After months of building up the suspense, The International Criminal Court decided to issue an arrest warrant against Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir, issued on March fourth, for crimes against humanity. (no genocide charges, by the way).
That was a very, very bad decision.
Don’t get me wrong: I think Al-Bashir is a war criminal and belongs in the same box as the Pinochets, Milosevics, and Sharons of this world. The question isn’t there: it’s about the repercussions of this warrant.
First, the warrant is served on the government of Sudan; it’s up to the government to hand him in.
This is not going to happen.
The last time the ICC issued a warrant against two people - not only were they not handed in to the court, but one of them - Ahmed Haroun - was made State Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, Sudan’s way of giving the finger to the court.
the war criminal and the jackassWhat was the ICC hoping for? For Bashir to fly to the Hague and promise he won’t do it again?
Of course not.
Then what was the purpose?
And, more importantly - what were the repercussions on the victims? Because that’s who we ultimately care about, right?
The Sudanese response was prompt, and very damaging: an hour after the ICC announcement, the Government revoked the licenses of, and expelled 13 major international humanitarian agencies operating in Darfur, including the likes of Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and Mercy Corps.
They were given 24 hours to pack and leave.
Without them on the ground, that’s millions of the world’s most miserable left to face hunger, disease, and Government forces rage which will probably renew the violence now that the foreigners, whose deterring presence is - was - immeasurable.
Even worse, the major organisations that remain in Darfur, including the World Food Programme, depended greatly on those NGOs to implement their programmes. So even they are now paralyzed, ineffective.
"With us gone, they have no one", said an MSF doctor.
Precisely the problem.
Granted, the ICC decision to prosecute him, which was taken in July 2008, did scare Sudan out and helped Darfur peace talks, and UN/AU mission deployment.
But it also led to the withdrawal of non-necessary staff from the UN mission: we should’ve learned from that event.
We - the international community - had this threat hanging over Bashir’s head, allowing us to apply pressure and score small victories, one at a time.
By issuing a warrant, this pressure that we had over Al-Bashir is now gone. Plus he's angry. Eh.
Instead, Luis Moreno Ocampo goes on his personal crusade, hoping to score a historical victory: indicting a president in office.
Pathetic.
I can only hope that we'll realise the only solution is to send a seriously armed peacemaking mission to Darfur. Talking to Khartoum isn't useful. We have to do it ourselves.
25 comments:
I think the ICC was led by the same kind of logic that enables you to lump Sharon, Bashir and Pinochet together.
ICC is a joke. The "international community" is a joke. And virtually nobody cares about victims - they're nothing but a resources sink. Remember Rwanda? Congo? Somalia? Chechnia? Nagorno-Karabakh? East Timor? The chief reason anyone gives two shakes of a camel's cock about another people's troubles is self-interest. Serbia et al, for instance, were stopped from becoming a real bloodbath only because Old Man Europe didn't want fighting to spill over the borders.
And nobody has an interest in helping the Sudanese. Actually, most countries and organizations with any interest in Sudan are keen to keep Bashir in power; he is rightly seen as a stabilizing influence who lets oil flow freely. And what's a little genocide between friends?
It's not like Idi Amin (for instance) didn't die rich, old and surrounded by his loved ones in Saudi Arabia.
Abu Saar, Former Yougslavia became "a real bloodbath", whatever criteria you have. Mohamed, you're so right. Somebody should send armed forces there. I've just written an article for a Swedish website with about the same content.
I have a friend here in London, She's a nurse, she works for the MSF half the year, in Darfur. She thinks ICC decision was good in the long term, but the short term? MSF, Oxfam and a whole other organisation have left the country. 1 million people is threathen by starvation because help is no longer allowed to go in. 2.5 people have lost their homes, many live in Chad where it's not saved either....
When are we going to react?
Helen in London
Helen -
May the Gods save from you the people you're trying to save.
Nothing is quite as destructive as the "reaction" of well wishing, self-righteous naive ignoramuses.
