Darfur: When will the sufferings end?

By Elrayah Hassan Khalifa

March 28, 2009 — For six years the victims of Darfur were waiting for justice, while watching in horror the Sudanese government openly and continuously defy the resolutions of the Security Council one after the other. For six years the government of Sudan has committed unspeakable crimes of murder, rape, destruction of villages and burning of livestock. Six years during which the victims of Darfur have been subjected to consistent humiliation and were forced out of their homes to seek refuge in neighboring countries. In these six years the unrepentant government of Sudan planned to annihilate the existence of those victims by starting with covert massive attacks, judging that by the time the international community knows about the assault, the people of Darfur would be silenced for ever. However, that was not novel behavior for this Islamic government which has been practicing these depraved and dissolute acts all along. Civilians started to flee the scorching bombing of the government and move towards neighboring Chad. That was the time when the international community, for the first time, knew about the conflict in Darfur and started raising concern about the humanitarian crisis unfolding there. Even after the Commission of Inquiry on Darfur established by the General Secretary, concluded that there was killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages and rape, and even after the commission recommended the council to act urgently to both stop perpetrators and rescue victims, the government of Sudan failed to conduct itself in a responsible and courageous manner. At first it denied any involvement in any civilian attacks; when the evidence became overwhelming it fabricated the plea of tribal conflict. However, in the days of ours, where the satellites and sophisticated surveillance devices are overlooking; criminals can no longer escape liability by denying their acts, or attempting to tamper with evidence. Six years and the name of Darfur became known to any individual human, everywhere. The injustice practiced on those poor civilians stigmatized each and every Sudanese.

DRAMA IN THE CAMP

The three million victims who sought refuge in neighboring countries and are now relying wholly on the international aid left only with a spiritual connection to their homeland; a feeling which the government could not eradicate. One could imagine them gathering there, reflecting on their past life, and somehow feeling complacent by the mere reminiscences of their past life. Abba Musa is speaking about his livestock; how he grazes his cows and takes care of them, feeling astoundingly peaceful and calm as though his cows were not burned by the government troops. His nostalgia to his past life; his family his village are sometimes exhibited by a short sigh followed by tears, which he struggles to hide. He mentions how he used to milk his cows and distribute the milk to all the villagers. For Abba Musa, people of the village are all considered his relatives. Once in the village, you are a brother or a sister, a father or mother and a son or a daughter. That was how simple, easy and altruistic their lives were. Narrating these reminiscences is the only solace which alleviates Abba Musa’s indescribable condition. Nonetheless he feels extremely happy for the mere fact that somehow his glorious life exists somewhere. A twenty year old boy is working actively in the camp, his name is Salih. He was fourteen when he was expelled from his village. He did not join the school, but preferred to become a farmer. He stayed with his father and eventually became in charge not only of the farm but all the necessary work around the house. Salih recalls his life in the village when he used to meet his sweetheart near the well; one of the main sources of lives in the village. Tears welled in his eyes, when he realized that this symbol of joy and source of life was destroyed by bombs of the government. At the beginning of the conflict Salih did not know what was happening, he saw the killings, the burnings and the destructions, but he lacked the intellect to comprehend the problem. Now he knows the whole story but he became more confused. With his limited understanding, he assumes that the government in Khartoum has responsibilities towards its people; among these responsibilities are maintaining peace and security, including defending its people from the enemies. The act of aggression undertaken by the government against its own civilian population perplexed Salih and he racked his brain in an effort to find logical reasoning, but in vain. Another lady; her name is Ha’wa, lost her husband when the Janjaweed militias, accompanied by government troops, ferociously attacked the village. “It was a little before sunset” Ha’wa recalls, “ and my husband Ibrahim was returning home from his farm; carrying some necessities as he always does. Suddenly a number of gunmen arrived and started shooting at people indescrimately, some were riding horses, and others jumped down from their car. My husband came face to face with two of them and each of the gunmen shot him three times, while my three kids were watching through the half closed door of our house. After drying her tears Ha’wa goes on to say: “we had a decent life together, my husband used to treat me different from all other wives; he cherished me, care for me and help me with my work in the house. The kids loved him and were always waiting patiently for him to come home.” Ha’awa pauses before she adds “it is not only me, all the people in the village loved him, for my husband is very kind and helpful to all of them.” The drama inside the camp is immense. Each individual has a tragic experience and they all are profoundly traumatized, some lost persons close to their hearts, others lost their fortunes and some are just lamenting at the fact that they were uprooted from their land and became labeled as displaced. They deplore the fact that they were once independent, self-sufficient and dignified; now they became aid recipient and horrified by the apprehension of government attacks.

Two salient beautiful twins, Zeinab and Fattuma are seen jumping up and down; playing around the camp. They look so happy and carefree; plausibly oblivious of the cruelty by which their parents were murdered. A seventy year old man identifies himself as Adam Suleiman is narrating their stories: “they were three years old when the assault took place; there was immeasurable upheaval; chaos and disruption all over the village. Twenty men and seven women lost their lives to the troops, among them were Zeinab and Fattuma’s parents. We were all panic and confused and started to run. I ran northward, and then I changed my mind and started running southward. When I realized the people are moving westward I turned and joined them. Suddenly I heard a cry; I was overwhelmingly dismayed because the voice sounded familiar to me. I immediately derailed the crowd direction and went to my daughter’s house, to find the twins lying on their parents’ chests crying. Their parents were both shot dead. We took them with us. At first we found difficulty to settle them down, as they were crying all the time and they had terrible nightmares, but now it seems they forgot every thing.” But did they really forget? Or was this terrible experience indelibly deposited in their subconscious? Only time will tell.

SUBTERFUGE OF SOVEREIGNTY

The dire pain and trauma, to which these victims are subjected, are amenable to awaken the consciousness of any evil person. Hence, I find it an ignominious conduct to stand by the perpetrators under the pretext of sovereignty and ignore entirely the cause of the victims. It is not worth mentioning that people who deserve support and protection are the victims and not the perpetrators, who have been tormented for years from the brutal acts of this government. A lot of people, who took to the street to demonstrate in support of the wanted President, were driven by the government media, which repeated non-stop slogans of defending the country against foreign powers. Though the government claimed that the crowds were spontaneous, it was obvious from the crafted posters and slogans that it was organized ahead of time. Unofficial reports indicated that the government used public transportation to divert people from their destinations towards the gatherings of the demonstrations. Unfortunately quite a few educated people whose role was to raise the awareness amongst misinformed, as well as extend advice to the government to act wisely, reasonably and responsibly; disappointedly defaulted the pledge with which the people entrusted them. They inadvertently (or maybe out of fear) adopted the government’s argument that President Al-Bashir is a substantial equivalence of sovereignty. This approach is appalling for it places the President above the law. Usually in any political system rulers are guided by the constitution and subject to the laws of their lands. If for any reason the President violates the law then he will be accountable, to say otherwise would be to render that particular law as worthless. In the case of Darfur, certain crimes have been committed since 2003. The government of Sudan has been officially informed of the perpetrators, the victims and the nature of these crimes. The presumption being that Sudan has an efficient Justice System sustained by an effective mechanism to end the state of impunity, arrest and bring to justice the criminals and seek justice for the victims. Had the government of Sudan expressed any intention of trying the defendants, the international community could have co-operated fully with them. It is my submission that, the continuing refusal of the Sudanese government to take any legal action against the defendants prompted the prosecutor to dig deep into the case where he had found prima facie evidence implicating the President himself. Perhaps the way the government conducted itself in the conflict of Darfur by giving free reins to the Janjaweed and by continuing to bomb the villages and most importantly by turning a deaf ear to the international outcry, made the prosecutor to re-think the involvement of the President.

I find it extremely disturbing that the same people, who once vehemently opposed this government for its repressive policy, corruption, impartiality and mismanagement, speak today of the President as the symbol of sovereignty. It is generally understood that sovereignty is owned by the people of the Sudan; who can only practice it through representatives of their choice. People of Sudan had the chance to practice their sovereignty during the democratic period in 1986; when they were able to elect their own representatives and form their democratic government. In 1989, and by a military coup d’état, the current government usurped the power, and placed the country on the verge of abyss. Ever since then, Sudanese have tacitly withheld their delegation of sovereignty and subsequently by the arrival of the current government the State of Sudan has no de jure sovereignty representative. Hence, the current government can only be treated as de facto government, and even in this respect it compromised sovereignty of the country in numerous occasions. One example is giving unrestricted entry and stay to all terrorist groups, among whom was Osama bin Laden. According to the news Osama bin Laden surrounded himself by armed guards inside Khartoum! Even his personal car had Saudi and not Sudanese plate. These terrorist groups carried many attacks one of them was inside Omdurman mosque which claimed the lives of many Sudanese victims. This incident proved that Sudanese government can compromise sovereignty if it comes into conflict with its Islamic project. Another example was providing America with all the information needed, notwithstanding the fact that this information is part of State security. In their efforts to combat terrorism, the American government sought to collect information to help them identify and locate terrorist groups. They approached the Sudanese government which had been a den for terrorist groups’ activities. The Sudanese government was so generous and forthcoming that the information they provided exceeded their enemies’ expectations. On account of such invaluable information, American officials praised the Sudanese government, as the information they received greatly abbreviated their times and efforts. By doing so, members of the Sudanese government snitched on their own brothers who shared with them the same Islamic views. Their files and records were part of Sudanese security which should not be shared with any other country lest the State sovereignty would be compromised. When dealing with this issue, the government had neither invoked the issue of sovereignty nor did it reject the US demand for lack of normal relationship between the two countries (Sudan at the time was in the list of countries which sponsor terrorism and US has little or no relationship with Sudan).

Another example is the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the government and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). By resolution 1590 the SC council established United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) consisting of 750 Military Observers. In addition, there is a protection force under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, as well as logistical support for Military Observers. The total UN military peace-keeping force deployed across Sudan is 10,000. The question is; if foreign troops could enter Sudan to implement a peace agreement upon the government failure why can’t we accept them try our criminals when in both cases we failed to achieve peace and security? The mistakes of this government went even further to undermine Egypt’s sovereignty by attempting to assassinate its President. This incident gave Egyptians a golden opportunity to heavy-handedly pressure the Sudanese government into submitting to its secret deals. After all, it is the Sudanese people who will take responsibility of the mistakes of this government; by paying the bills to the Egyptian government, even if this bill was the concession to Halayib region. From 1989 up to the signature of the CPA the government was ruling Sudan single-handedly, with an entire lack of check and balance mechanism. They were never subjected to accountability. After the signature of the CPA there was a margin of democracy, where Sudanese for the first time started to criticize the government openly and to realize the corruption the government was sunk in. However, from the time the President was indicted, the government reversed to the same policy of secrecy and intimidation. The other day, General Salah Gosh, who is in charge of the National Security made a gruesome public speech; pledging that he would slaughter any person supporting the arrest of the President, or speak in favor of the ICC. Are we (the Sudanese people) going to pay for the government mistakes in Darfur, as we did for the Egyptians case? It will be a great shame if we have the ability to stand up to help our weakening county people in Darfur and deliberately turn a blind eye. It will even be more shameful if we try to justify the President’s act by claiming that he is the symbol of sovereignty, and hence he should not be tried outside the county. As mentioned earlier, the government of Sudan has conceded to the jurisdiction of the international organization all along. With respect to the conflict in Darfur the SC issued Resolution 1769/2007, establishing the UNAMID to protect civilians, secure humanitarian assistance and promote human rights and the rule of law. The government of Sudan did not object to neither the mandate nor the UN troops and personnel which spread in Darfur. It is obvious, therefore, that the UN was involved in the conflict of Darfur from the time it took cognizance of the matter and the government of Sudan has never challenged, legally, any step the UN took towards solving this problem. But it dealt with this conflict in a combination of apathy, recklessness and resolute defiance. While it gave the international community the impression that it is a government of law and order, and that it seeks to resolve its problems through negotiations (the visit of Vice-President Ali Osman to New York to discuss President’s indictment is a good example), its media is broadcasting a message of defiance, disrespect to the international community. Accordingly, the issue of sovereignty which is now played by the government and its supporters is nothing more than a pretext to escape liability. The advice to be offered to the President and his aides and for the sake of keeping the country together as a united, stable and peaceful country, is for the President to concede to the international law and surrender himself to the ICC. No Sudanese entertains the idea that one of his fellow citizens is wanted as an international suspect, let alone his President. By the same token, no conscientious Sudanese, will turn his back to the massacres in Darfur and refrain from helping the victims, if their help requires, principally speaking up. To the Sudanese, the stigma of seeing their President being arrested and tried by a foreign tribunal will certainly be compensated by the realization of justice for those innocent civilians of Darfur. The grotesque spectacle of the humiliation with which the Sudanese President will be arrested and brought to justice, watched by all the international community, in my view, is less proportionate to the loss, sufferings and pain, which civilians sustained.

