishing
himself as the key actor in the national cabinet, led to the proclamation of Sharia
law. This ensured him the back up of the National Islamic Front, an Islamic party
active in the northern regions of the country led by Islamist ideology Dr. Hassan
al-Turabi, today also known for having been Osama bin Laden's host during his
Sudanese years (1992-1996).
Dramatically ignored by the international
community - especially if compared to the more infamously celebre Darfur conflict
- the war between Islamic northern and African southern communities of Sudan erupted
in 1983. Under Bashir's autocratic ruling, it evolved in a massively bloody conflict,
in part because of the secular tensions between the two peoples but mostly because
of the abundance of natural resources of the country, concentrated in the southern
provinces. The US Government estimates that such war, officially ended in 2005,
resulted in at least 2 million dead civilians and about 4 million refugees.
More
recently, what put Mr. Bashir under the international spotlight is his role in
the Darfur crisis. A series of assault by local rebels in 2003 marks the beginning
of the conflict between Sudan and Chad, a conflict that sees once again the Sudanese
officials recurring to those Arab militias (Janjaweed) that previously constituted
their armed arm in the civil war.
UN figures speak of a death toll of about
300,000 to 400,000 dead and 2,5 million displaced civilians. Khartoum claims Darfur
to be the setting of a war against local terrorism currently resulting in the
death of no more than 10,000 people, as Mr. Bashir himself declared in June 2008
to presenter David Frost on Al Jazeera English. However, reports of humanitarian
agencies on the ground tend to confirm the scale of the events that took place
there. Referring to these numbers, several international observers accuse the
Cabinet leader of genocide.
Foreign Policy Magazine ranks Sudan as the
second most failed state in the world (after Somalia). Considering that conflict-safe
parts of Sudan experienced limited economic development in recent years, it is
arguable that this could be a measure of how bad things are in Darfur.
(Published: 10.04.2009.)
|
|