Are the Iranian-led Islamists doing justice to the Muslims in Darfur?

By Mahgoub El-Tigani

March 7, 2009 – The Iranian-led Islamists, most particularly Palestinian Hamas, the International Union of Muslim ‘Ulama, and the Islamic Conference denounced in strong terms the ICC decision to arrest the president of Sudan for crimes against humanity in Darfur.

Muslim States sent parliamentarian delegates to support the Government of Sudan (GoS) and her president at Khartoum versus the ICC decision. These legislators considered the ICC Prosecutor General “a political employee of Western powers,” and then accused the ICC of “imperialist conspiracies” and “gross violations of international law” because the ICC dared to accuse the indicted president and must, therefore, rescind the decision, somehow, or be prepared for caricaturing, political accusations, and other impulsive reactions.

In fact, all of the promised threats occurred: Following the ICC decision, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament ‘Ali Largani, the chief of Hamas political bureau Khalid Mish’al, and secretary general of the Islamic Conference, besides a number of Islamist experts on international law joined the irritated president and his aides, led by vice president ‘Ali Osman, to discredit the ICC decision as “totally irrelevant; insignificant; and unworthy of attention.”

Added to these public rejections, the GoS claimed that the ICC decision “was politically motivated, and was actually sponsored and closely pursued by the imperialist powers of the West to undermine the Sudanese government, since it seized power in June 1989,” in the reiterated speeches of the president to demonstrating supporters. The top executive of the State would subsequently expel relief agencies and human rights groups, irrespective of the vital services they provided for hundreds of thousands of the Darfur displaced citizens along the crisis, or the lawful permits of their activities as humanitarian groups.

The Speaker of the Iranian Parliament ‘Ali Largani, for one, would assert: “The ICC decision was not addressed to Sudan per se; but the decision is a conspiracy meant to humiliate all Muslims of the world” (Jazeera: March 6, 2009). The ‘Ulama Union emphasized, “The ICC decision is a gross violation of international law.” And commentators, including Mohamed al-Fatih Brayma, adviser of the al-Monazamat al-Wataniya li Huqu al-Insan [the National Organizations of Human Rights] in Khartoum hardly admitted any connection between the expulsion and the ICC decision.

Brayma would go as far as “approving the GOS decision to expel relief agencies and human rights groups because the government has the authority to take that decision, and much more” (Jazeera: March 6, 2009).

QUESTIONING THE ISLAMISTS

A main popular rejection by a great many Sudanese to the Iranian “assumed presidency” of all Islamists siding with the accused president and his repressive regime, is the insensitivity spoken out against the political realities and the religious sensitivities of the country, whose Muslim majority adheres to the Sunni Sufi Islam versus the NIF/NCP Shiite-indoctrinated ‘Ulama dictatorship, and emphasizes the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious structure of Sudan – facts recklessly ignored by the one-race, one-belief, and one-ethnicity nations in Iran and the Palestinian Hamas.

The peace and democracy-loving Sudanese are already fed-up with the NIF/NCP false indoctrinations and worldly corruption of the good life and the noble heritage of society. The people described by a long list of writers, politicians, and military observers as “the Gentleman of Africa” cannot tolerate another round of adolescent politics by the Islamist generals and corrupted civilians of the NIF, which repressiveness has been elaborately documented since June 30th, 1989, to the present time – let alone unwarranted intrusions by Iran or Hamas.

The government’s hysterical attempt to cover up the ICC decisive warrant of arrest with glamorizing the image of the president’s “Islamic” leadership and the government’s “extraordinary development, despite the external attacks from the Security Council and the imperialist West,” hardly convinced the suppressed masses of Sudan:

The Manasir, whose lands were inundated by the Merwoe Dam, for example, noted with immense anger that the Defense Minister General ‘Abd al-Rahim Hussain was asking the audience in the inauguration of the dam to repeat his excited words: “Blood! Blood! We ‘ill defend the Revolution with blood!” The Manasir poor farmers, however, were hardly heard in the well-guarded celebration asking desperately for “democratic administration of the dam affairs, decent compensations for their inundated lands, modern services, and fair marketing prices for agricultural crops.” The minister of defense, however, was reminding the audience with the bloody security battles his government waged against the Manasir to get them to surrender to the Dam Sudanese-Chinese authorities.

The threats by the Chief of Security and Intelligence Salah Gosh to journalists and other professionals (February 2009) “to obey his orders else-wise the government will switch the time back to square one of the salvation coup to force complete compliance, to silence the Press, and to sequestrate property, in addition to enlarged extra-judicial killings, tortures, and arbitrary arrests” stamped the regime with the ultimate hatred of the populace. “By these intimidating climates, the government offered additional dimensions to the ICC decision to unfold in unrecoverable alienation of the ruling regime from the activist and largely suppressed Sudanese public,” said observers.

At this point, we should question the basis of the political legitimacy and the religious authenticity with which the Islamist politicians apparently steered and engineered the media to influence the Sudanese and other Muslim populations against the ICC. Religiously speaking, Islamic jurisprudence is crystal clear in both Shiite and Sunni schools of thought (al-Madhahib) about teachings of the Holy Qur’an and the Prophet’s authentic Hadith, the sacred resources of Islamic Law, that dictate the immediate apprehension and fair trial of all wrong-doers, regardless of political status or any other discriminatory criteria.

Politically, the government of Iran, as well representatives of the Hamas de facto government in Gaza, besides the Islamic Conference Secretary General, are fully aware of the mandatory nature of international norms, as they did exercise law-aiding negotiations in different regional and international disputes with full recognition of international law.

UNACCEPTABLE ISLAMIST STANDS

Based on these facts, it is indeed unacceptable that these Islamist supporters of the GoS and her President ignored Islamic jurisprudence for the sake of political and other worldly interests at the expense of the unquestionable rights of the Darfuris – a million displaced citizen and 4 other millions intimated, silenced, and brutalized continuously since 2003 against the just and fair principles of Islam and the respective secular laws.

The Iranian-led Islamists would have to explain to the People of Sudan their unacceptable support to a transitional government whose only mission is to process fair scheduled elections in the year 2009-10, not to waste the Nation’s energies and interests to line behind a senior public employee, who might be constitutionally required to resign his post, in addition to his duty to defend himself against international accusations of crimes against humanity before the ICC.

Instead of the incorrect and agitating statements by Iran and the other anti-Sudanese interest groups, these Islamists are strongly urged to play the prestigious roles of “honest advisers,” and “devout Muslims” to help to correct the government’s and her president’s mischief.

The Islamists are required to put the strongest pressure on the GoS and the accused president (who definitely represent the “al-Mas-laha al-Khasa, i.e., private interest” in the case under investigation) to abide-by the Interim Constitution of Sudan and the International Law in order to maintain the higher interest, that is to say “al-Mas-laha al-Kuliya, the General Public or the Nation’s Interest” – according to the well-documented consensual principles of criminal justice, independence of the Judiciary, and the due process of law by the most authentic Islamic jurists, namely, the Prophet himself, the Wise Caliphs, the Prophet’s scholarly descendants, the knowledgeable Imams Malik, Abu-Hanifa, Hanbal, Shafi’e, and the other respectable Sufi leaders throughout the long history of Islam.

The immediate Mas-laha Kuliya of the Sudan in the present time is to normalize relations with the powers of the world, especially those helping the country with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement’s socio-political and economic development projects against arms’ sales and security repression.

The Public Interest refers to abiding-by the international law and the obligatory Security Council resolutions, as all Member States to the United Nations General Assembly do throughout the globe. This urgent state of affairs entails the stable presence of a strong national regime to attend wholly to the needs of the Sudanese, most particularly those pauperized and further victimized by the wasteful wars and security operations of the NIF/NCP party to subdue the resisting Sudanese.

The Islamist supporters of the president and his government should have to remember, as the folk Muslims of Sudan never forgot to remember, the firm orders of the Holy Qur’an and the Hadith to the believers to “honor agreements and promises” faithfully. Here, the question is: How many times did al-Bashir and his government fulfill “solemn” promises to the Sudanese, in general, and the people in Darfur, in particular, that they would live up to the legal, humanitarian, and other human rights of the millions displaced and victimized?

The bare fact to which the Islamist supporters are advised to appreciate the realities with reference to the principles of Islam and the UN charters, as well as the AL and the AU charters, as superior references to any personal dictates or partisan interests, is to stand firmly by the side of the innocent victims to put the strongest pressure possible on all repressive governments to honor agreements with their peoples.

In the case of Sudan, it is very disappointing how the very Islamic entities the Sudanese once supported versus authoritative regimes (as in the case of Iran itself) betrayed the Sudanese and opted to support official torturers, specifically the Islamist suppressors of our people for two consecutive decades (1989-2009).

LEGAL APPEALS BY REGIONAL ENTITIES

The Arab League and the African Union regional organizations have most recently submitted appeals to suspend the ICC decision temporarily via legal procedures that recognized fully the ICC international jurisdiction. The AL and the AU have been carefully exploring the possibilities of collaborating with the UN Security Council, the most competent authority to resolve the conflict. Both regional entities recognized that legitimate linkages have been clearly established between the Security Council and the ICC by prospective provisions of the UN Charter and the Rome Statute.

The AL/AU request to the Security Council to suspend the ICC warrant of arrest for a year, according to Article 16 of the Rome Statue, indicated a possible mode of reciprocity by which the AL/AU leaderships were obviously willing to collaborate with the ICC/Security Council to strike a reasonable balance between the parties in dispute, provided that the GoS and her President would apply serious measures to abide-by, in a principled way, all of the Security Council resolutions (since 2003).

Most importantly, the former and the present UN Secretary Generals’ advisement to the GoS to convene an all-Sudanese conference under the auspices of the United Nations to end the crisis in Darfur – a vital advisement adequately incorporated in the Security Council resolutions – should be enforced as top agenda in the AL and the AU appeals to the Security Council. The Sudan Friends, especially the United States and the European Union, together with the African and the Arab sisterly States neighboring the Sudan, most particularly Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Central Africa, and Chad are equally important participants in the All-Sudanese Conference the Sudanese opposition and civil society groups consistently emphasized ad the best forum to end the crisis.

The AL/AU unilateral and bilateral delegates to the UN evidenced the need to implement immediate regular measures to remove irregularities of the GoS as a member of both organizations. The ongoing contacts are obviously based on the mutual recognition of international law, the ICC, and the Security Council, the world’s institutions with mandatory jurisdictions over all States Members to the United Nations. As such, the AL/AU – UN business relations contrast sharply with the GOS, Iran, Hamas, and the ‘Ulama Union war-inciting statements.

The former think and act in accordance with international norms; but the latter think and act as “unattached entities” with respect to the well-known Islamic jurisprudence and international law.

THE ICC ACCUSATIONS

The decisive response to the years’ suffering of the voluminous victims of the Darfur Crisis (estimated by the most reliable UN estimates in millions displaced, tens of thousands extra-judicially killed, and many others tortured, arbitrarily arrested, and unlawfully harassed) came unsurprisingly by the ICC Prosecutor on July 14, 2008.

Unlike the allegations propagated by Iran and the Islamist supporters, the Darfur situation was referred to the Office of the Prosecutor by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005), which affirmed that justice and accountability are critical to achieve lasting peace and security in Darfur. Since the start of the investigation, the Prosecution collected statements and evidence during 105 missions conducted in 18 countries. Throughout the investigation, the Prosecutor examined incriminating and exonerating facts in an independent and impartial manner.

Unlike the agitating announcements of the GoS Islamist supporters, the ICC Prosecution relied primarily for the purpose of the Application on: (1) witness statements taken from eyewitnesses and victims of attacks in Darfur; (2) recorded interviews of GoS officials; (3) statements taken from individuals who possess knowledge of the activities of officials and representatives of the GoS and of the Militia/Janjaweed in the conflict in Darfur; (4) documents and other information provided by the GoS upon request of the Prosecution; (5) the Report of the UN Commission of Inquiry (“UNCOI”) and other materials provided by the UNCOI; (6) the Report of Sudanese National Commission of Inquiry (“NCOI”) and other materials provided by the NCOI; and (7) documents and other materials obtained from open sources.’

Unlike the Islamists’ rejections of the legitimacy and legal procedures of the ICC, the Prosecution monitored throughout the investigation the security of victims and witnesses and implemented protective measures. The Prosecution and the Victims and Witness Unit of the Registry continued to monitor and assess the risks to victims and witnesses. Three years after the Security Council requested him to investigate in Darfur, and based on the evidence collected, the Prosecutor concluded, “There are reasonable grounds to believe that the President of Sudan Republic Mr. Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

Finally, in full compliance with the international law, the Prosecutor’s Application for a warrant of arrest under Article 58 against Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir concluded, on investigation of crimes allegedly committed in the territory of Darfur, the Sudan, on or after 1 July 2002, that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir bears criminal responsibility for the crime of genocide under Article 6 (a) of the Rome Statute, killing members of the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups (also referred to as “target groups”), (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of those groups, and (c) deliberately inflicting on those groups conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in part.”

“For crimes against humanity under Article 7 (1) of the Statute, committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population of Darfur with knowledge of the attack, the acts of (a) murder, (b) extermination, (d) forcible transfer of the population, (f) torture, and (g) rapes; and for war crimes under Article 8 (2)(e)(i) of the Statute, for intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such, and (v) pillaging a town or place.”

“The Prosecution does not allege that al-Bashir physically or directly carried out any of the crimes. He committed crimes through members of the state apparatus, the army and the Militia/Janjaweed in accordance with Article 25 (3)(a) of the Statute (indirect perpetration or perpetration by means). At all times relevant to this Application, al-Bashir has been President of the Republic of the Sudan, exercising both de jure and de facto sovereign authority, Head of the National Congress Party and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He sits at the apex of, and personally directs, the state’s hierarchical structure of authority and the integration of the Militia/Janjaweed within such structure. He is the mastermind behind the alleged crimes. He has absolute control.”

The evidence established reasonable grounds to believe that “al-Bahir intends to destroy in substantial part the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups as such. Forces and agents controlled by al-Bashir attacked civilians in towns and villages inhabited by the target groups, committing killings, rapes, torture and destroying means of livelihood. Bashir has thus forced the displacement of a substantial part of the target groups and attacked them in the camps for internally displaced persons (“IDPs”), causing serious and bodily harm – through rapes, tortures and forced displacement in traumatizing conditions – and deliberately inflicting on a substantial part of those groups conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction.”

Judged by the enormous support the ICC decisions received from the Darfuri organizations, namely the Sudan Liberation Army (spokesperson Mahgoub Hussain), the Justice & Equality Movement, the ‘Abd al-Wahid Nour group, and worldwide non-governmental human rights groups and Darfuri opposition entities (including national unions in the United Kingdom and North Ireland; the United States; and a number of Arab and African nations) have been highly appreciated and wholeheartedly welcomed.

These widely disseminated statements contradicted to the maximum degree the official position of the GoS and the Islamist resources that reinforced the GoS transgressing policies and practices, regardless of the needs and interests of the Darfuri people and voluntary organizations. Seen by true Islamist jurisprudence, or secular professionalism, the ICC Prosecutor General’s Office accomplished his mission efficiently.

Without prejudice to the competent jurisdiction of the ICC, further scrutiny of the Ocampo Report could’ve been immediately pursued by well-represented judicial committees (including Sudanese, Islamists, and international investigators) to conduct deeper investigations with a greater number of the Displaced Population in Darfur than the ICC was able to produce, under full protection from the government’s army, security, and militia attacks, if the GoS or her Iranian-led ‘Ulama were really interested in Justice.