SIMPLICITY OF THE DARFUR CASE

Though the conflict of Darfur is not difficult to fathom, even so, one can not understand the huge number of the Sudanese who perceive the issue from an entirely different perspective. They perceive the West as the source of all the problems and as such it should take credit for all our failures and inadequate practices. Some even deny the atrocities in Darfur; despite the concrete evidence found by the international community. Their argument is that the West intentionally magnifies the problem of Darfur to justify its intervention in Sudan! One can not find convincing reasons behind these attitudes except the fact that they are overwhelmingly intimidated by the government or brainwashed by the overriding hammering of the Sudanese media. Therefore, it is pertinent to elucidate the problem of Darfur in simple questions and answers as a candid gesture for those who are misinformed; to realize the simplicity the case is, and the depth the involvement of the government in this conflict.

1- Are there any crimes being committed by the government against the civilians of Darfur?

This is a question of fact rather than a question of law. We are not dealing here with the technicalities of the law such as the elements of the crime or the definition thereof. The mere fact that the government bombarded its own civilian population, or gave impunity to its proxies to kill, rape and sabotage are enough to answer this question in the affirmative. This could be proved by the overwhelming evidence of the reported killings, rapes, burning properties and destruction of villages. All the international organizations who have been to Darfur unanimously reported these incidents. The commission of Inquiry on Darfur which was established by the former General Secretary Kofi Anan concluded that “there was killing of civilians, torture, enforced disappearances, destruction of villages and rape, and recommended the council to act urgently to both stop perpetrators and rescue victims.” The government of Sudan neither contested this report, nor did it take any positive steps to halt the violence. The fact that there are now more two million Darfurians staying in camps outside their homes, stands out as a strong circumstantial evidence to the commission of these crimes by the Sudanese government. On March 15th the Sudanese government implicitly admitted there are war crimes, when it submitted to the request of the Arab League by incorporating war crimes in the Sudanese Penal Code. The news goes: “The Sudanese justice minister Abdel-Basit Sabdarat said that the national assembly will soon meet to endorse changes to the criminal law that will incorporate war crimes into the penal code.” All this evidence explain the involvement of the Sudanese government in committing crimes in Darfur.

2- Is Sudan a member of the United Nations Organization and hence bound by Security Council Resolutions?

As to the first part of this question, it is not worth proving that Sudan is a member of the United Nations, it has a representative there. That being said Sudan has to be guided and governed by the United Nations charter of which Article 25 states the following: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Decisions of Security Council are nothing more than the Resolutions, which the government of Sudan rejected them one
after the other. One of these resolutions was resolution 1593, which referred the conflict of Darfur to the ICC.

3- Has the government of Sudan implemented any of the Security Council
Resolutions with regard to the Darfur conflict?

