By Simon Tisdall (THE GUARDIAN, 29/07/08):
Sudan’s ambassador to the UN, Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem, offered an arresting description of the international criminal court’s chief prosecutor during testy exchanges at the security council this week. Luis Moreno-Ocampo had unfairly singled out the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir by accusing him of genocide, Abdalhaleem said, adding: “He is a screwdriver in the workshop of double standards.”
Sudan’s politicians and diplomats have had a lot of other things to say, more or less angry, since Moreno-Ocampo, using highly emotive language, asked the ICC earlier this month to formally indict Bashir for war crimes allegedly committed in Darfur. Foremost among them is the assertion that the court, all of whose current cases concern African countries, is visiting two-faced “white man’s justice” on Khartoum.
Yet to the surprise of many observers, neither a feared violent backlash against UN troops and western aid workers in Sudan nor intensified fighting between government forces and Darfurian rebel factions has materialised. Instead Bashir has launched an intense campaign of regional and international diplomacy to stop Moreno-Ocampo in his tracks.
Abdalhaleem’s screwdriver remark came as South Africa and Libya, with the tacit backing of Russia and China, threatened to delay renewal of the mandate for UN and African Union peacekeepers in Darfur unless the security council suspended the case against Bashir. Under article 16 of the ICC’s founding statute, the council can halt prosecutions for a year at a time if it wishes.
With the peacekeeping mandate due to expire on Thursday and the US and Britain trying to keep the two issues separate, the argument in New York looks likely to continue down to the wire. Meanwhile, Sudanese attempts to forge united resistance to the ICC’s action continue apace.
Both the African Union and the Arab League, accepting the “insult to Africa” argument, have called for an ICC delay after heavy lobbying by Khartoum. Both organisations expressed concern that Bashir’s indictment, if confirmed in The Hague, might seriously destabilise Sudan. Bashir was a principal architect of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. If he is removed, it is suggested, the north-south conflict could reignite, as it nearly did in Abyei in May.
Some African leaders – Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is one – harbour an additional worry: that the Bashir case could prove a precedent with implications for themselves. Others, more respectable, such as Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi, pragmatically point out that a peace accord in northern Uganda has been delayed by an ICC arrest warrant for a key participant, Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony. The same could happen in Darfur.
Kenya’s president Mwai Kibaki argues, meanwhile, that western countries and activist groups simply do not understand the Darfur’s complex clan conflicts and exaggerate the extent of Khartoum’s control over them. Five years after the violence in Darfur peaked, there is a growing body of evidence to support that view.
Bashir has also been busily securing his home base since the ICC targeted him, building defensive alliances with former political foes and promising a new peace plan for Darfur, which he briefly visited at the weekend. Khartoum has suddenly resumed diplomatic relations with neighbouring Chad, with which it threatened to go to war earlier this year. And Abdel Basit Sabderat, the justice minister, is talking about holding Darfur war crimes trials in Sudan’s own courts.
Sabderat said that he has invited legal experts from the UN and other bodies to evaluate the country’s legal system. He even seemed to suggest that the humanitarian affairs minister, Ahmed Haroun, and Ali Kushayb, a militia leader, indicted by the ICC for war crimes last year, could face investigation and trial at home. Sudan has refused to surrender the pair to the international court.
Observers say these shifts are attributable to the pressure placed on Bashir by the ICC’s action and that he knows his diplomatic charm offensive cannot shield him indefinitely. The beckoning solution, therefore, is improved cooperation by Khartoum on ending the emergency in Darfur and on other issues in return for the security council freezing the case against Bashir.
Although the US reportedly opposes such a crude quid pro quo, it could provide a way out for all sides. If the west pushes too hard, the fragile prospect of free, fully democratic presidential elections scheduled for next year could be dashed. So could north-south cooperation. More than that, Bashir could in desperation resort to the violent tactics he has so far eschewed.
Letting Bashir off the hook would undoubtedly be seen as a blow to the cause of internationally administered justice. But among the technicians in the workshop of double standards, it might just be thought preferable to yet another war in Africa.