Reminds me of a different well wishing, self-righteous naive ignoramus I knew once. She was this rich, spoiled, white, upper-middle class thing who had the unshakable belief that she is a blessing upon the world. To prove it, she went to India for a few months to help teach poor children. Which was, of course, an act of self-gratification as far removed from helping others as masturbation: with just the money that bitch spent on going to India, she could have helped ten times the number of children.
"Somebody" would incite a full-blown xenophobic Jihad that would consume Sudan and return it to the good old days of the civil war. 'Fugees would flood the surrounding countries, bringing with them the inevitable increased Islamism and terror cells. This would in turn create pressure on the already weak regimes like Egypt's, exacerbating their internal situations.
Thank you for these compliments. You love is fully returned.:)
But do you seriously think it's better to be ill wishing, like you?
Truth is, neither a heartless, destructive cynic like you or a self righteous bitch like me can help Darfur. Like Mohamed said, an armed peacemaking mission could help stabilise the region. They already have a civil war, the situation couldn't get any worse there. But I'm guess you're only worried about how this might affect Israel, are you? Well, with this wall of yours, and your army you should have any problem dealing with an unstable Egypt.
Helen in London
I recently quoted the Economist, which says the people of Darfur welcome the decision. And I think that's a pretty important thing to take into consideration.
http://lagueralegustas.blogspot.com/2009/03/did-icc-do-right-thing-in-issuing.html
Although it's true that the threat of the warrrant could have been used longer as a bargaining tool, but on the flipside, how effective is a bargaining tool if no one really thinks you're going to use it?
It's heartbreaking and infuriating that al-Bashir has kicked out these aid groups, and for what? A warrant that is basically useless? Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on that. But ...(I hope) maybe the message that the int'l community has now sent will make future al-Bashirs value that bargaining chip a little more? And maybe the Economist is right and to the victims in Darfur, justice (or at least a step in that direction) is a victory in and of itself?
Helen -
Ill wishing? OK, just don't let me or reality intrude on your private universe.
Look, you've invested chunks of your clueless self in messing up the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. Cut the Fur and others like them a break, please, and leave them well enough alone. They have enough problems without you. With your idiocy regarding Israelis/Palis, you could maybe cause a dozen deaths, a few dozen wounded and a few hundred thousand $ in damages/losses. That is more or less the maximum of your potential here (unless you'd go to Gaza and teach Hamas terrorists chemistry).
But your self-righteous "action", together with that of other disaster tourists, can cause millions of deaths, countless lives ruined and untold damages in property when applied to Africa in general and the Sudan in particular. This is more than your usual encouragement of terrorism and irresponsibility. This is interfering in an explosive situation you know nothing about and are incapable of comprehending.
The situation can potentially be resolved. A foreign invasion, however, is not a solution (unless you think the presence of too many humans in Sudan is the problem). An actual solution would require things like unfettered and objective analysis; trillions of dollars in investment; a number of decades; an iron will on the part of the resolver; the desire and wherewithal to change the colonial borders; a highly trained, highly motivated military force without aversion to casualties (both enemy and own); educators willing to change the local culture... all these are lacking, with the exception of time.
The only thing the international community is going to do in Darfur is the same they did in other places they don't care about with problems the world doesn't want resolved: send in the UN. The UN personnel, then, sit around drinking beer, smoking weed and raping local children who come to them for protection. As they did pretty much everywhere they could (East Timor especially comes to mind). Or if they happen to be principled, ethical people they go insane and blow their brains out when they see the truth (Rwanda is a good example).
Racoon, you've finally lost it completely. I've personally haven't messed anything up for either of you, that's rich coming from a guy that said he's gonna vote for Bibi. And don't blame the Western world either, blame your own country (and to some extent the palestinians.)
Like Mohammed said, a well armed, motivated peacemaking mission is in order.
Barefoot, I read that piece as well. I agree that it's a good thing in principle, and the Darfurians are getting some justice. But right now, the effect is devastating. Regarding the charges of genocide, the Economist reported that the ICC could change this if there's more evidence. If he can get arrested and the trial can start, I wouldn't be surprised that he'll get charged with genocide to. About the aid groups..I think Al Bashir is so angry about this, he's basically lost face. He probably doesn't feel like he have anything to lose anymore.
