Sudan Presidents Arrest Sought by ICC Over Darfur

#1
An analytical piece from Paul Reynolds. I have no doubt that the President of Sudan has committed war crimes but I think the move by the ICC prosecutor is naive and rather questionable considering the wider implications. Would also disagree with the comment that the ICC is independent - no supranational body ever is.

From the BBC

Bashir move bold but problematic

The decision by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to seek the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan is a bold human rights intervention, but one that will cause problems on the diplomatic front.
It is bound to complicate, some will say destroy, attempts to increase the presence of an international peacekeeping force in Darfur and to encourage negotiations on a settlement between the government of Sudan and the rebel groups in Darfur.
But the ICC is independent and is not concerned with diplomacy.

It is concerned with justice. The court believes that, in this case, it is doing exactly what it was set up to do in 2002 - prosecute crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

It does not have to make a calculation and weigh the balance between justice and realpolitik.

'Disaster in the making'

However, there has been criticism of the prosecutor's decision from the former US Special Envoy for Sudan, Andrew Natsios. In an article on the website of the Social Science Research Council titled "A disaster in the making", Mr Natsios says: "This indictment may well shut off the last remaining hope for a peaceful settlement for the country.

"Without a political settlement Sudan may go the way of Somalia, pre-genocide Rwanda, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo: a real potential for widespread atrocities and bloodshed as those in power seek to keep it at any cost because of the alternatives. An indictment of Bashir will make it much more difficult for any country or international organisation to help negotiate a political settlement with the Sudanese government."

Security Council mandate

Sudan has not signed up to the ICC but the court has authority to act in this case because the Security Council gave it a mandate to do so, with resolution 1593 in March 2005. ....

In July 2008, Mr Moreno-Ocampo told the Security Council that Sudan was not co-operating and that he had "compelling evidence" identifying "those most responsible for crimes against civilians".

The Council then warned Sudan that it had to cooperate.

The warrant request for Mr Bashir will now be considered by a panel of three court judges.

If they issue the warrant, Sudan will be obliged to arrest its own president, in effect the president handing himself over, which nobody expects will happen.

However, under Article 89, Mr Bashir might also be liable to arrest if he visits one of the 106 states that are parties to the treaty.

Article 89 of the court's statute says that the court "may transit a request for the arrest and surrender of a person...to any state on the territory of which that person may be found..."
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
This is the same President who gladly hosted Os sad - man Bin -Lid an during the mid/late 90's. His Government have supported, sponsored and armed the Janjaweed in their relentless quest to kill non - muslims and then half - heardedly denied it afterwards. But again, as Sudan is a 5hite hole like Rhodesia and has nothing of material value going for it, we all turn a blind eye to the genocide. Shocking really.
 
#3
Presumable a few Chinese, Russian, North Korean..........etc chaps are going to get their collars felt or maybe it'll be to hard, only go for the easy ones. Just to show what power the ICC really has.
 
#4
Command_doh said:
This is the same President who gladly hosted Os sad - man Bin -Lid an during the mid/late 90's. His Government have supported, sponsored and armed the Janjaweed in their relentless quest to kill non - muslims and then half - heardedly denied it afterwards. But again, as Sudan is a 5hite hole like Rhodesia and has nothing of material value going for it, we all turn a blind eye to the genocide. Shocking really.
Oh, on the contrary, the Chinese are pumping tons of oil out of Sudan
 
#5
so, i guess he will join the long list of fugatives from the ICC, who are unlikely to ever be prosecuted.

Until the ICC gets some teeth, this is all just hot air.
 
#6
This is the same President who gladly hosted Os sad - man Bin -Lid an during the mid/late 90's. His Government have supported, sponsored and armed the Janjaweed in their relentless quest to kill non - muslims and then half - heardedly denied it afterwards. But again, as Sudan is a 5hite hole like Rhodesia and has nothing of material value going for it, we all turn a blind eye to the genocide. Shocking really.
I agree with your sentiments mate, but your arguments are slightly flawed.
The people being persecuted are on the whole 'muslim' but are regarded as 'black african' as oppose to 'african arab'. Sudan has a lot going for it! It is particlarly rich in minerals and there is believed to be oil in the region as well (can't be explored properly due to the country being in a nigh on continual state of war since independence from Britain). The UN has categorically stated that although there are significant crimes against humanity there is no evidence of genocide (not my words or sentiments). This is why the UN is finding it so difficult to act in this respect. Unfortunatley a lot of the problems in Sudan are the fault of the British and a policy of investing heavily in the North of Sudan, whilst under our administration (guess which ethnic group lives there?........and it's not the 'Africans'). Depending on which paper you read or which NGO you listen to, there have 200K-400k deaths directly attributable to the situation in Darfur and internal and external displacement of about 3-4M pax. The whole region is primed to kick off big time, with Chad in a state of self proclaimed War and the CAR rattling sabres too. Egypt/ France are big investors as are the Chinese. Britain are slinging cash at the Sudanese in a diplomatic effort to curtail the human impact. But like you say, mate, "shocking". Sometimes I wonder why Britain doesn't take the bull by the horns and start assassinating these fcukwits in charge of tinpot regimes?
 
#7
BPS666 said:
Sometimes I wonder why Britain doesn't take the bull by the horns and start assassinating these fcukwits in charge of tinpot regimes?
I understand why we stopped getting the indicted criminals in the balkans, but I am inclined to say, that these guys should be given 1 month, then given a warning. If they haven't handed themselves in to the hague after that, they should be taken by force, and if they are killed in the process, "oh well, never mind..... next!" (even if the only means of 'arrest' is a TLAM)

As mentioned previously, until the ICC geet some teeth, its just hot air and will be ignored.

I guess i do not understand all the issues, but it seems to me we are 'happy' to withness the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, rather than get our hands a little bloody by taking out a dictator or two.
 

Latest Threads

Top