IN 1998, 120 countries signed a treaty establishing a permanent international criminal court so that “no ruler, no state, no junta and no army anywhere will be able to abuse human rights with impunity”. The principle is great and honorable. A truly international court that protects ordinary citizens from abuse by their own governments and foreign nations is something we should all welcome. But wait...there’s just one problem.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) doesn’t hold to its own constitution because, to date, it has held only Africans to account. Currently, the court is holding investigations into “the situations” in Uganda, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Following a referral by the UN Security Council, it has recently issued an international arrest warrant for the Sudanese President Omar Bashir for indirect responsibility in committing war crimes/crimes against humanity in Darfur, where the UN contends up to 300,000 people have died and 2.7 million have been displaced. This is the first time a sitting head of state has ever been indicted by the court.
While my heart goes out to the people of Darfur who do need to be helped, this arrest warrant will not alleviate their plight and only goes to prove how selective the ICC truly is. Are we to believe that during the past decade only Africans have committed crimes worthy of coming before the court? Or should we deduce that the court is either politically motivated or entirely toothless when it comes to taking on Western nations or big powers?
How can it be taken seriously when the US and its so-called “coalition of the willing” has seemingly got away with their part in the deaths of over a million Iraqis and the displacement of another four million? Where were the court’s investigators when the disgusting photographs taken inside Abu Ghraib were released? Where were they when details of US illegal renditions and torture were published?
When it comes to Israel’s crimes, the ICC mirrors the three wise monkeys — see no evil and speak no evil. It appears to have escaped the court that Israel is responsible for the murder of 1,200 Lebanese civilians in the summer of 2006 and it is virtually oblivious to the deaths of 1,400 Palestinians in Gaza, 50 percent of them women and children. Even today, 1.5 million residents of Gaza are just about subsisting under an Israeli blockade and what do the court’s investigators and judges say about that? Nothing, nada zilch.
I’m far from being the only one accusing the court of bias. Indeed, President of the UN General Assembly Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann said in response to the warrant against Bashir: “If justice is to be exercised, those who have committed the most and greatest crimes, including George W. Bush, who has done great crimes in other countries, should be tried.” He’s absolutely right, but like Sudan neither the US nor Israel has signed up to the jurisdiction of the ICC and the only way they or their citizens can be referred to the court is by the UN Security Council. It’s glaringly evident the US, which holds a power of veto, is hardly likely to agree to its own referral to the ICC or that of its Middle Eastern appendage, Israel. Critics of the International Court who claim its involvement with Sudan is politically motivated believe that the discovery of reserves of oil in the west of the country — which is largely earmarked for China — may be one of the grudges against the Sudanese leader.
The fact is that Western oil companies have been largely elbowed out of Sudan that has invited heavy Chinese investment in its petrochemical industry. Today, China buys two-thirds or more of Sudanese oil. This has provoked a low-key cold war between Washington and Beijing.
Sudan is also a custodian of Nile water that is the lifeline of Egypt among other countries. Egypt and Sudan have signed an agreement that allows a hefty proportion of water from the Nile to flow northward, which may be one of the reasons the Egyptian government is incensed about the arrest warrant. Any international attack on Sudan could translate to an attack on Egypt’s water supply. It is no secret that Israel covets Sudan’s water, too, and has been attempting for years to persuade Egypt to divert part of the Nile in its direction.
There is little doubt that Western and Israel interests would be served if President Bashir could be ousted from office and a puppet regime installed in place of his government. Whether or not this is planned is the subject of debate.
The Arab League as well as individual members have asked the warrant be postponed for one year to allow time for a peaceful resolution of Darfur’s problems, and it’s unlikely that any Arab country will collude with the court in extraditing the Sudanese president should he travel within the region.
In any event, the warrant has defeated its object of protecting the people of Darfur. In response, President Bashir has toured the country speaking to massive rallies consisting of flag-waving supporters and has even visited the capital of Darfur where he was similarly welcomed. Indeed, the warrant has inspired nationalism among the people and increased the president’s popularity at home.
Moreover, the president has expelled a number of aid agencies that have provided assistance to Darfur, accusing them of conspiring with the ICC. He says Sudan will make up the shortfall. But that has yet to be seen and it is probable the people of Darfur will end up worse off than they are now in terms of humanitarian relief.
US President Barack Obama has welcomed the warrant saying, “the US should work with our partners in Africa and Europe to ensure indicted criminals are arrested and turned over to the ICC if they travel outside of Sudan...”
Hang on, though! The US hasn’t ratified the ICC and does not accept its jurisdiction. Isn’t this the ultimate display of double standards? A court that singles out Africans for punishment and only investigates nationals of countries that are not particularly pro-Western is dangerous. It should either close its doors or open them to all and everyone if it wants to be credible rather than a sick joke.