Helen in London
Helen:
Yougoslavia was indeed a bloodbath, yes. The firsthand accounts I heard from Kosovo and Bosnia were horrifying, and like many things, when the madness becomes untenable for the outside ear, we drown the entire situation into one big hum where we know the situation is 'really bad' without digging into it.
There are different types of UN missions. Peacekeepers are largely unarmed: not useful. What is needed is a NATO-Kosovo-Campaign-type of thing.
I don't care who leads it. If the UN cannot find in their books some institutional cover for such a mission, call NATO. Call the friggin Canadian Mounties if necessary. :)
Abu Sa'ar:
You sound needlessly worked up, and I'm not sure about what. Relax, friend, and cool it on the ad-hominem attacks. They're unnecessary and counterproductive. Be nice, dude.
"The chief reason anyone gives two shakes of a camel's cock".. Priceless.
You comment on the 'bleeding hearts' needs to be qualified.
I'll have you notice that the colleague Helen mentions is a nurse who works for MSF. People withe medical skills are severely lacking.
As for your friend, yes, teaching kids in the slums maybe self-interested.
So what?
Actually, if the choice were between staying in London doing nothing, and going there for a few months, I'd pick option 2. (yes, sending the money might be better but it's less likely to happen).
(check this article on "development tourism", on the same topic).
It basically boils down to what they're going to do there.
At worst, most of those will have little to no effect.
These cases are nothing like Darfur. There are no 'development tourists' in Darfur - there are simply no structures to host them, as opposed to teaching English in Uttar Pradesh or digging wells in the Amazon or whatever.
Disaster situations follow very different rules for short term missions; those recruit people with specific skills (medical, very often), or at least programme managers..
Those humanitarian missions that got expelled actually DID something. They provided health care, food aid, and implicitly protection.
And now they're gone.
We're not into the 'analysis and investment' phase. We're at the phase where we need to prevent people from getting murdered.
If force is what it takes, then forces is what should be sent.
And a final note - if you interact the indictment with the situation in South Sudan - and this is where i think the West is seriously self-interested - you can an interesting and very different picture.
Barefoot:
I think there was some more juice to be squeezed from the indictment threat. See how the African Union and the Arab League were still trying to get their positions regarding Sudan clear.. there was still room for maneouvre.
As for the people of Darfur - well, I'm not in their shoes.. and whatever they feel is, I am sure, very justified.
what I am personally afraid from is to occupy the oil-rich Sudan in the name of Bashir and democracy. It is weird why and how everybody including hollywood actors are trying to help out Darfur in their own way.... Why wouldn't they care for Somalia or Nepal?
Nepal has been done already.. As for Somalia, well it's too dangerous for them.
No need to occupy Sudan: just support a terrorist group based in the oil-rich regions to lead a civil war against the central government, arm them while enforcing an embargo against the central government, and sponsor a peace settlement that allows them to secede.
Oh wait...
Mo -
I am under a lot of stress lately at work. Makes me worked up about things needlessly. Out of respect for you I'll avoid Helen abuse here henceforth :)
On self-gratification trips to poor countries - it is far from harmless. Such an action is like buying an indulgence; it lets you comfortably ignore the real issues. An absolution of responsibility, if you will. The creation of wilful blindness. An Indian child learned a bit more English; the level of ignorance in the world, however, rose.
Many NGOs are doing selfless and desperately needed work. That's a whole different kind of fish, though.
Bashir acts with Assad-like cunning. He is being helpful to the Americans in their pointless war on terrorism; he is also cooperating closely with Iran and China, supplying the latter with lots of oil. That steady stream would be disrupted should anything happen to Bashir's regime. A foreign invasion of any kind would mean Jihad. And that would make Darfur's troubles look like a mild unpleasantness.
Military invasion of Sudan is like a burning cigarette invasion of a gunpowder keg.
Khaled - if anyone has an interest in Sudanese oil, the last thing they need is an invasion of Sudan. See China above.
Well thank you for your indulgence, Raccoon. :)
btw- why the change of names?
As for the development tourism, there really isn't much of that in crises situations, but in stable locations. So, yeah, maybe self-righteous but I really don't think it hurts. (nor helps much). I agree, if they were to just send the money they'd pay for the ticket, everyone would be better off.
As for China and oil - well China entered heavily because
a) it doesn't have particularly high moral standards, and
b) the floor was free, with the stupid calls to boycott Sudan. Not only did it not save a single Darfuri soul - as anyone with half a brain could foresee - but it also gave room to China to waltz in, putting its money 'without asking too many questions' in the words of a Chinese official who was on an official visit to West Africa one time..
Name is because Sa'ar got born.
You're missing my point on buying indulgences for Western consciences, I think. It is a cultural and societal rot on a global scale; the individual influence might be negligible, but cumulatively it has significant destructive power. Kind of like libel against Israel.
American public opinion, for instance, heavily influences foreign policy. The less significant for America the foreign entity in question is, the greater the effect. And a whole bunch of people got worked up about Sudan - heard just enough to get their self-righteous indignation juices flowing, rushed to demand action. Nature of the action itself is irrelevant - the people in question are reared on a diet of self-gratifying pseudo-humanism, ideology in which the very purpose of helping "those less fortunate" is to get that emotional rush of being a Good Samaritan. The actual effect these actions have on their intended beneficiaries is irrelevant and often destructive.
China needs the oil. It really, really needs the oil, actually. And it wants to increase its global influence (for which their lack of morals is a boon). I am rooting for China, by the way. Their civilization is going (again) through a turbulent phase, looking poised to rise like Fenghuang.
Very belated, but congratulations!
When i was in grad school one of the 'divest from Sudan!' hooligans sent an email to the entire school titled 'Just 10 seconds, save Darfur, sign our petition!'
I hit 'reply all' and.. well, it was ugly. :)
None of the divestment from Sudan crowd realised how ineffective - and more importantly, counter productive - it was going to be. They just wanted to 'do somehing' and they chose the option where they only had to mass-spam American companies to say they, well, did something..
In such a case, yes, this self-indulgent urge to be a good samaritan is counterproductive.
What I was trying to say in response to your criticism of the woman who went teaching in India, is that there are many degrees on the 'harm/ineffectiveness' scale; teaching in India is on the ineffective part but not more...
Or so i think.
When armed American military types went into Somalia to try to get food distribution going and stop gangs from stealing humanitarian supplies, the accusation was leveled that they only went there for the oil. Ditto Irag. So the American mentality now is much more isolationist and there isn't going to be any western intervention no matter how many people are starved/maimed/raped/murdered--because the Yanks are tired and the Europeans could care less if non-white-people die and/or kill each other...as long as their coffee, tobacco and oil supplies don't dry up. China is the Big Dog in the Sudan and doesn't care about Darfur, and the Russians think Darfur is like Chechnya--a place to bomb into submission.
I agree, Mohamed---a piece of terrible stupidity. He would have kicked the aid groups out anyway, I think, but the ICC handed him an excuse on a silver platter.
Well I don't think the US went to Iraq selflessly.
I am hoping that the new administration is more interventionist; that's how it felt at first anyway. Especially with Samantha Power as White House foreign policy advisor, and she is FOND of the Darfur cause (she went to pretty much every demonstration for Darfur on the East Coast, I think).
Nevertheless, with the current economic environment and with many countries cutting down on their aid budgets, I am unsure of how it will play out...
Sending a well equipped armed force to Darfur may become the end of the whole country. The Darfurian rebels will be piggybacking on this intervention to regain control and frankly the only difference between Darfurian rebels and Janjaweed seems to be that the latter has won the war. Sudan may have already lost one quarter of itself in the South. Darfur is something like another one quarter and there are separatists in almost any oother province. If these people start smelling blood because of international court rulings or presence of an international military force, there may start a storm that will rip the country to pieces.
the South is indeed lost, khalas. Darfur isn't really rebelling for independence and shit, as far as I know... but there's a nasty war going on. And right now, there's a severe need for the protection of civilians.
