Another Perspective
Bashing Omar al-Bashir
How the International Criminal Court could fail Darfur.
(Page 2 of 2)
Recent Western intervention in Africa rarely makes things better and usually makes them worse. Richard Dowden, the director of the Royal African Society, summed it up nicely: “The ICC cannot hand out justice in Sudan as if it were Surrey [England].” More robustly, The Hague has also been dubbed “Europe’s Guantanamo Bay for Africans”.
In Africa and in the Islamic world, the ICC is seen to ignore those voices, be they Ugandan, Sudanese or in the African Union, who say that the Court’s arbitrary pursuit of African leaders is delaying peace.
It can be argued that the ICC has inadvertently prolonged the horrific war in northern Uganda by aborting seemingly fruitful peace talks by issuing warrants against rebel leaders. In the case of Darfur, the ICC warrants against Bashir have merely bolstered the insurgents’ intransigence regarding peace talks. They claim they will hold out, until Bashir is arrested. This could mean an indefinite extension of the Darfur war.
The answer is straightforward: the ICC can defer its arrest warrants for renewable yearly periods. That may be one inducement for Khartoum to start talking again to the Darfur rebels, who then cannot expect rapid regime change. Bashir has not been defeated, the historical precedent for trials of national leaders. Arguably, he is politically and militarily stronger than he has ever been. Economically, the recent oil bonanza has strengthened Bashir’s hand. And, in a further twist, the U.S. economic sanctions against Sudan, in place since 1977, have largely insulated the country from the Western economic meltdown.
Bashir was a vital ingredient in the north-south peace; likewise he may also be crucial in guaranteeing peace in Darfur. Any successor may not be able to hold the country together, let alone have the power to finesse peace deals.
Also vital is the Obama’s administration re-engagement in the political process there. No military solution is on offer; only a replay of Western political will and local cooperation can repeat the success of the major 2005 peace agreement. Darfur is doable, now, given the will — provided the sword of Damocles is removed from the neck of Sudan’s president.
Save Darfur?
The ICC action may serve as a warning shot across the bows of Africa’s monsters, not least Mugabe’s destructive presidency. This might be a soothing psychic balm to the liberal consciences in the West. But, in a war-ravaged continent, peace must precede justice, whether defined as African or European. Meanwhile, to its many African critics, the ICC’s arrest warrants for Bashir look like the 21st-century equivalent of old-fashioned 19th-century gunboat diplomacy — but minus the gunboats. Meanwhile, the suffering goes on in Sudan’s refugee camps. The ICC may have failed, not fixed Darfur.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/29/bashing-omar-al-bashir
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Justice is for all| 5.29.09 @ 8:09AM
International Law don't just apply to some people, what about Israel.
After weeks of controversy, false starts, and wavering club support, The Holocaust Industry author Professor Norman Finkelstein spoke before a crowd of over 100 in the Rappaporte Treasure Hall Tuesday. His three-hour lecture discussed Israel's human rights record, alleged exaggeration of the Holocaust to exonerate Israeli policies, as well as touching upon his long-time feud with Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.
"Dissent is tied to justice, justice tied to dignity," said Harvard Professor Sarah Roy, who introduced Finkelstein. "Today, there is a war against dissent… our right to oppose has been stigmatized and devalued." She also claimed that Finkelstein cut through "the artificial web of complexity" surrounding the Middle East Conflict.
"I'm being cast as a martyr these last few weeks," said Finkelstein of his recent battles at DePaul to earn tenure. "Two thousand years ago, another Jew tried that with mixed results." Describing former President Jimmy Carter's controversial book Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid, Finkelstein said that "the actual content of the book… was remarkably uncontroversial… one might even call it tepid." Instead, Finkelstein said, "what's most striking is how uncontroversial this is, yet there is so much controversy when you bring it into a public forum."
