African Union Chairman Ping developing ICC paranoia

By Wasil Ali*

August 19, 2008 (WASHINGTON) – The new chairman of the African Union (AU) Commission Jean Ping appears to be walking the steps of his predecessor Alpha Konare. In the aftermath of the International Criminal Court ICC) move against Sudan president, Ping devoted much effort worrying about the indictment rather than other pressing matters in the African continent.

As a diplomat representing 61 different countries, the AU top official is supposed to ensure that his words or actions do not give the impression of being biased in any way. His role should be similar to that of the UN Secretary General. Of course any evaluation of impartiality becomes a relative measure differing from one person to the other. However Ping’s stance on the indictment of Al-Bashir was nothing short of a blatant siding with Khartoum.

In an interview with the ‘Mail & Guardian’ of South African last week, Ping said that the AU “support the principle of fighting impunity, there is no problem of principle”. The last sentence has been a favorite one for many Arab and African politicians to justify backing Sudan’s president. But this is simply sheer hypocrisy particularly when their actions do not give any credibility to their statements. The AU has been silent for years on bring perpetrators of war criminals in Darfur to justice. We have never heard an AU official speaking, at least publicly, on extraditing the two Darfur war crimes suspects Haroun and Kushayb to the ICC. It is crystal clear to any observer that fighting impunity was never a matter of concern to the AU or African officials in general.

Moreover I found it quite amusing to see the AU Peace and Security Council rushing to meet in a matter of days and demand a deferral Al-Bashir’s indictment. Their concern was peace as if it was dependent on one man. The death of John Garang whose leadership and influence was far more powerful than that of Al-Bashir did not lead to the collapse of the North-South agreement as some have predicted. This is not a good enough argument.

The AU resolution was in essence filled with excuses to letting criminals at large despite all the cosmetic phrases inserted to imply support for justice. The AU cherry picked parts of resolution 1593 on “the promotion of healing and reconciliation in Darfur”. Moreover the AU called for establishing a panel of African figures to decide best ways to address “issues of accountability and combating impunity”.

While I definitely agree that reconciliation is part of permanent solution to the Darfur conflict, I don’t see how accountability entails anything other than bringing perpetrators before court. Is there a way around that? The answer is no because it is inevitable. It does not take an AU panel to figure that out.

The AU resolution is definitely not trying to come up with ways to bring justice to the traumatized Darfuri population. It is simply trying to answer the question “How can we protect a fellow African leader from going to court to avoid the same fate in the future?” This is the driver of all African efforts on the issue.

Ping then goes to criticize the timing of the ICC indictment. The AU chairman fails to remember that the Darfur conflict has been dragging on for five years. Did he ask himself why it took so long? The answer is simple; individuals who are fueling the conflict saw no motive to stop because there was no accountability and no international pressure. On the contrary they were rewarded. Perhaps Ping can explain to us why the notorious Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal was awarded a post in the government despite his hands filled in blood of innocent civilians and the fact that he is a felon who was in jail for leading armed robbery on a central bank in Darfur. This wasn’t an arbitrary appointment; it is a deliberate government policy of encouraging Darfur war criminals who carried out their plans of crushing the military rebellion without regard to the human toll.

The AU chairman then questions the charge of genocide against Al-Bashir. He uses the UN Commission of Inquiry (UNCOI) findings. By saying this Ping has stepped outside his role into an advocate of Al-Bashir. Furthermore he omitted the fact that the UNCOI clearly stated that “in some instances individuals, including Government officials, may commit acts with genocidal intent… a determination that only a competent court can make on a case by case basis”.

Ping should also not forget that the former head of a major African State, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said in 2006 that “it is not in the interest of Sudan nor in the interest of Africa, nor indeed in the interest of the world, for us all to stand by, fold our hands and see genocide in Darfur”.

And if the AU chief truly recognizes the UNCOI findings why is he going out of his way and creating a new legal team to investigate again in Sudan as he announced this August? This is a waste of African taxpayers’ money and essentially reinventing the wheel if the purpose was genuinely to investigate. But based on timing the real goal appears to be countering the ICC move against Al-Bashir.

The third argument that the AU top official makes is the reason the ICC is targeting African nations only. To start with, all cases currently handled by the ICC were either referred voluntarily by the African states themselves or in the case of Darfur by the UN Security Council. Therefore there can be no claim made of deliberate targeting.

The ICC’s membership in terms of countries is overwhelmingly African; almost 30%. So if Africa was truly suspicious of the ICC why did they join it? The deputy prosecutor Fatou Bensouda is from Gambia just like the AU chairman. The First Vice-President of the court is Judge Akua Kuenyehia from Ghana. This is empirical proof that the Africans are the leaders of the ICC holding senior positions there. Any talk of Western bias in the structure of the court is clearly unsubstantiated. This is not ‘white man justice’ as Ping and other Africans want to portray it.

Also if we run a reality check Africa is the most conflict ridden continent in the world. The UN had a total of 28 peacekeeping missions in Africa since 1960. This is by far the largest percentage of peacekeepers the UN had in any continent. This isn’t personal bias but numbers are speaking for themselves.

Finally none of the African nations at the UN Security Council voted against resolution 1593. Benin and Tanzania voted in favor whiel Algeria abstained for obvious reasons relating to Arab voting habits in intrenational organizations. So Africans endorsed the ICC referral with no reservations.

Instead of criticizing the ICC and relentlessly trying to defend the Sudanese president, Ping should focus on a long list of problems Africa is facing. The people of Darfur are Africans too and they want justice. In the least Ping should not try and take sides. This is not helpful to anyone. The ICC judges are reviewing the charges against Al-Bashir before they make a decision and he should wait rather than try to preempt. Sudan also should not be allowed to blackmail the world by threatening to retaliate against peacekeepers. Unfortunately Ping as most African officials do not have the courage to confront Khartoum as recent history showed us.

* The author is a Sudan Tribune journalist, can be reached at [email protected]