The case for Sudan
July 14th, 2008The indictment of Sudan’s president comes as a dangerous and unhelpful development on the issue of Darfur and the unfortunate victims in that troubled region of Sudan.
The issue of Darfur is a political issue that bids militant groups that use violence to fight a legitimate government over perceived injustices, is not supposed to be resolved through a criminal indictment of a head of state, but rather through political reconciliation between the state and the groups that fight it.
Indeed there are legal questions with the regards to the legality of the indictment and a possible international arrest warrant against President Bashir and whether president Bashir is entitled to an immunity or not. In light of the fact that Sudan is not a signatory to the Roma Statute that established the Criminal Court makes this case a very complicated legal case that opens the question whether this statute can only bind states that are party to it and not others who are not such as the United Sates, and whether the security council resolution 1593 that refers the case to the Court did or can imply the removal of immunity of a sitting head of state or not.
Aside form the humanitarian crises that arose out of this conflict, we must not forget that Sudan, the state, is entitled to preserve its geographical integrity and prevent any party domestic or international from break the country up through armed struggle.
In the United States hundreds of thousands of Americans died in a civil war that commenced by the federal government against one of its regions in order to preserve the unity of the country and prevent its dismemberment. Even today, the United States government or any government for that matter would not let any state or group from simply spilt or breakaway from the country.
International law however, as it appears to be, is there to punish weak and third world countries if they were deemed misbehaving according to standards of Western powers. As this issue demonstrates, International law is there to preserve the interests and the power of big powers against small helpless nations. Sudan is perceived to be not playing by the rules set forth by western powers when it comes to its energy supplies, its stand on the Arab Israeli conflict and its position on Iraq.
Take for example Israel, a country that violates international law by continuing its occupation of Palestinian lands, and other Arab lands for that matter, has unilaterally declared Jerusalem as its capital where international law clearly states that Jerusalem is an occupied city and therefore it is illegal to declare it as an integral part of the state of Israel or change its geography or demographics by building Jewish-only settlements. Furthermore, when it comes to the wall Israel is building on occupied territories, international law sided with the Palestinian legal argument and declared the wall illegal, yet Israel simply ignored it, and no international body and no country is willing to do anything about it.
More, there are legal arguments as well as moral, against those responsible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that did not attack or threatened the United States. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed as result of this war in addition to millions displaced or were made refugees. So, we see that for political considerations, western powers can get away with virtually anything, but poor nations would have to bear the full brunt of the law.
That said however,President Bashir should do more to help his country to come out of this ugly war and bring Darfur and its tribes back to the fold of Sudan on equal footing with peaceful resolution to this tragic conflict. But with this indictment, the international community is exasperating the problem and complicates matters even worse especially for all of the innocent victims in Sudan.
Loading ...
Loading...
It seems to me that if your thesis is correct and you support the Govt. of Sudan in the Darfur issue you’d then support Israel.
Actually the situations are very different but that is your argument.
Hi Ali
Please tell me, who do you trust?
Sudan’s president?
Western powers?
The Chinese government?
The African Union?
The United Nations?
Someone will have to take charge of the situation and work towards settling the conflict.
I still think the UN is the most trustworthy organization and it should be allowed to intervene in cases like Darfur, but Mr. Bashir has been totally uncooperative, so I welcome some pressure.
Don’t know whether it’s gonna help though, it might depend on who the people of Sudan will put their trust in.
سلام
Dominik
There are certainly some good points here, but this comes down to a fundamental question that not only affects this discussion but this website as well:
To what extent should we “mind our own business” when it comes to international affairs?
Because, Ali, that is fundamentally what your argument breaks down to: That the international community, well, mostly the West, should mind it’s own business, and if it does so, then the Darfurian problem will soon resolve itself.
It is certainly true that the track record of the US has been less than stellar, and that it’s hypocritical stance on the abuses and land grabs by Israel is nothing to be proud of. On the other hand, I would like to know, from everone, really, just who they refer to when a humanitarian tragedy like Darfur, like Seirra Leone, like Rwanda or Bosnia occurrs, from armed groups and militias, and people cry out, why isn’t someone doing something?
Who?
The Chinese? They have the largest standing army in the world.
The Russians? Excellent armed forces, air force and navy.
How about the Turks or the Iranians? Both of whom have strong military forces.
How about North Korea? Another big military force, easily capable of bringing peace to these troubled regions.
The thing is, negotiators have been working on the Sudanese problem throughout the conflict. They didn’t save anyone, did they? The UN had a peacekeeping force staffed by Canadians in the Rwanda genocide, who begged their (and my) government for troops. They didn’t prevent the slaughter. The Yugoslavian conflict had both peacekeepers and negotiators come in, but it also ran its course like a wildfire of death. Right now, terrible offenses are occuring in Darfur, in Zimbabwe, and numerous other places around the globe. The UN does little or nothing to stop this, besides lip service, laughable economic sanctions which target the common folk of the affected region while doing little to harm the people in power, and underfunded and ineffective peacekeepers.
Quite frankly, this is due to the attitude that your post presents. You condemn the Western powers for interfering, stir up suspicions from the post-colonial days, trumpet about “national integrity”, and the bodies pile up.
True, the West has it’s problems, but in the years to come,when more of these slaughters are going to occur, would you like an insular US, France and Britain will do nothing and commit nothing to help other than “diplomatic means”? Well and good. Plenty of other nations have both wealth and military power now. I’m sure China, Russia and Iran will possess the moral fortitude to intervene in some fantasticly perfect military fashion that spares the innocent and brings immediate peace. You will know when you read their press releases.
And about Iraq?
Iraq may have been a fiasco from the word go in terms of motivation, it may have turned into a quagmire or violence and ineptitude, but when Saddam’s regime fell I saw most Iraqis celebrating having a brutal dictator overthrown, who had made a misery of their lives for decades.
And all during that time no amount of diplomatic overtures did anything real to stop him and his regime. No economic sanctions affected him in his palaces and splendour. No dissent or popular uprisings shook him.
The US may have completely screwed up the whole Iraq war, but in my opinion that’s due to an incompetent son and his gang of cronies trying to correct the cowardice of the father, who should have kicked him out back in the first Gulf War.
Dictators, tryants and brutes are not going to stop just because someone asks them nicely or stops shipping tv’s and car parts to the people they are oppressing. For all your disdain of the US and the West, I really don’t see any other nation or cultural entity standing up to these ghouls. You certainly aren’t.
[...] Ali Alarabi, writing for Mideast Youth, the indictment is an unhelpful attempt to settle the political issue of Darfur. [...]
[...] Alarabi, writing for Mideast Youth, is also concerned with the legality of such an indictment: Indeed there are legal questions with the regards to the [...]
[...] Mideast Youthに寄稿しているAli Alarabiには、この起訴はダルフールの政治問題の解決には役に立たない試みのようだ。ダルフールでの人道的大小は高いが、スーダン政府には国境を保全する権利があるとAlarabiは指摘する。しかし、大きく裕福な国家はスーダン指導者を罰するために国際法のうしろに隠れている。 国際法は西側諸国の水準に基づいて不正行為を行なっていると見なされた弱い第三世界の国々を罰するためにあるように見受けられる。この問題が示すように、国際法は小さく無力な国に対する大国の利益と力を守るためにある。エネルギー供給、アラブとイスラエルの紛争における立場、そしてイラクに対する見解のこととなると、スーダンは西側諸国によって作られたルールに従っていないと見なされている。 [...]
[...] Ali Alarabi, scrivendo per Mideast Youth, si mostra preoccupato dalla legittimità di tale incriminazione: Ci sono infatti problemi legali che riguardano la [...]