|
Last Monday, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court filed genocide charges against Sudan’s president, igniting a debate over whether the move would help end the long-standing violence in the country’s Darfur region or undermine prospects for peace.
The prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, of Argentina, submitted evidence intended to show that Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir intentionally tried to wipe out a “substantial part” of three tribes in Sudan’s western region based on their ethnicity.
Members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa groups rebelled against the government in 2003. When Bashir’s army failed to defeat the armed movements, he sent lawless militias known as “janjaweed” after the people, declared Moreno-Ocampo, who also filed crimes against humanity charges against the Sudanese president.
Bashir’s “motives were largely political,” the prosecutor said. “His alibi was a counterinsurgency. His intent was genocide.”
The prosecutor’s move has divided human-rights groups and UN agencies on whether it will be long-needed leverage against the government or will spark chaos.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed worry about possible retaliation against international peacekeepers and aid workers in the region, and called on the government of Sudan to protect their security.
But John Prendergast, a former US State Department official who has helped elevate Darfur to the world’s attention, said that holding leaders accountable for war crimes ultimately promotes peace, and that it won’t disrupt talks in Sudan because there currently are none.
“The peace process is dead,” he said. “There is no process, and even more importantly, there is no leverage. Suddenly, a new variable has entered the equation in the form of the request for an arrest warrant.”
As the head of the state, the army and the ruling party, Bashir holds ultimate responsibility for the systematic attacks against civilians and methodical rape of women, Moreno-Ocampo argued.
While he said he found no smoking gun, such as a master plan authored by Bashir, Moreno-Ocampo portrayed victims’ testimony, government documents and other evidence as pieces of a puzzle that combined to form an image of criminality.
If the court’s three judges agree that the evidence supports a credible case, a decision expected to take two to three months, they will issue an arrest warrant for Bashir.
Sudan is unlikely to hand over the president, but the warrant would mean that Bashir could be arrested by international authorities if he left his country.
Andrew Natsios, the former US envoy to Sudan who was one of the first to raise alarms about the attacks in Darfur, said an indictment of Bashir will make it much more difficult to negotiate a political settlement with the Sudanese government.
“Who in the UN and European Community is going to talk with the Sudanese government now that the head of state has been indicted?” asked Natsios, now a professor at Georgetown University.
“I don’t think the people in the advocacy groups or the (International Criminal Court) are thinking about the consequences of this. If they have a plan for saving the country from much more bloodshed, I haven’t heard it.”
One key question is whether the controversy will unify Sudan’s ruling elite behind Bashir or create new fissures that could ultimately drive him from power.
Hassan Al Turabi, one of Sudan’s leading opposition figures, predicted the country’s ruling elite will voice strong public support for the president, but will eventually splinter.
“This will create a lot of trouble inside the inner circle,” Turabi said. “In Sudan, leaders are supposed to rule through awe and terror and intimidation. This is destroying that image. Now people see him as vulnerable.”
|
