The ICC Vs Sudanese Dictator Smack Down
July 16th, 2008I’m guessing by now you’ve all heard the “entertaining” news which has stirred up all kinds of reactions, including one right here on our very own Mideast Youth. I’m afraid, the piece (like many others out there) is misguided. I appreciate Ali Alarabi’s well-meaning sentiments but there are a few highly troublesome points that need to be dealt with, the first being this:
The issue of Darfur is a political issue that bids militant groups that use violence to fight a legitimate government over perceived injustices
The Sudanese regime is NOT legitimate. A dictatorship is NEVER a legitimate government. This government came via a coup and wrecked havoc upon its own people throughout the whole country, even in the north. Moreover, the injustices are NOT perceived. They’re real. Just check this out, and you’ll know.
Secondly, I find it rather unfortunate that a post about this episode just had to, for some reason, include Israel in the picture. To me, it implies a conspiratorial mindset and seems by default to reject political pressure on a country when it comes from other powerful ones, even if this pressure could yield useful results. I could be wrong, but that is my perception.
Thirdly, I found the following naive:
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.
Omar al-Bashir couldn’t care less about the people of his country, especially in regions populated by people from tribes he most probably views as “inferior.” The idea that Bashir “will” because apparently he “should” is silly. Won’t happen, and that’s why pressure is important, but it needs to be exerted strategically, and this where Ali Alarabi and I agree!
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.
Precisely. And this where I want to elaborate. I highly recommend my analysis for MEY’s readers.
Loading ...
Loading...
The question you should ask yourself: should the ICC make political calculations when deciding whom to prosecute? Especially when it comes to the worst crime against humanity: genocide. Of course you are right when you doubt if ‘the international community’ will take the right political measures to stop the violence in Darfur, but it’s better to criticize the countries that constitute this community in this regard. Your arguments why the different involved parties will not take the right measures is based on their historical behaviour: they didn’t do the right thing in the past, so they won’t do this now. Let’s hope all the international intention will force the international community not to look away and do everything possible tostop the ongiong violence.
I meant ‘attention’ of course
The I.C.C. should also prosecute President George W. Bush for war crimes in Iraq; and they should go after every single president and head-of-state in the Arab and Islamic World, too. But, we single out Sudan because of politics and we turn Darfur from a humanitarian challenge to one of political activism. If those who criticize Sudan also criticized the other tyrants, dictators, demagogues and illegitimate governments, then I might take the criticism seriously. But I agree with Ali Alarabi that the prosecution is purely driven by politics.
Ray Hanania
http://www.TheMediaOasis.com
So there is no qualitative difference between genocide and other forms of political violence?
There is a distinct difference between genocide and other forms of political violence, including war crimes. International law recognizes a number of different levels of crimes, as do most domestic laws: for example here in the US we have 3 levels of manslaughter and then murder, all meant for the crime of taking another’s life. The severity of the charge directly relates to the severity of the act.
Al-Bashir was charged with a number of different counts, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There’s a reason the charges are stronger against him, because the severity of the crime is mugh greater, as is evidence of the crimes.
These charges, while they do send a good message to other brutal dictators, might not hold up legally for a number of reasons:
1. sitting heads of state are often immune from prosecution, even in international courts. This is based on the belief that sitting heads of state have additional information, not available to the public, that might warrant actions others see as prosecutable. This is where the question of a legit government comes in: if Al-Bashir is not the head of a legitimate government, he would not be protected under immunity. But if he is not the head, who is? If he is not responsible, who should be?
2. Sudan is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, which created the ICC. Therefore, even if Al-Bashir is arrested and tried, his lawyers will most certainly argue lack-of-jurisdiction, and that would be a valid argument even under the ICC’s own rules.
Ray, with regards to your comment about Bush being tried for war crimes in Iraq, both of these reasons would prevent that…the US isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute either. And those who critisize Sudan do critisize other tyrants – but of course it is a game of politics. I think that your comment that this indictment is “purely” politics demeans the suffering of the people in Darfur. Do you honestly believe that no one should hold al-Bashir accountable because other bad leaders haven’t been held accountable? After all, sometimes politicians – especially those that are held accountable to the public in truly democratic socities – do make the right decisions, even if they are politically motivated. Of course politics are going to come into play, resulting in both the good and the bad. As Drima noted in the original post, heads of state often don’t act because they “should,” but rather because they are forced to. Here’s an interesting take from the IHT: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/17/opinion/edkhouri.php?page=1
There are valid concerns about a brutal retaliation against humanitarian workers due to this decision – in fact, UN humanitarian workers and orgs like CARE have already started pulling out. But don’t these concerns add additional weight and proof to the original charges?