Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Sudan's President Charged with Genocide

Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, has been charged for genocide and war crimes in Darfur last week by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo.The international community has been seeking resolutions to the terrible conflicts and full disregard for human rights in Sudan for a long time now. The "accusations" by Mr. Moreno Ocampo are just the beginning of end of this on-going nightmare. The UN has estimated that around 300,000 people have died as a result of genocide and forceful relocation to Darfur Camps. Another 2.5 million are displaced with no homes and food.
Omar al-Bashir, however says that Sudan "does not recognize the ICC or its decisions." (BBC News)
In his recent trip to the region of Darfur, the president addressed the local people as of nothing has happened in the past. He looked supportive of international aid programs and declared that Sudanese were people of peace. (BBC News)


"We will continue developing Darfur and will pump out its oil "
Sudanese President



As different media presented the event, readers could see the story through different lenses. For example BBC News focuses more on the Sudan's president and his actions after the accusations occurred. On the other hand FOX News focused solemnly on Mr. Moreno Ocampo and the evidence that would be used to get a possible warrant for arrest. Global Security presented the story somewhere in between BBC and FOX but focusing more on Sudan's representative in London, Khalid al Mubabrak and his opinion. And last but not least, the International Herald Tribune (IHT) criticized the U.S. government for not offering enough support on charges against Sudan's president. The IHT, also says that the Bush administration is offering "ambivalent" support to Mr. Luis Moreno Ocampo but is not fully backing up the charges. According to the State Department spokesman Sean McCormack the U.S.A. have to decide if somebody is guilty of genocide "according to our laws, our regulations with respect to who should be subject to war crimes and genocide related statues". Against "Western" media, the Sudan Tribune uses a totally different spin on the event. In stead of talking about the charges, it speaks about Arab League's support for Khartoum. The 22 foreign ministers of the AL have said that they would stay true to Sudanese President, however they did not ask for suspension of the charges.




1 comment:

Jake said...

The IHT brings up an interesting angle into this whole thing. So long as the United States does not recognize the legitimacy of the ICC, it comes across as quite hypocritical in its condemnation of Khartoum and its support of the ICC's indictment. Its just another catch 22 so to speak of an administration whose policy revolves around the old adage "do as I say, not as I do..."

Of course, the other side of that coin is whether or not the US should subject itself to the ICC's standards. If so, Bush himself might be wanted in court for his own human rights breaches.

I suspect by not ratifying its signature and eventually pulling it out completely, the US has more freedom to pick and chose which instances it will support the ICC and which instances it can ignore the ICC.

But this goes back to the questions I posed on Eddy's post: At what point is sovereignty trumped by international law? And moreover, how does/should that law be enforced? And what does all of this say about the Peace of Westphalia? (But I digress.)