| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| Sudan's Ambassador to the UN Criticizes International Criminal Court |
| 2008-07-12 |
| United Nations officials say the International Criminal Court may seek an arrest warrant Monday for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in connection with war crimes in the Darfur region. The court says chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo will submit evidence Monday alleging crimes committed in the region over the last five years. President al-Bashir is among several top Sudanese government officials that could be named in the case. Sudan's ambassador to the UN, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, says Khartoum will continue its policy of not cooperating with the ICC, no matter who is named as a suspect: "For us," he said, "It does not exist. We are not part of it; we are not party to the Rome Statute. So like the US, which is not a member, we are not a member." He also warned that the ICC's actions could undermine the peace process in Darfur. He said the move could bring about serious repercussions: "All options are open for our reaction to this revelation, and indeed [ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo] is playing with fire. The UN has a very constructive engagement with Sudan; they are dealing on various tracks [with regard to] the peace process and humanitarian.... The ICC is going to spoil all these things and bring us back to square one and put the security of the entire population in jeopardy. He is opening the gates of fire for the whole country and this should be stopped without any delay." When asked if the move would endanger UN peacekeepers in Sudan, Ambassador Abdalmahmood said, "The Sudan government is careful to its commitment. The UN also promised to guard against any threat to this commitment. The UN should also play a role in safeguarding this cooperation and partnership. The Sudanese government is not at all hostile to the United Nations. [The UN staff and peacekeepers] are the guests of the entire country but if there are any threats to security and stability of the country we are all in one boat. The entire country would suffer, not just one group here and there. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #2 Okay, let's set it out flat. Bashir is about to be indicted for genocide. His people don't want that. They say it'll start a "fire." Isn't there one already going on? How many burnt-out villages? Crops? Livestock? PEOPLE? Those at the U.N. seem more concerned about the reprisals Sudan may take against peacekeepers and providers of humanitarian aid than about thwarting this obscene regime. Granted, we should be concerned about the safety of those people. But I get the drift it is being used, by some in the U.N., as a reason NOT to indict Bashir, as a reason NOT to take stronger actions to enforce the peace by those same peacekeepers. So...because the regime might get more violent, we should allow our indictment against Bashir to be dropped, and let the violence continue there? And isn't that PRECISELY what terrorism seeks to accomplish? Since terrorism, and the threat of yet more bestial violence WORKS, many think we should not oppose it. Do we really mean it when we say "never again" about genocide? I doubt it. Does anyone REALLY think that any genocidal regime will EVER stop what it is doing, by peaceful means? By conciliation? By negotition and diplomacy? When has THAT ever happened? Genocidal regimes and dictators are such because they use force against their own people. They only understand force. They feel contempt at any non-violent approach to solving problems. And because they only understand force, it is force which is the ONLY way of getting rid of them. Unless they die of natural causes, internal coups, revolution on a massive scale, etc. But they NEVER voluntarily give up power, or stop slaughtering. Darfur will continue. Until it is FORCED to stop. In truth, the ones most qualified to do a regime change there are other Islamic States. So why aren't they railing at Sudan and threatening regime change? Because they do NOT truly disapprove of the genocide. Which makes THEIR attitudes a subject in dire need of DEEP investigation. But that's another matter. The indifference of the Arab/Muslim world leaves dealing with Sudan to the non-Islamic nations. The genocide-beset people of Darfur will WELCOME the indictment, fully knowing the further danger it'll put themselves into. We need know no more than that to indict that evil man. For YEARS now, these victims have been BEGGING for the U.S. to intervene militarily, and end this horror. Bosnia's genocide got the intervention it needed. Meanwhile, for many years before and several years since, the Sudanese first genocide was going strong. And it was a far WORSE genocide than Bosnia. Nothing was done. We defended Muslims who were being genocided, but the Muslim world has no interest in returning the favor for the black people of Sudan. To them, genocide against Muslims is evil; genocide BY Muslims is dandy. Normally, I'm a dove. But where genocide is concerned, I hold entirely different views. Simply because it's necessary, and humane, to do so. There is no excuse for war - ordinarily. Genocide is one of the VERY FEW legitimate reasons. Genocide, tolerated ANYWHERE, toward ANYONE, always spawns more genocides. If we'd acted against Sudan in the '80's or '90's, perhaps Rwanda, Bosnia, Zimbabwe, Myanmar and N. Korea would never have become humanitarian horrors. The success of the Sudan genocide emboldened the others. And remember this, too: If Bashir's indictment gets thwarted because of those fears of reprisals on peacekeepers, it'll be a green light for them to proceed in Darfur full blast. It means they know they'll never have to pay for their crimes. And why? Because they are able to intimidate the rest of the world. Those who seek to fight terrorism can, themselves, be terrorized. Of COURSE, the regime will step up violence, particularly against the "foreigners" there who are trying to prevent janjaweed attacks, protecting refugee settlements, and who are providing vital humanitarian aid. But that should be expected - and planned for. It should NOT be used as an excuse to stop going after this regime full blast. Sudan is bestial and supremely violent, supremely contemptuous of human life within its own borders. Because they'll likely extend that contempt to peacekeepers "on the ground" people are fearful of indicting Bashir. So if those fearful people get what they want, so does Bashir. Makes one wonder what "standing up against genocide" means to those fearful people. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, however, seems to be highly favored by many in the U.N. Let terrorism win, then, because that is what they seek to do, even if they think they are seeking peace. Genocide can never be stopped, or even thwarted, by peaceful means. Period. |
| Posted by: Holly B. 2008-07-12 22:22 |
| #1 Muslims only join the UN in preparation for its takeover by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Western Civilization gets nothing from the UN, and their NYC properties should be turned into condos. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-07-12 15:25 |