GOVERNMENT-PLEASING INVESTIGATIONS

The ICC Prosecutor General Ocampo affirmed in several public interviews (including Jazeera) that the GoS judicial system failed to bring about the due process of law by sufficient judicial investigations, apprehension of the accused, and just and fair trials for the wrong-doers, regardless of political or social status.

In response to these criticisms, the GoS emphasized the professionalism and due respect of the law a government-incited committee led by a former Chief justice performed in 2004 to conduct a comprehensive investigation on the alleged crimes in Darfur. Judge Dafa’-Allah al-Haj Yusif was appointed by the President for the purpose. A few months later, Judge Dafa’-Allah delivered his committee’s report to the president.

The Report was unfortunately a government-pleasing report: The membership of the committee was government picked-up, except for the human rights’ pioneer Lawyer Omer Shamat as representative of the Bar Association. Wasn’t it more just and fair to have added 5 or more independent lawyers to the committee, SHRO-Cairo asked in a press release at the time? Most important, none of the Darfur million or so victims were represented in the committee; but only left with the other terrorized citizens to receive the brunt of the GoS armies and security militias.

Two thirds of the Report was composed of historical and geographical data that might be easily challenged in many sections (for example, ignoring the deep-rooted kingdoms of the region and their ethno-ideological influences in the personality and dignity of the Darfuri Sudanese today). The Committee rushed to condemn the rebels of Darfur and to put all the blame on their armed struggles. Was it fair to do that, had the Committee maintained the least non-partisan commitment to perform professional judicial work?!

Ignoring the women victims of Darfur by having only one female membership of Judge Dafa’-Allah Committee resulted undoubtedly in the poor quality of the investigation. What the International ‘Ulama Union claimed a few years ago about the non-existence of real rapes “due to some confusion in linguistic conceptualization,” for example, was inappropriately adopted by the Committee.

The remaining portion of the Report, as the Committee itself admitted, was simply based on “incomplete facts” about the crisis, particularly the crimes committed against humanity due to the Committee’s “inability to find the facts;” so, “let the government make judicial committees to do that,” concluded the Committee. By this conclusion, the Committee abandoned the very mandate of its mission since the Report declared “it squarely failed to collect reliable judicial data.” Little wonder Prosecutor Ocampo stated in his request to the ICC that the Government of Sudan, “failed to meet up the judicial tasks of the due process of law.”

Judge Dafa’-Allah and his Committee might have resigned their work once they admitted “sorry; it is just too difficult to find the facts.” The Honorable Daf’a’-Allah could’ve maintained a glorious stance in Sudanese Justice had he advised the government: “Let us ask an international competent body (Islamists and non-Islamist, say) to do the job.” That body, for sure, was certainly the ICC Prosecution Office and the court nowadays bitterly attacked by Bashir, his government, and his government supporters.

RETALIATION BY DEPRIVING WAR VICTIMS FROM RELIEF

In pursuance of the GoS reckless policies against the Sudanese nationals and the International Community, the president expelled relief agencies and humanitarian organizations from Sudan. The decision failed to appreciate the consistent services relief and humanitarian organizations have been providing for the displaced population in Darfur, especially for a million or more displaced citizens by government troops and militias, for whom the Government failed to provide basic needs, including food, health, and education since 2003 up to this day.

Amnesty International issued a clear caution to the world about a possible catastrophe in Darfur as an immediate consequence of the expulsion. Human rights groups and democracy organizations in Arab and African nations expressed grave concerns about the suppression of civil society in the Sudan. SHRO-Cairo alarmed repeatedly, the systematic harassment of civil society groups by the Presidency and the National Security and Intelligence Service, in addition to the Publications and Press Council which exercises harsh censorial powers over journalists and the Press, “will jeopardize the upcoming national elections.”

Thus curtailed, the Voice of People has been severely suppressed, especially in the camps of displaced people. Regrettably, the President enforced directly other “decisive” measures by which Sudanese human rights groups and civil society associations were outlawed mainly in Khartoum and Darfur. Other organizations, however, are seriously threatened with the President’s “decisive” measures to end all civil society work in Sudan, local or foreign, all together.