Sudan’s ambassador to the UN, Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem, offered an arresting description of the international criminal court’s chief prosecutor during testy exchanges at the security council this week. Luis Moreno-Ocampo had unfairly singled out the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir by accusing him of genocide, Abdalhaleem said, adding: “He is a screwdriver in the workshop of double standards.”
Sudan’s politicians and diplomats have had a lot of other things to say, more or less angry, since Moreno-Ocampo, using highly emotive language, asked the ICC earlier this month to formally indict Bashir for war crimes allegedly committed in Darfur. Foremost among them is the assertion that the court, all of whose current cases concern African countries, is visiting two-faced “white man’s justice” on Khartoum.
Yet to the surprise of many observers, neither a feared violent backlash against UN troops and western aid workers in Sudan nor intensified fighting between government forces and Darfurian rebel factions has materialised. Instead Bashir has launched an intense campaign of regional and international diplomacy to stop Moreno-Ocampo in his tracks.
Abdalhaleem’s screwdriver remark came as South Africa and Libya, with the tacit backing of Russia and China, threatened to delay renewal of the mandate for UN and African Union peacekeepers in Darfur unless the security council suspended the case against Bashir. Under article 16 of the ICC’s founding statute, the council can halt prosecutions for a year at a time if it wishes.
With the peacekeeping mandate due to expire on Thursday and the US and Britain trying to keep the two issues separate, the argument in New York looks likely to continue down to the wire. Meanwhile, Sudanese attempts to forge united resistance to the ICC’s action continue apace.
Both the African Union and the Arab League, accepting the “insult to Africa” argument, have called for an ICC delay after heavy lobbying by Khartoum. Both organisations expressed concern that Bashir’s indictment, if confirmed in The Hague, might seriously destabilise Sudan. Bashir was a principal architect of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. If he is removed, it is suggested, the north-south conflict could reignite, as it nearly did in Abyei in May.
Some African leaders – Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is one – harbour an additional worry: that the Bashir case could prove a precedent with implications for themselves. Others, more respectable, such as Ethiopian prime minister Meles Zenawi, pragmatically point out that a peace accord in northern Uganda has been delayed by an ICC arrest warrant for a key participant, Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony. The same could happen in Darfur.
Kenya’s president Mwai Kibaki argues, meanwhile, that western countries and activist groups simply do not understand the Darfur’s complex clan conflicts and exaggerate the extent of Khartoum’s control over them. Five years after the violence in Darfur peaked, there is a growing body of evidence to support that view.
Bashir has also been busily securing his home base since the ICC targeted him, building defensive alliances with former political foes and promising a new peace plan for Darfur, which he briefly visited at the weekend. Khartoum has suddenly resumed diplomatic relations with neighbouring Chad, with which it threatened to go to war earlier this year. And Abdel Basit Sabderat, the justice minister, is talking about holding Darfur war crimes trials in Sudan’s own courts.
Sabderat said that he has invited legal experts from the UN and other bodies to evaluate the country’s legal system. He even seemed to suggest that the humanitarian affairs minister, Ahmed Haroun, and Ali Kushayb, a militia leader, indicted by the ICC for war crimes last year, could face investigation and trial at home. Sudan has refused to surrender the pair to the international court.
Observers say these shifts are attributable to the pressure placed on Bashir by the ICC’s action and that he knows his diplomatic charm offensive cannot shield him indefinitely. The beckoning solution, therefore, is improved cooperation by Khartoum on ending the emergency in Darfur and on other issues in return for the security council freezing the case against Bashir.
Although the US reportedly opposes such a crude quid pro quo, it could provide a way out for all sides. If the west pushes too hard, the fragile prospect of free, fully democratic presidential elections scheduled for next year could be dashed. So could north-south cooperation. More than that, Bashir could in desperation resort to the violent tactics he has so far eschewed.
Letting Bashir off the hook would undoubtedly be seen as a blow to the cause of internationally administered justice. But among the technicians in the workshop of double standards, it might just be thought preferable to yet another war in Africa.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario