In the article The International Criminal Court's case against the President of Sudan: A
Critical Look by M. Mamdani, the
author focuses on the prosecutor’s narrative of the Sudanese history that was
presented in order to get the president of Sudan found guilty of a number of
charges, including genocide. The author also offers own perspective of the
Darfur conflict, including the factors involved in the breakout of the war. The
roots of the division of Sudan’s people into Arab and the others (black
Africans) is traced to the colonial era, when Sudan was a part of the British
colonial empire. The author also claims that the conflict in Sudan is way more
complex, pointing out the desertification of the territory and saying that the
conflict was rather a fight to survive than a fight to eradicate the other
side. Another factor that helped stir up the Darfur conflict was also the
spillover of Chad’s civil war fighters into Darfur and last, but not least
al-Bashir regime’s military response to an insurgency in the area of Fur,
Masalit and Zaghawa.
Throughout the article, the author points out the
mistakes of the prosecutor in making his case, such as offering higher victim
count estimates than usual or claiming that al-Bashir was personally in charge
of everything, which is not very convincing. Main issue of this prosecution was
that it seemed like the prosecutor didn’t fully comprehend not only the
importance of this case on an international scale, but also not understanding the
Sudanese state and society.
A different article, Should President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan Be Charged and Arrested by the
International Criminal Court? by Alex de Waal and Gregory H. Stanton argues
that trying to convict the Sudanese president is not likely to succeed and very
likely to cause further violence in Sudan. De Waal, just like Mamdani, believes
that the prosecutor couldn’t handle the application in a way it needed to be
handled. He points out several errors and mistakes the prosecutor has made. He
also offers a variety of possible outcomes of the case, none of which would
help Sudan in the future. Most of all, he argues, this trial can make Africa a
“jurisdiction-free zone”, since no African country approves of the ICC’s
proceedings in this case, therefore it is highly unlikely that they would ask
for the ICC’s help in the near future. At the same time, other heads of state
who commit similar acts as al-Bashir’s regime might reconsider, seeing that
they can in fact be called out for their actions.
As far as I am concerned, I believe that the ICC
exists not only to put on trial (and punish) those, who are guilty of crimes
against humanity etc., but also to scare off those heads of states (or other
high officials and individuals) who might be tempted to commit such crimes. In
the case of al-Bashir the prosecutor failed to prove that al-Bashir was solely
responsible, which lead the ICC to not find the president guilty of directing a
genocide. However, since most experts agree that al-Bashir did certainly play a
part in the crimes, I do not believe
that it is over just yet. Personally, I don’t know what the future holds for
al-Bashir and other people responsible for the mass killings and other violent
acts in Sudan, but I certainly hope that justice will be served one day and
they will be held responsible for their crimes.
Another thing I found quite intriguing is the
political aspects mentioned in the articles. While the ICC is strictly apolitical
with its judicial mandate, taking on the president of a country quite shortly
before the next election (trial started in 2008 and the Sudan’s election took
place in 2010), one has to wonder if the decision to pick up such a case was
completely stripped of politics. Rumors had it that al-Bashir was about to step
aside in the 2010 election to make room for “fresh blood”, he did not do so
after the trial, so he remained in power. Since the articles voiced fear of the
unstable future of Sudan, I believe a debate on this topic would be highly
interesting.
No comments:
Post a Comment