The first resolution issued by the SC is resolution 1556/2004, which mandated the government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed Militias and bring them to justice, but the government of Sudan refused to comply with this resolution. The second resolution is 1564/2004, in which SC urged the government of Sudan to comply with resolution 1556 lest it will use Chapter V11 of the UN Charter. Again the government of Sudan did not honor the resolution. The SC then issued resolution 1591/2005 and decided to take measures in accordance with chapter V11 of the UN charter. After this consistent pattern of denial and disrespect, and in order to exhaust all means to solve the problem of Darfur, the SC referred the matter to the ICC by resolution 1593. Thus, it is obvious that the Sudanese government failed to honor almost all the resolutions concerning the conflict of Darfur and consequently violated article 25 of the UN charter.

4- Does the Security Council have the authority to defer any case to the ICC?

The authority of the SC is determined by its powers in UN charter. Article 39 of the charter Provides: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Based on this power, SC established the trials of former Yugoslavia, by resolution 827, on May 25 1993. In November 8th 1994, the SC acting under Chapter V11 of the UN charter created the International Tribunal of Rwanda by Resolution 955. Hence SC has the express power to act and there are precedents which corroborate and solidify the jurisdiction of the SC to refer the problem of Darfur to the ICC. The government of Sudan is neither an exception nor is its case distinguishable from that of former Yugoslavia or Rwanda.

5- Has the Security Council exhausted all means necessary before it committed the issue of Darfur to the ICC?

As was explained earlier, SC issued three resolutions and repeatedly warned and urged the Sudanese government to stop the violence it committed on its civilians, but the government responded with disdain. SC had legal obligation to act in order to save the population of Darfur from the massive attacks of the Sudanese government. In the circumstances I believe SC has no other option but to commit the matter to the ICC. Had the SC had the efficient mechanism (military power) it could have forced the Sudanese government to submit to the international order by implementing SC resolutions. The bottom line is that SC has exhausted all the necessary steps before referring the matter to the ICC.

6- Until to the indictment of President Al-bashir has the government of Sudan made any serious attempts to prosecute those who committed crimes against the civilians of Darfur?

The answer to this question is in the negative; the policy of the Sudanese government in dealing with the international community did not change, even after the indictment of Ahmad Harun and Ali Koshayb (the two accused who have been indicted by the ICC before the President, but Sudanese government refused to hand them over to the ICC). In his report the prosecutor of the ICC stated the following: “The Government of the Sudan is not cooperating with my Office, or the Court,” he said. The individuals had not been arrested and surrendered. While the Sudan continued to publicly insist that it was willing and able to prosecute those responsible for serious crimes, they had done nothing. The Sudan had taken no steps to prosecute them domestically. Ali Kushayb, against whom the Government had previously indicated that there was an investigation, had been reported on 30 September by the media to have been released for lack of evidence. Regarding Ahmad Harun, all public information indicated that he would neither be surrendered, nor subject to national proceedings. He had been maintained in his position of Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs and had accompanied President Bashir to Darfur on 18 June.” After the indictment of the President, the government, in a grotesque step, started hasty legal proceedings in the crimes of Darfur. It appointed a prosecutor to try the crimes committed in Darfur! Ironically Ali Koshayb was among the accused that a prima facie evidence was established against him, or so the news reported.

7- Is the fact that Sudan has not ratified Rome Statute of the ICC relevant to the case of indictment? And is President Al-bashir immune from prosecution?

The fact that Sudan has not ratified Rome Statute of the ICC (not a party to the Statute) is relevant only if the proceeding was initiated by the ICC. According to Article 11 (3) “If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under Article 12, paragraph 3.” Since Sudan has only signed but not ratified the Statute and hence is not a party to the Statute the Prosecutor can not on his motion start any legal proceeding against it. However that is not the only jurisdiction ICC can assume. Article 13 (B) provides the following, with respect to the Jurisdiction of the ICC: “A situation in which one or more of such crimes appears to have been committed is referred to the Prosecutor by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” Accordingly, all the requirements of the legal jurisdiction of the ICC visa-a-vie the government of Sudan have been satisfied. The question about immunity is best explained by article 27 of Rome Statute which states: “This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence. 2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.”

Though these questions are simple and easy and the answers to them are unequivocally likewise; telling the clarity of the conflict of Darfur itself, but the government manipulated all its media resources to obscure this issue and mislead a large segment of the Sudanese people. However, I find no reasonable justification for those educated individuals who have access to the international media and saw, read, or listened about these catastrophic events, unfolded more than six years ago in their own country.

PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT

Despite all the odds, including dealing with astute and unprincipled government, United Nations Organization was able to get around and perform its duty in an effective and adequate manner. Its efforts, however, were sometimes hampered by the attempts of Russia and China, as any measures taken against the Sudanese government could jeopardize their interests. UN Security Council members failed to agree a joint response to Sudan’s decision to expel 13 NGOs. According to one diplomat, China refused to sign up to a text which called on Sudan to reverse its decision! An official called this grotesque; emphasizing that the international community deliberately compromised the lives of million Darfurians at the hand of war criminal. On the other hand, representatives of the United States described this irresponsible retaliative act as reckless and callous. Even Russia who has ties with the Sudanese government could not morally defend the Sudanese government and its apathy towards the death of its people. As to the victims of Darfur, it seems the feeling of joy and gratitude towards the international community for their salvation would fall short by the attempts of China trying to abort the efforts of the international community in achieving justice and sustainable peace.

In dealing with the Darfur problem one can not ignore the murky and dubious role of the Arab League which only started to show ostensible sincerity after it came to its attention that the International Criminal Court might indict the President of Sudan. Only then the Arab League intensified its activities, leading a campaign against the decision of the ICC; charging that indictment of President Al-Basheer would not only jeopardize peace in Sudan but might destabilize the whole region. But is the organization of the Arab League really genuine or trustworthy? Perhaps the most authentic description of Arab League as far as the conflict of Darfur is concerned is in Nadim Hasbani’s writing in Al-Hayat March 21, 2007: “The Arab League has expressed concern over the violence in Sudan’s Darfur, but, like individual Arab member states, it has failed to support international action to protect the Sudanese citizens of Darfur. Their inaction in the face of mass killings edges closer and closer to complicity every day.” The writer went on to say “The Arab League and Arab countries have supported — at least verbally — the under equipped African Union (AU) force deployed in Darfur (AMIS), which they regularly describe as the only viable security solution for the Darfur crisis. But practically, and for years, the Arab League’s policy has been completely in line with the official Sudanese position rejecting any other international force to help stop the massacres of Muslim civilians in Darfur.” In his introduction the writer emphasized that the Arab League intentionally meant to ignore the massacres in Darfur, even after they knew it had happened! Is this organization morally qualified to speak on our behalf as Sudanese? The writer said: “Despite heavy-handed censorship on Arab media covering Darfur, knowledge of the massacres started reaching the Arab public by the end of 2003. In 2004, an Arab League Commission of Inquiry into Darfur publicly condemned the attacks on civilians as “massive violations of human rights”. Yet the statement was later suppressed and removed from the Arab League website, after a negative reaction from the Sudanese government. Since that moment, the Arab League has consistently counseled international patience in dealing with Khartoum, despite more than 200,000 civilian deaths in Darfur as a result of the Sudanese government’s military strategy of targeting of the civilian population.” It is unlikely that the Arab League will play a successful surrogate for the Sudanese government. Sudanese officials started to realize that the Arab League or Arabs without a league are the problems and not the solution for the case of Darfur. They intentionally ignored Darfur civilians for lack of morality and pursuit of self-interest, and it is not unlikely that they would do the same with President Al-bashir. Besides, The Arab League has no leverage among the international community and its influence does not go beyond Arab media momentum. As to the African Union (AU), and according to the Herald Tribune “The African Union’s high-level panel on Darfur will not consider the evidence the International Criminal Court has gathered against Sudan’s leader as it works toward peace, former South African president Thabo Mbeki said Thursday. The eight-member panel will, however, meet with Sudanese government, rebels and other officials to assess how to bring about peace while punishing those guilty of war crimes in Darfur, said Mbeki, the panel’s chairman. The panel is made up of current and former African officials, aided by legal experts.” The irony about this news is that AU mission in Darfur was mandated by the same organization which empowered the ICC to try the criminals in Darfur. AU panel members are now planning to overrule the outcome of the ICC, in order to save President Al-bashir. Are those members mindful of the atrocities that unfolded and continued for six years, in which close to three million civilians lost every thing they had and fled their homes? Are those members aware of the three hundred and fifty thousands deaths? If AU is really serious about solving this problem they should advise the Sudanese government to co-operate with the ICC. That is the role which the AU should undertake.

FINALLY

The case of Mr. Al-Basheer is a real test to the (ICC), as he is the first sitting president to be indicted. However, the ICC does not have the capability to carry out this proceeding without the collaboration of all nation states. Obviously the President of Sudan and his government are adamantly rejecting any deal with the ICC. However, the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur which prompted the SC to authorize the ICC to bring the criminals to justice would certainly be supported by countries who want to see war criminals be punished. Let us hope that in this twenty first century the week have rights and not despair of humanity. The notion that the arrest of Al-bashir will destabilize the country can be remedied by urging the Sudanese government to make the necessary arrangements, considering the absence of the President. The current government can manage to lead the country until the election date. President Al-bashir is not a genus whose absence would impact the situation in Sudan. For those who support the President; whether they are his aides or just patriot, enthusiastic Sudanese; who do not want to see their president be humiliated, it is important to remind them that the damage was already done. It is equally important to remember that, ever since the advent of these new rulers in 1989, Sudanese were separated from their culture and their unique characteristics. People of the world knew Sudanese as courageous, generous, good-hearted and with great integrity and knowledge. This is not an isolated chauvinism, but rather overriding evidence gathered by the majority of Sudanese who are scattered around the Arabic and African countries. No wonder, the renowned novelist Al-tayib Salih said “where have those come from?”

It is felicitous to conclude this article by mentioning what Prophet Muhammad (May peace be upon him) said in this respect. “Defend your brother, whether he is an oppressor (transgressor), or is being oppressed. His companions wondered; we know how to deal with the person being oppressed, but how can we defend him while he is transgressor. He answered; prevent him from transgression.” This is translated by Usadh Mahmoud Muhammad Taha to mean “the power, in supporting the truth.” People who support the President, therefore, should audaciously and not lightly, advice him to deal with the ICC in a civilized and responsible manner. Our collective consciousness which was derived from our cultural heritage and reflected in our poetry, songs and social dealings implies that we stand with, and defend the weak against transgression of the strong. When an extreme situation appears we face it with open chests. That is what President Al-bashir should be advised to do; to stand up and face the entire world, with all the courage and responsibility to emphasize that he was the person to be blamed for what had happened, instead of hiding behind his people. In 1976 Republican Brothers (a movement established by Ustadh Mahmoud Muhammad Taha) published a book entitled “Their name is Wahabbi and not Sunna Supporters.” When security forces came to arrest the members who were involved in the preparation of the book, one of the brothers, in a polite gesture, attempted to exclude Ustadh Mahmoud from the arrest. Ustadh told him “if there is only one person to be arrested it will be myself.” This incident is dedicated to the President of Sudan; hopefully he realizes what it means to take responsibility of your actions.

While I was about to finish my writing, a certain incident came to my mind. I was working as a judge in 1982, in Annuhoud town, Southern Kordofan. There was a young man from Hamar tribe who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; based on his confession. However, he was lucky to utilize President Numary’s decision of releasing all convicted felons. He spent only two or three months in jail. After he was released, he came to the court to tell us that he did not commit the crime, he was convicted for. He mentioned that the crime was committed by a prominent figure in his tribe (during a tribal fight), but the tribe chiefs decided he should take the responsibility of this crime, so that the tribe would not lose that person. He immediately came to the police and took responsibility of the crime! I bring forward this story to draw a distinction between two situations. In the first situation we have an individual who took responsibility for something he did not do, even though this could cost him his life. His only concern was to honor his people and his tribe. In contrast, the second person is the head of the Islamic state (allegedly the highest moral position). He is further a military officer, whose career is to defend his people at the risk of his own death. Despite all these denominations, he disappointedly failed to hold himself to the moral standard required of him.

The author is a Sudanese based in California USA.