And btw, there is already a UN/AU mission (UNAMID); it's just toothless.
ICC rulings, however, won't scare Bashir or embolden the rebels... it will - has - just piss off Bashir.
As far as I know the rebellion started when Bashir struck a deal with the South. There may have been some lowscale warfare before this, but the bulk of fighting clearly erupted at inspiration from the deal in the South. Bashir did something very unprecedented for this region in the South. If anything he should be lauded as one of the more pragmatic and reasonable Arab leaders. But he is not going to dismantle the country with his own hands, it's clear as day.
Sending an intervention force to Darfur without any clear agenda besides saving civilians is a sure recipe to create more mess. It will provide a reason for separatists elsewhere in Sudan to try their luck too. Unless the UN wants Sudan disemembered (which may be not such a bad idea by the way), it should stay off.
Bashir didn't strike a deal. The deal was shoved down his throat, that needs to be very clear. So the precedent being set, if any, was that external influence was strong enough to sever the richest part of the country.
An intervention under UN cover is probably the safest thing we can do - the UN has a pretty long track record, some good and some bad, in peacekeeping interventions. The world's newest state, Kosovo, was host to a huge NATO mission (the KFOR), not a UN mission.
More importantly, the question probably is - what else can be done to save all those people being murdered?
I don't know the details. But the deal seems to have coincided with a very bold program of economic reforms so I suspect it was a strategic move. Either Bashir decided himself or was persuaded by the technocrats he appointed to run his economic program that the war and the reforms can't go on together. So the idea was probably to get out of the war and on the way to mend the relationships with the US/West. Then the uprising in Darfur came and ruined it all.
Nobody, the only reason the Southern rebellion ended was because it became unsustainable for the Sudan to carry on. Under the burden of a severe arms, medications ('chemical weapons material', said the Americans) and the occasional US bombing - which, you may recall, bombed a medicine factory in 1998, the Al-Shifa factory - Sudan had to scream for mercy.
They were actually more interested in the Egyptian-Libyan initiative - later the Arab League initiative - but the Southerners, who were supported by the dishonest brokers of IGADD - member states of which were actually arming the Southerners - decided they didn't like it. So they got the Americans to lobby for the IGADD deal - later the Machakos agreement - which essentially blackmailed the Sudan into 6 years of heavy infrastructure investments - 2005 to 2011 - at the end of which the southern districts will vote on whether they will separate or not - and we already know the answer to that.
Darfur did take place, i completely agree, at a very bad - and rather suspicious - timing. Nevertheless, I am not aware of serious Darfuri calls for independence or any such thing. Particularly that it'd be a landlocked country fully dependent on Sudan's good grace for anything, including exporting their oil.
On a different topic, Julie Flint and Alex De Waal - one of the world's leading experts on Sudan - say that Ocampo is failing at his job as lead prosecutor. It's a very interesting investigative piece.
I doubt your theory very much and for one reason - Bashir was plainly courting the US for a very long time. It looks much more like something Gaddafi's style. This is probably true that Bashir and his entourage came to think that the war against the South is either unwinnable or is not worth winning, but this makes the US role as you are trying to present it even less likely. It looks much more as if Bashir was trying to sell a compromise in the South and his cooperation against al-Kaida to the US in exchange for normalization of relationships, pretty much in line with the general economic orientation of his later rule. However, when Darfur happened it all get fucked up. But it's clear that in Bashir' perception it's not the deal in the South that is a problem here, since anyway he either decided to abandon the South or to leave this problem for a better occasion. The problem was that the US failed to reciprocate and instead imposed sanctions for the genocide in Darfur, though it's very possible that in doing this the administration was simply bending to the public opinion, there might be no way they could avoid it.
And there was nothing suspicious about Darfur. Another deal in Darfur or an international force sent there against the will of Bashir is very likely to trigger very similar uprisings in other parts of Sudan. The deal in the South has simply started a chain reaction that Sudan is struggling to stop.
Post a Comment