The Government’s ongoing crack down on humanitarian activities in the country, which further aimed to silence the opposition and to inhibit the displaced citizens from expressing their needs, freely without security intimidation or presidential threats, constituted gross violations of the Interim Constitution Bill of Rights, the right to voluntary work, and the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression.

WHAT THE GOS SHOULD DO

The President and “his” security executive and judicial systems escalated the crisis in Sudan to unprecedented disputes in the local and global levels, which demands clear recognition of the roles to be played “formally” by the GoS, the Sudanese opposition parties and civil society groups, the UN and the Sudan Friends, besides the AL, the AU, and the International Community within a broad democratic framework. The GoS Islamist supporters, furthermore, are cordially invited to join the effort to stabilize Sudan without further de-evaluation of the internationally recognized institutions or established norms.

The Interim Constitution of the Republic of The Sudan confers on the Government and the Presidency clear obligations to achieve “Promotion of international cooperation, especially within the UN family and other international and regional organizations, for the purposes of consolidating universal peace, respect international law and treaty obligations and fostering a just world economic and political order.”

Interestingly, the major Sudanese opposition parties (the Umma, DUP, SPLM, and the Communists) expressed “grave concerns about the state of affairs of the Homeland” (rather than the disturbed personal status of the president) in response to the ICC-GoS ongoing conflict. The Umma Party Conference Final Communiqué (Khartoum: March 1, 2009) spoke about “the critical situation facing the country vis-à-vis the International Order and the internal schism that threatens the very existence of the Homeland; this cannot be eliminated without a unified national stand by strong efficient parties with renewed and agreed upon leaderships.”

The DUP Leader, Mohamed Osman al-Mergahni stressed in a recent interview with Jazeera the “Peace Agreement and unity of the country,” and the Communist Leader Mohamed Ibrahim Nugud emphasized in al-Midan “the necessity of convening a national conference on Darfur with the full participation of the Darfuri armed groups and civil society organizations.” Nugud would then advise the GoS to “line up behind the AU, which prohibits external trials of the African leaders.”

Despite the forced silence GoS and her President imposed by extreme intimidation and suppression upon the displaced population of Darfur, in addition to opposition parties, human rights groups, and civil society organizations, many citizens voiced bitter criticism over the GoS/President egoistic negligence of the humanitarian needs of Darfur, and the harmful governmental insistence to challenge recklessly the United Nations, the ICC, and the International Order.

Besides considerable access to the Internet for up-dated developments in the situation, several Sudanese journalists reported from abroad up-dated reports on the opponent opinions and the viewpoints of many non-governmental organizations and the Darfuri armed groups. There, is where readers find: “Resign your post to save Sudan and the Sudanese!” enchanted the displaced population of Darfur across the camps in Darfur and Khartoum.

The Sudan Human Rights Organization-Cairo (March 5, 2009) asked the Government of Sudan to maintain normal relations with the United Nations agencies and the other regional and national agencies in the service of the national needs of Darfur and the other areas in the country. The Organization asked the Government to allow all international and/or regional relief agencies, as well as Sudanese civil society groups, to resume humanitarian support activities to the needy population without interruption, or confiscation of equipments, or censor.
The Government of Sudan must indiscriminately apply the constitutional provisions that guarantee the rights of citizens to enjoy the Bill of Rights’ constitutional provisions in full length to be able to prepare voters for the upcoming national elections. Of particular importance, the GoS must ensure the Freedom of Expression and of the Media: “Every citizen shall have the right to the freedom of expression, reception of information, publication, and access to the press without prejudice to order, safety and public morals.”

The GoS is strongly advised to release all citizens incarcerated without charge by Salah Gosh authoritative security, the most repressive pro-Bashir state apparatus in Khartoum, as well the persons imprisoned for accusations concerning the reception or dissemination of information, or those harassed for exercising the freedoms of thought and expression whether related to the International Criminal Court (ICC) or addressed to any other societal issues or State affairs.

* The author is a sociologist at the Department of Social Work & Sociology in Tennessee State University, Nashville TN, USA. He can be reached at [email protected]