The international spectacle that has arisen after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, is of little surprise. There had been a hype build-up in the media in the weeks leading to the courts decision, which set the stage for the current showdown. There was, arguably, bound to be strong reactions to whatever decision the court made, whether or not al-Bashir was indicted.
The facts of the matter are that great atrocities were committed against the people in Darfur and the atrocities were committed under the watch of President al-Bashir. With the overwhelming evidence, the deck was stacked against al-Bashir, hence, the indictment. It is important to note that al-Bashir is only accused of committing the crimes but has not been proven guilty.
Should recent progress in the region and the interest of peace have swayed the court to decide otherwise or delay its decision? It is clear that the decision of the court could not, and should not, be entirely divorced from the greater political picture; I believe the prosecutor and judge would agree. However, with the preponderance of the evidence against al-Bashir, the real question is not whether the court could have decided otherwise, but one of the appropriateness of the timing of making the decision public. I am in support of the court's action of indicting al-Bashir immediately after they came to the decision. If Bashir was not indicted now, would there ever be a right time? The human rights infringements and killings have happened and many are still suffering even today; these people deserve justice and peace now. The legal cliche, "justice delayed is justice denied," captures the essence of my assertion.
As for the president's response: defiance, jubilation and flexing of sovereignty muscles. President al-Bashir's reaction should not be very surprising. Considering his history, no one should have expected him to cower in shame and surrender. But firing aid organizations and confiscating their assets have only served to deepen the image of his reckless disregard for his own people. Though I am not a proponent of dependence of African countries on international aid, it is clear in this case that the government lacks the capacity or is unwilling to support the vulnerable populations, and these organizations play a vital role in alleviating suffering. There are already reports of meningitis in a southern Darfur camp, showing the first fruits of much predicted suffering to follow. An eloquent column in the NYTimes column by Nicholas Kristof calls for the international community to take action against al-Bashir and in support of these vulnerable people.
The ICC has sent a symbolic message that country leaders cannot act with impunity and should be held accountable. Though the means of enforcement of the warrant is not certain, the whole world has taken note of the message.
Moreover, the response of the African Union, AU, has been disheartening. Their request to suspend the charges may be one of the last straws that completely shatters my trust in the credibility if the AU. AU leaders have been aptly described as a society of rogue leaders trying to protect one another's interest and not their populace; they may be living up to that description. The AU needs some serious self-honesty. We need to start calling a spade a spade, and realize we cannot continue in self-deception only because we need to oppose the neo-imperialists. The AU continually denies, harsh but true, realities, and continually polishes its reputation of placating and dancing to the tunes of dictators and criminals. We can be authentic and independent from Western pressures but yet also self reflective and courageous enough to call our offending brothers into question.
A man convinced of his innocence would show up in court and present evidence refuting those of his accusers. What would a guilty coward do? Behave like al-Bashir.
No comments:
Post a Comment