He added that the complexity of the Middle East conflict "is contrived, is fabricated, is conjured up." Stating the World Court's 2004 14-1 decision for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, Finkelstein said "it's illegal to obtain territory through war… ‘disputed territories?' Not so, says the World Court… it's illegal under international law."
Because of this, Finkelstein said, Carter's book was far from controversial: "He is merely rendering the opinion of the highest international court in the world, the World Court." He claimed that while other decisions were several thousand pages, the decision regarding Israel was less than 100 pages "because it was so uncontroversial."
Finkelstein also touched upon Israel's security wall: "If Israel is building the wall to incorporate the settlements, then the wall is clearly illegal under international law."
Also, he claimed that according to historian Benny Morris' research, "what happened in 1948 was an ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from the disputed territories, citing one author's claim that "the ethnic cleansing was anchored in the Zionist philosophy of transfer..." Indeed, Finkelstein said, "according to Morris, the biggest mistake they made was they didn't expel every single last Palestinian in 1947, because then this would never have happened today."
Finkelstein also heavily criticized Israel's human rights record, saying that "Israeli terrorism is four times as legal," and "for not wanting to kill Palestinian children, Israel [is] pretty good at it."
He did say, however, that it was "a no-brainer" for Palestinians to cease suicide bombings and terrorist attacks on Israel: "It's illegal, and Hamas is duty-bound under international law to renounce terrorism." However, he said, "one of the cornerstones of international law is reciprocity—what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Finkelstein told the audience that "everyone in this room knows the solution… the two-state solution. Every year they vote on it, and every year, the votes are the same… the main obstacle for progress is for Israel… to remove from occupied territories" and "recognize a Palestinian state…with East Jerusalem as its capital." He cited Ha'aretz, which claimed that Israel "we enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society."
Finkelstein also stated "the second fake controversy is playing ‘the Holocaust card'…if you can claim that Jews have suffered uniquely, you do not have to hold them to a universal standard." He said "every time Israel comes under international pressure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem diplomatically…there is a new claim of a ‘new' anti-Semitism."
United Nation of Nothing| 5.29.09 @ 10:48AM
RACE AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION By Danny Glover
The Nation April 8, 2009
In 2001 I traveled to Durban, South Africa, to join the tens of thousands of people who came to participate in the United Nations-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. More than 2,000 came from the United States, a rainbow of people crossing all lines--racial, ethnic, national, language, immigration status, religious and much more--joining an equally diverse crowd from across the globe. It was an extraordinary opportunity to meet, discuss, argue and strategize over how to rid the world of these longstanding evils.
Our participation paralleled that of the official US delegation. And that's where we faced a huge challenge. The Bush administration team, having only grudgingly agreed to participate at all, made clear they had no real commitment to fighting racism or offering leadership on other challenging issues of discrimination. When they didn't like a few small parts of the sixty-one-page text, they packed up and walked out of the conference. It was a sad but hardly surprising moment, exposing once again the history of US failures to take seriously the consequences of its own legacy of racism, a point most recently made by Attorney General Eric Holder.
Alan Brooks| 5.29.09 @ 4:12PM
who, or what, are you? Daphne?
too bad you and your cohorts can't be treated as poorly as Jews have been-- you might even learn something, you radical shill.
Learn your HISTORY| 5.31.09 @ 4:18PM
E-mail|Share|Comments (0)|Recommend (2)
Share this page using one of the following services:
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble Upon
What is this?
Business
Lehman Brothers Admits Past Ties to Slavery
by Cheryl Corley
Listen Now:
Real Media|Windows MediaExplain these links
Morning Edition, December 11, 2003 · Global investment firm Lehman Brothers files an affidavit confirming that, in the 1850s, it profited from the slave trade. The company made the admission so it could continue to do business with the city of Chicago. The revelation provides evidence for slave descendants suing corporations for compensation. Hear NPR's Cheryl Corley.
Lelani J | 6.5.11 @ 9:08AM
Well, I agree completely with Gavin, the attitude is total contemptUTI Treatment