Why Khartoum President Omer Al-Bashir is Indicted?

By Steve Paterno

March 10, 2009 — The recent arrest warrant issued against Omer al-Bashir by The Hague based International Criminal Court (ICC) was not a surprise to anyone, including the members of Khartoum regime. For the last six years, the regime in Khartoum under the leadership of al-Bashir launched a successful brutal war in Sudan’s western region of Darfur, killing hundreds of thousands, displacing millions, and rapping staggering scores of women. The result of this scorched-earth campaign outraged the international community who in response referred the case to the ICC for investigation for possible crimes. Through its findings, the ICC indicted several members of the regime in Khartoum, sought out the arrest of some Darfur rebel commanders, and filed a case against al-Bashir.

By late last year, news began to leak out that the ICC judges at the ICC Pre-trial Chamber 1 had indeed ruled in favor for an arrest warrant against al-Bashir. As the major news outlets started to pick up on the story, the court was forced and actually compelled to come out, declaring in late February that the judges on March 4th, 2009, would announce in public its decision concerning the arrest warrant against al-Bashir. Perhaps the move was prompted in response to the circulations of media speculations and rumors regarding this case.

The arrest warrant, unprecedented in its application against a seating head of a brutal regime, left the world to only anticipate and speculate on its outcomes and repercussions. The very day the announcement was made, Khartoum tried its best to downplay its significance, pretending as if business was normal. As reality began to sink in, Khartoum turned into its routine tactics of assembling a hired crowd to intercept al-Bashir en route from its orchestrated trip so that the crowd shouts their usual slogans of Allah Akbar! Bashir is our president…, death to the West.., down, down, America…, kill the Jewish…, we don’t love you Ocampo…, and beeb beeb.
In reality, the majority of Sudanese people are celebrating the fact that justice, which al-Bashir and his ruthless regime have denied to millions, has finally caught up with him and that he must go-hang-himself. The silent Sudanese majority, though did not parade on the streets and never have the glamour and exposure to the media, are truly celebrating the arrest warrant issued against al-Bashir. Their celebrations genuinely come from their hearts of hearts unlike the rented crowd visibly displayed on the streets.

Turning against the international community for revenge, the regime in Khartoum as it has promised, suspended the licenses of more than a dozen aid agencies operating in Darfur. Khartoum alleged that the aid agencies violated their humanitarian mandate by collaborating with the ICC. Prior to this incident and through its ruthless head of intelligence, Gen. Salah Gosh, Khartoum warned of chopping off the hands of those who are found to be collaborating with the ICC and warned that Khartoum is ready to return to its “era of savagery,” meaning the era of “Islamic fundamentalism” misrule.

The expulsions of these aid agencies threatens to escalate the suffering of millions Darfuris whose basic humanitarian assistance will be cut-off. Unfortunately, the few supporters of Khartoum regime took this tragic and irresponsible move to make argument in their efforts for the dismissal of the arrest warrant against al-Bashir. Leading this pact is Dr. Alex De Waal, a Briton masquerading as a Sudanese international expert. For his credit though, De Waal gained his expertise in Sudanese affairs by studying famine in Darfur in the middle of 1980s, while getting hosted at the home of an Arab chief, Sheikh Hilal Musa, whom his infamous son Musa Hilal is the leader of the notorious Janjaweed. The Janjaweed is the very Khartoum government armed militia group that is brutalizing the Darfuris, supported by the regime’s security organs. Interestingly, even though De Waal never actually felt and experienced the famine that he studied since he was hosted at a home of a well-off Arab chief in a famine stricken Darfur, his effort earned him a doctorate degree, which comes with a title of an expertise in the West.

Since the war in Darfur started six years ago, De Waal turned his thesis of famine in Darfur to that of advocating for the rights of Arab nomads in Darfur and their sponsors in Khartoum. His solution for the conflicts in Darfur is adhering to the “moral geography” drawn by his adopted Arab nomadic father whom he prefers to simply called Sheikh Hilal—the “moral geography,” which according to De Waal can guarantee “cosmic order.” Though De Waal agreed reluctantly that his adopted brother, Musa Hilal and its backers in Khartoum may be tried for crimes committed in Darfur, he strongly argues that the Arab nomads “are themselves historic victims” of being denied grazing lands by the African Darfuris who are traditionally farmers. De Waal asserts that over the years, the Arab nomadic groups’ “customary rights to migrate and pasture their animals in areas dominated by farmers” are threatened, hence triggered conflict between the Arab nomads and African farmers.

Assuming that De Waal theory is correct, one cannot still expect and justify the conflicts between these groups to dangerously spiral to the current state of affairs, involving the entire government apparatus, using all the arsenal at its disposal to systematically uproot millions from their homes, massacring hundreds of thousands, and raping of women including girls as young as seven year olds. In case De Waal has not yet understood the magnitude of the crimes committed by his adopted Arab nomads—the crimes are very serious to warrant the ICC prosecutions or even the wrath of some higher power.

In his support for maintaining the regime of Khartoum in power, De Waal calls the arrest warrant against al-Bashir a “critical mistake” for the repercussion that it may produce. Once again, if De Waal has not understood a thing about the arrest warrant against al-Bashir, he has to be told that al-Bashir’s arrest warrant is not issued for the crimes that someone feared he is going to commit in the future, but rather the arrest warrant is for the crimes that he has already committed. Since the British takes pride for being the initiators of the current legal system applied against al-Bashir, it would have been easier for a Briton like De Waal to understand that people are easily prosecuted for the crimes they committed, not for the ones that someone feared they are going to commit. Justice should not be simply deferred for such misplaced fears. If anything, al-Bashir should even be punished more for the subsequent crimes that he commits. Perhaps it is about time that the charges of genocide, which De Waal is so happy that al-Bashir is not found guilty of committing, be brought against al-Bashir this time around, since the evidence against him continue to mount.

Though De Waal disparages the activists and human rights groups, he is not different from them. However, the only difference is that the activists and human rights groups advocate on behalf of the victims of the Darfur conflicts while De Waal on the other hand advocates in support of the perpetuators of the crimes in Darfur. A devil advocate, so to speak.
Amazingly, another prominent person who seems to misunderstand what al-Bashir arrest warrant means is Salva Kiir, the President of South Sudan and the chairman of Sudan People Liberation Movement (SPLM) party. In the 2005 landmark peace agreement, the SPLM and the National Congress Party (NCP) of al-Bashir formed a partnership government in Khartoum in which Kiir becomes the Vice President to al-Bashir, after tragic death of the SPLM leader, Dr. John Garang. Such partnership seems to be crucial today; it turned into “brotherhood” between al-Bashir and Kiir. President Kiir, in an effort to show his support to his “brother,” al-Bashir and in order to ensure calm amidst tensions due to the issuance of the arrest warrant against al-Bashir—Kiir argues that al-Bashir arrest warrant was issued, because the NCP of al-Bashir refused to hand to the ICC suspected criminals to answer questions for crimes committed in South Sudan and Darfur.

Well, the ICC has no any case from South Sudan against members of NCP for any of their members to go and answer for at the ICC. Even if there are cases of crimes committed by the NCP members against South Sudanese, the ICC cannot take them up due to temporal jurisdiction, which will not allow the court to prosecute cases that occurred prior to the adaptation of the Rome Statute, the basis for the foundation of ICC.
Not only that, al-Bashir prosecutions has nothing to do with the members of NCP who might have committed crimes in South Sudan or Darfur. If any member of NCP might have committed a crime that may warrant ICC prosecutions, the convictions of those persons must be sought out individually such as in the case of Ahmed Haroun, Ali Kushayb, and Omar al-Bashir respectively. So, in the case of al-Bashir, he is indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, a total of seven counts for both charges. Al-Bashir is responsible for his own crimes and that is why majority of Sudanese want to see that he hangs himself. The other members of NCP who may face similar crimes, each must individually own up to their crimes as well.

Perhaps more surprising to everyone is to see Franklin Graham supporting al-Bashir to remain at the helm of power in Khartoum, despite the atrocities that al-Bashir commits and the potential for him to commit more. Graham, an American evangelist who not long ago calls the religion practiced by the likes of al-Bashir as “a very evil and wicked religion” is the least likely candidate to support al-Bashir. Alas, in stunning way he is supporting al-Bashir for the simple believe that “al-Bashir has demonstrated that he is able to cooperate” and “on several occasions he has complied with” Graham’s requests. May be the question to ask is whether Graham in his last visit to Khartoum bothered to make any request to al-Bashir to stop the ongoing genocide in Darfur, the reason that got al-Bashir into trouble, so as to test his theory of al-Bashir’s compliance.

The solution in making peace for Sudan, according to Graham is for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to postpone al-Bashir’s prosecution. Invoking a religion tone, Graham argues that justice for al-Bashir will ultimately “be served by a power higher than the ICC.” If the UNSC has any powers, those powers must certainly not be used to pardon criminals. The UNSC must not also give up its role for some invisible “higher power,” but it will rather fully exercised its powers to exert more pressure for all the UN member states and all the UN partnering parties to expatiate the apprehension of al-Bashir. The sooner the arrest of the fugitive al-Bashir is made, the more likely peace and justice will prevail in Sudan.

In conclusion, those who support al-Bashir and requests for the dismissal of his arrest warrant are all doing it for the wrong reasons. The atrocities and crimes committed in Darfur must neither be understood for something else nor justified on the long history of victimhood of “Arabized” nomads who turned to ideology of race supremacist and with the help of Khartoum regime, they wrack havoc in Darfur. There will never be any divine intervention that will accord justice to al-Bashir and members of his regime for the crimes they commit. It is only the application of justice and a search for real peace, applied simultaneously that can do the trick.

Steve Paterno is the author of The Rev. Fr. Saturnino Lohure, A Romain Catholic Priest Turned Rebel. He can be reached at [email protected]