When the International Criminal Court Acts against Its Goals
Abdullah Iskandar Al-Hayat - 17/07/08//
A few hours after the ICC prosecutor pressed charges against President Omar al-Bashir, the move apparently had a different impact than the one desired by Luis Moreno-Ocampo. By bringing a serious charge against a head of state still in power, the prosecutor has intended to pressure Khartoum as part of addressing the humanitarian tragedy in Darfur. But the first victims of this step are the very same people whom Ocampo wishes to protect.
As soon as the international prosecutor had the indictment ready, international humanitarian and non-government entities started packing to leave the territory that needs them the most, which in turn threatens the initially fragile living of hundreds of thousands of refugees who benefit from the relief programs provided by these entities. Additionally, the joint international-African forces in Darfur have opted for redeployment primarily to protect their personnel and troops, which in turn deprives refugees of the little security provided by these forces.
To make matters worse, the charges send a completely wrong message, not only to the rebels in Darfur, but also to the entire opposition in Sudan, over how the authority is handling the issues of the country, especially in the south whose problems with the central authority are far from over, and in the east which still awaits resolving the complications of the previous crises. When the head of state is accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, he can not lead peaceful negotiations even if he wishes to. In addition, his internal negotiators will view international pressure and the ghost of the charges as two factors that weaken the central authority and pave the way for new gains. At this, they are likely to take up harder stances in the negotiations to the point that armed conflict may be renewed.
In parallel, al-Bashir, and with him his party, government, apparatuses, grassroots entities and associated trade unions, will rush to turn the accusation from a question of justice and rights to a political issue. In fact, since Monday, the talk in Khartoum has been about a conspiracy against Sudan and its people. When the question can be repositioned in the context of national sovereignty and dignity, the ruling establishment can easily remobilize the support it normally lacks. In other words, any attempts to domestically isolate al-Bashir, as the ICC may have hoped, will backfire, and support will be mobilized behind al-Bashir, thus strengthening his position and his party on the eve of general elections in which voting will be mixed with the position toward the ICC.
This position will favor al-Bashir given the rejection, by the people as well as by the official opposition, of any interference in Sudanese affairs.
Additionally, it will not be easy for the regional organizations to which Sudan belongs, especially the Arab League and the African Union, to support the demand of prosecuting a president still in power, regardless of the charges leveled against him. As a matter of fact, given the charges that may become an international precedent, several heads of states, members of these organizations, may find themselves in a similar position in the future, especially that respecting human rights and promoting good governance are not particularly common in these states. Al-Bashir will find himself surrounded, not only by popular Sudanese support, but also by a solidarity movement led by his Arab and African counterparts, at least to fend off a precedent.
The fact that former Liberian President Charles Taylor and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic had both stood trial is of no relevance here because either man would not have reached power were it not for the conniving by their successors. In Sudan, on the other hand, al-Bashir's reign remains powerful as it tightens its grip over the country, a grip that will probably grow stronger following Ocampo's charges.
|
