Opinion Editorials, March 2009

Sudan Dilemma:

ICC Accusations Seems Un-fair!

By Hasan Yahya

wfol.tv, March 26, 2009

In his article, “Security Council Stalled Over Sudan Indictment”Thalif Deen, describes the impact of the warrant to arrest president Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and how the Arab League, the OIC, and the AU join forces to dismiss such warrant. While they may have influence within the governing body of the court.

In his article, “Security Council Stalled Over Sudan Indictment”Thalif Deen, describes the impact of the warrant to arrest president Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and how the Arab League, the OIC, and the AU join forces to dismiss such warrant. While they may have influence within the governing body of the court, African countries are taking a leading role, with South Africa as the focal point for the review conference discussions in this matter. But sthe till have the weak position to defend a leader they respect and cherish as one of them. In fact some of these leaders may play as agents to the ICC to push for the warrant case by supporting the rebels in the South and West of Sudan.
In principle, no one should be over the law, local or regional or universal. Omar al-Bashir is an Arab, a  Muslim, and he’s similar to any other Arab leader committed crimes to his people. He has the power to sway rights to his close constituents in the army, intelligence and government positions. He, like any other Arab or Muslim leader if he commits crimes against his people, he will not be immune from persecution by any legal court and be charged for war crimes.

 Atrocities of Arab and Muslim governments, in fact cannot be ignored in this case and need careful and serious investigation. Saying this, the ICC have to be reliable to issue warrants for war criminals. In the past its reliability was highlighted by many NGO’s and Amnesty human rights observers. Similar warrants were issues for leaders in South America and Europe, but it is the first to be issued against an Arab Muslim leader for any crime may be made by his intention or without intention to do these crimes.  If the principle stands for justice and equality of human rights, cases were much more dangerous than accusations of al-Bashir, were not considered as crimes committed on a larger scales in Israel war crimes against Palestinians in the occupied land. None of the Arab leaders was even called for the ICC, for their crimes of negating Islam with their hatred practices in terms of race relations, discrimination, or wealth ownership where four families owned the larger part of oil reserve (including Libya, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait) mostly used for personal and familial interest. The reason is that their crimes cannot be classified under war crimes. Which is understandable.

Arabs as well as Muslim leaders are not immune to be charged with war crimes, but their crimes did not scale as committed war crimes by Israeli Army Generals and leaders.

Who’s involved in this case?

As I began this article, that Omar al-Bashir crimes accusations were not founded, and may be fabricated, it seems to me that accusations are politically oriented to hurt Arabs and Muslims. We have already the examples, in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as in Lebanon and Occupied Palestine. America as the only global leader of this world as it perceived itself, has the right to make the flip the coin as it wishes. The obvious right to be wrong, and vise versa. USA has the power and interest to the oil reserves in Sudan or Gas reserves in Afghanistan, and therefore, wants to replace Omar al-Bashir by a scandal to have better conditions to rule over Sudanese government and decision-making power of the Sudanese political leaders.  Three persons in the last fifty years were close to be called for the ICC to be persecuted, if it was founded then, Jamal Abdul-Nasir of Egypt, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Yassir Arafat of Palestine. Fortunately they passed away peacefully except the middle name, who suddenly was accused by mass destruction weapons, while the country has none, and the lies of American political propaganda, made it  possible to invade a country may incites unity of Arab and Muslim nations under one flag in the future.

Now the crime of having mass destruction cannot be valid for the Sudanese leader, the best scenario have to be new and valid internationally, and supported by the powerful against the powerless. War crimes is a nice and appealing title to hunt brave leaders who wanted to live in their country in peace. We never heard that the South or Darfur in the west of Sudan in particular have any disputation with the central government of Sudan. This phenomenon became famous after the intervention of the USA in the African Nations affairs. [For example, Somalia and other places]. It is obvious then, who will benefit from accusing an Arab -Muslim Leader in these circumstances.

Coming to the AU, the Arab League, and the OIC, an Arabic proverb says: “Man Yamut, Yas-hul al-Hawanu Alayhi” means whoever dies, it’s  easy for him to be humiliated”, he’s already dead. The three organizations are almost dead informally in terms of power ownership. They are the poor south, and have little influence in their temporary status. Because they have very little power to make other organizations like the UN and the ICC, to take their opinion in the matter of an arrest warrant on al-Bashir which may jeopardize ongoing peace efforts in Sudan took place for many years but failed for international interference. To make such a claim fruitful, they have to bring criminal acts other leaders and generals in the region who commit war crimes on daily basis in the occupied Palestine and who commited wars against Lebanon, and Palestinian refugees in Gaza Strip and West Bank to show that al-Bashir crimes are minimal and incomparable with Zionist crimes.

I suggest to the AU, the OIC, and the Arab League, who are looking for the UN Security Council for help in this matter, to look again and see how much influence they had on the UN in general and ICC in particular, to listen to them while they both are under western powers. The warrant may be postponed for a while, but the law have to be respected and implemented somehow, otherwise, the poor and the weak people who constitute the majority of civilian crimes will have no backers to support their claims against war crime doers on legal grounds.

For Sudan, the scenario simply can be described as the very well known new old  “divide to Rule” method. Where Sudanese will be divided into supporters and opponents, (Arab-Muslim leaders as well,) where Sudan cannot continue its economic development plans or its march to democracy safely, which in the final analysis  result, include domination of outside powers. And to arrest a president of a nation, most of his ethnic and religious community believe in his innocence, will bring war to a peaceful nation like Sudan, and will hurt too many civilians in the region, instead of bringing peace. Such a warrant has two explanation, the ICC became a poppet in the hands of ideological powers, namely western powers. The other is that the accused is guilty until proved innocent instead the western slogan, the accused is innocent until proved guilty. Such a slogan hurts the Arab-Muslim Symbol of ethics. Even if al-Bashir was innocent. The damage for Arabs and Muslims already done.  In my belief, there are too many points hidden in issuing such a warrant. Many people direct fingers to Zionism, but what’s Zionism is capable to do  without consent of the USA government and Great Britain or the G7=1. still questionable and unwarranted to be claimed? 

In conclusion, nothing wrong with the ICC decision, but what is wrong is the latent goal behind. The time and circumstances which stand unjustifiable in the ICC side without adding religion as a factor, which also have to be considered in issuing the warrant to bring a Muslim leader to justice. My suggestion for ICC is to leave the Sudan Leader to Sudanese to oust him from power or keep him. It is in terms of human rights to leave people decide for themselves, such interfering in Sudan political affairs according to western values of Democracy and freedom open the question, why President Bush of the USA, and his commercial partners, or Tony Blair of Great Britain and Sharon,  and Barak, of Israel are immune from such war crimes accusations? The ICC should be accurate and reliable in its accusation and be fair before establishing a law has two or three faces with different colors. (1400 words) 

D r. Yahya is an Arab American Independent Philosopher and Thinker,  and  columnist at www.wfol.tv , Malaysia, and TINA  International News Agency, Chicago, USA. www.hasanyahya.com