CATCH ME IF U CAN!

After three years of investigations into the atrocities in Sudan’s ravaged western province, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo concluded a genocide is going on in Darfur. The mastermind behind it all, he suggests, is Sudan’s own president, Omar al-Bashir (Bashir). On Monday July 14^th 2008 the prosecutor asked the court to indict Bashir with ten counts of mass crimes, including three for genocide, and to issue a warrant for his arrest. It is the first time that this court, which is celebrating the tenth anniversary of its foundation, has gone after a sitting head of state (Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia's Charles Taylor were also indicted when still heads of state, by other international tribunals). It is also the first time that it has sought an indictment for genocide, the gravest of all international crimes.

The fact is that bringing a head of state before an international court, no matter how grave the crimes he is suspected of having committed, does not easily fit an international system built on the principle of state sovereignty, in general application worldwide since 1945. This is a point that is certainly not lost on presidents like Mugabe and Bashir who have offended against humanitarian principles that are held in particular regard by sections of Western public opinion. Sudan’s ruling party has described the case against Bashir as “irresponsible cheap political blackmail” and has threatened more violence if he is indicted. Tanzania’s foreign minister, Bernard Membe, speaking on behalf of the 53-member African Union, wants the court to defer bringing charges “because there is a risk of anarchy in a proportion we have not seen in this continent”.

On the face of it, Bashir richly deserve to be punished for his actions. But, as their supporters do not fail to point out, if that is so, then what of the many other heads of state who are suspected of responsibility for major crimes? Inevitably, the first example that defenders of state sovereignty are likely to raise is that of the US president who invaded Iraq in 2003, probably illegally, and in any event with a public claim of justification that appeared weak even at the time. An enthusiast for international justice may argue that the indictment of Bashir is only a foretaste of things to come, and that in the future all heads of state risk being held responsible for their actions. However, that seems unlikely in the extreme. The authority of any court of justice is directly related to the political forces that sustain it. A really effective system of world criminal justice could operate only in tandem with a system of world government. Realistically, this type of arrangement is not in sight. In any case, such a system would produce its own powerbrokers who would no doubt contrive to place themselves above the law, as powerful people habitually do. In the meantime, the hard fact seems to be that international justice is most likely to be done only when it is politically expedient. In other words, when the person indicted is both politically weak and has few friends as well as being the prima facie author of crimes against humanity.

None of this should be taken to imply that Omar al-Bashir is innocent. It does not mean that he does not deserve to be punished for crimes he appear to have committed. It does, however, mean that his indictment and eventual trial will never be free of political implications. An enthusiast for international justice may accept that this is so, and still wish to see the most egregious violator of human rights duly tried and punished.

Let us compare and contrast the naked crimes that the Bush administration has committed against defenceless countries in the Middle East. After the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of the so-called war on terrorism, slaughter, massacre, ethnic cleansing, liquidation, extermination and total annihilation have been going on for years without any end in sight.

Did the ICC prosecutor take a leave from this world when all these acts were being committed? Not long ago, the Israeli military conducted military exercise in what many termed to be a rehearsal in preparation for an attack on Iran. No condemnations came from any of the so-called superpowers on such a provocative exercise. Some weeks later, in order not to be caught unawares, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards test-fired some of their missiles. Immediately, the western megaphones started to issue one press statement after the other on the danger posed by Iranian retaliatory exercise.

Come to think of it, what type of international law will allow Israel to have a nuclear arsenal and deny Iran from having one? Between the two countries, which one among them has committed more acts of genocide and mass murder? How many United Nations resolutions has Iran flouted compared to the illegal state of Israel? The border of Israel keeps on increasing every year because the international community looks the other way when Palestinians’ lands were being forcefully seized. The most painful thing is seeing the fathers of human rights turning away from what is clearly genocide. By pulling the thread holding Palestinians together, they are pulling apart their so-called civilisation in Europe. If the ICC truly does understand the meaning of genocide, they should arrest President Bush and his partner in crime Olmert of Israel.

It is the conflict of interest of the superpowers that keeps the sun scorched soils of Sudan drenched in the river of blood flowing there, and not their internal conflict. If not for the reasonable resistance of African countries, Zimbabwe could have been turned to another battlefield by the western propaganda machines. The African Union need to redirect their attention to investigate the cause of most of African conflicts in order to track down the roles of these imperialists.

Again, none of the above amounts to a solid argument for allowing heads of state to enjoy lifelong immunity for acts committed during their tenure of office. Anyone who cares for justice or human rights must be tempted to wish that guilty people should be punished for offences they have committed. But the deployment of a criminal justice mechanism with particular reference to Africa needs to be seen also in political terms, as evidence of the long term erosion of the sovereignty of states. Military/humanitarian interventions are steadily increasing, whether by the UN, by international alliances, regional groupings, or others. International justice, like military action, can be a legitimate international instrument, but neither is a replacement for politics and diplomacy.