Politics of a warrant

Published : Apr 10, 2009 00:00 IST

President Omar al-Bashir addressing a gathering in the North Darfur state capital, Al Fashr, on March 8.-NASSER NASSER/AP

President Omar al-Bashir addressing a gathering in the North Darfur state capital, Al Fashr, on March 8.-NASSER NASSER/AP

THE arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 4 against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan for crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur is viewed as a dangerous precedent by many in the international community. It is the first time that this kind of a warrant has been issued against a serving head of state, that too under such controversial circumstances. The warrant came even as the Government of Sudan and the important guerilla factions of Darfur were taking strides towards securing a peace deal in the battle-scarred region.

The government in Khartoum puts the death toll in Darfur since fighting erupted in 2003 at around 10,000. The ICC and many human rights groups put the toll at around 300,000. The ICC has no powers to enforce its arrest warrants, but those indicted by it can be arrested on the territory of those states that have signed up to the ICC statute. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor who first called for an ICC warrant to be issued last year, said that Sudan was obliged under international law to carry out the arrest on its territory. Sudan is not a member of the ICC.

African nations rallied round Sudan as Bashir struck a defiant posture. Huge crowds rallied in support of their President in the capital, Khartoum, and other cities in the northern part of the country. We are telling the colonialists that we will not submit, Bashir told cheering supporters in Khartoum. The President urged his countrymen to carry out a jehad against the infidels, pointing out that arrest warrants had not been issued by the ICC against the Israeli leaders who committed crimes against humanity through the recent attack on Gaza.

Many Arab and African leaders have criticised the ICC and voiced their support for the Sudanese President. China too has criticised the move by the ICC. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said that his country opposed any decision that impeded peace in Darfur. China expresses its regrets and worry over the arrest warrant for the Sudan President issued by the ICC, a Chinese Foreign Ministry statement said. The spokesman also urged the United Nations Security Council to respect calls by the African Union (A.U.), the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement and call on the ICC not to hear the case for the time being. India, which has substantial business interests in Sudan, especially in the hydrocarbon sector, has been non-committal on the issue despite its long-standing ties with the country.

Only the United States and the European Union have expressed support for the ICCs momentous decision. The U.S., China, Russia, India and Israel are among the countries that have not joined the ICC since its creation in 2002. In fact, the U.S. under George W. Bush was one of the most vocal critics of the ICC, but because of Washingtons decades-old enmity with Khartoum, it did not cast its veto in the Security Council and allowed the ICC to go ahead with the prosecution of Bashir.

Sudan since the late 1980s has taken a principled stand on many foreign policy issues. It opposed the first Gulf War and has been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause. Sudan was targeted by American cruise missiles in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998. The ICC is now seen by many Sudanese as an instrument being used by the U.S. to get rid of a government it despises.

On the other hand, the U.S. has been using all its influence to see that Israeli leaders escape international justice. For that matter, the U.S. itself has committed far greater war crimes. The invasion of Iraq led to the death of more than 1.3 million people. The highest estimates of casualties in Darfur amount to only one-fourth of the casualties inflicted by U.S. forces in Iraq. In the so-called global war against terror, the U.S. has routinely resorted to torture, abductions and detention without trial.

The Security Council has the right to defer the warrant against Bashir. The governments in the region are speaking about the dangerous implications of the arrest warrant. Officials in the U.S. and in the E.U. headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, have also expressed their apprehension that the Sudanese government could once again revert to using military force in Darfur and that the peace deal with southern Sudan, which has been holding for the last three years, may also unravel.

General elections are scheduled to be held in Sudan this year, to be followed by a referendum in the south of the country on self-determination. The timing of the arrest warrant could derail these two democratic exercises.

Since the issue of the warrant, the joint U.N./A.U. peacekeeping force, known as UNAMID (United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur), has come under fire. Thirteen foreign relief agencies were expelled from Darfur in the first week of March. They were providing 4.7 million people in the region with food, water and medical aid. Thousands of people continue to stay in camps and are totally dependent on international agencies for sustenance.

The spokesman for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that the ICC decision would have dangerous consequences for the Darfur region in particular and Sudan in general. The decision, he said, smacked of politicisation and selectivity. African and Arab states have been lobbying the Security Council to defer the case against Bashir indefinitely so that a solution to the conflict in Darfur could be expedited. China, which has intensive political and economic links with Sudan, could help out as it is a veto-wielding Security Council member.

In July 2002, the Security Council gave U.S. troops a 12-month exemption from prosecution by the ICC that was renewable every year. The Bush administration had threatened to remove its peacekeepers from Bosnia if the exemption was not granted. But the Security Council refused to renew the exemption after the atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Iraq came to light in 2004.

The A.U., which held an emergency meeting after the ICC warrant was issued, stated that it would try to stop the execution of the warrant. The A.U. spokesman said that the organisation was deeply concerned at the far-reaching consequences of the act as it came at a critical juncture in the process to promote lasting peace in Sudan. Moses Wetangula, Kenyan Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that the operations of the ICC were very suspect and that some racial undertones could be detected in the manner in which the ICC handled African issues. Since its creation, the ICC has focussed almost exclusively on African leaders and warlords.

The A.U. meet was preceded by that of the Arab League. The Arab League emphasised in a statement that the need for a peaceful settlement of the Darfur issue was much more important than the ICCs arrest warrant. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa met with Bashir after the warrant was issued. He said that the ICC decision had provoked anger within the Arab League.

The Sudanese government and the main rebel group in Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), signed a goodwill agreement in the third week of February at a meeting hosted by Qatar. Both sides pledged to implement confidence-building measures (CBMs) in a bid to resolve the conflict. Within Sudan, only opposition leader Hassan al-Turabi and the Darfuri rebel groups supported the ICCs move.

Turabi, who was released from prison a few days after the arrest warrant was issued, has held on to his view that the Sudanese President is morally culpable for the conflict in Darfur. He urged Bashir to surrender to the ICC in order to save Sudan from more international sanctions and political turmoil. Turabi was Bashirs mentor at one time and was instrumental in his coming to power in a military coup in the late 1980s. Turabi, who is now 76, was the eminence grise of the regime until he fell out with Bashir over ideological issues.

The Sorbonne-educated Turabi is acknowledged as one of the foremost Islamist intellectuals of his time. When this correspondent met Turabi in Khartoum after he was released from one of his periodic stints in jail three years ago, he was quite forthright in his views on Darfur and related issues. He said that Darfur became part of Sudan only after the country came under British tutelage and that it was a separate administrative unit under Ottoman rule. The JEM leadership is known to have close links with Turabi and his Popular National Congress Party, which is the main opposition party in Sudan.

The ruling National Congress Party leadership seems to be fully behind Bashir as he faces one of his biggest challenges.

Sadiq al-Mahdi, Turabis brother-in-law and a former Prime Minister of Sudan, spoke out in support of the beleaguered President though he was ousted in an Islamist-inspired military coup in 1989 led by none other than Bashir. Mahdi, the leader of the National Umma Party, said that the ICC warrant had endangered the sovereignty and unity of the country and that it was the duty of the Sudanese people to unite on the issue.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment