Al - Bashir Among Friends

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir certainly thumbed his nose at the International Criminal Court (ICC) with his whirlwind round of whistle-stops in Egypt, Eritrea and Libya last week. Now in a further bit of political theatre, he is in Doha, Qatar this week, along with most -- but not all -- of the leaders of the Arab League. Notably absent is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek, who is still fuming with the Qataris over disagreements surrounding the recent Gaza crisis and also by the fact that the Iranians were invited.

Al-Bashir's presence in Doha will also be something of an embarrassment for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, also a guest at the conference. Ban must dance delicately around the issue of the Security Council-inspired ICC indictment against al-Bashir, and the fact that al-Bashir is still the head of a U.N. member state.

Qatar is a U.S. ally and host to a large U.S. military presence. But along with most other Arab states, the Qataris have not signed the treaty that would authorize them to turn over al-Bashir. No matter how irksome al-Bashir's presence might be to the U.S., the State Department is unlikely to put much pressure on the Qataris regarding al-Bashir, since there is too much at stake for U.S. strategic interests in keeping Qatar in the friend column.

ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has dismissed al-Bashir's forays out of Sudan as acts of desperation, claiming that the Sudanese leader "can't travel far." Nevertheless it is clear that al-Bashir, unlike other indictees, has strong international support as well as the backing of superpower China. The show of support for al-Bashir in Doha does not seem so much an act of desperation as a carefully orchestrated public relations move to show the people of Sudan that he is still in charge. More importantly, it is meant to demonstrate to Moreno-Ocampo, who al-Bashir has characterized as a "neo-colonialist," that the rule-of-law is not a universal concept.

President Barack Obama has said he will review the U.S.' reluctance to sign on to the ICC, which the Bush administration characterized as contrary to America's interests and constitutional prerogatives. American adhesion will go a long way toward adding teeth to the ICC's jurisdiction. In the meantime, each time al-Bashir pops out of Sudan, the ICC will seem more like a talk-shop and less the global sheriff it would like to be.

(First published March 30, 2009 in World Politics Review)

African Leaders Reject Bashir Indictment

The International Criminal Court indicted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes yesterday, but not on the more dramatic charge of genocide. The indictment did not meet with universal approval among Africa's leaders, nor, strangely enough, with the son of the Rev. Billy Graham.

According to a quick survey conducted by the French newspaper Le Monde, there were serious misgivings about the indictment coming from all corners of the continent.

According to the article, Jean Ping, chairman of the African Union Commission, called the indictment a "threat to peace in Sudan." He went on to say that he felt that the rules of conflict were not being applied fairly, using Iraq, Gaza, Colombia and the Caucasus as examples. His position was shared by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, who said the ICC seemed to be "only after Africans." The Ugandan foreign minister said that the warrant should be suspended "in order to find a compromise between assigning punishment and finding peace." The government of Ethiopia, Sudan's neighbor, simply stated that the indictment "doesn't help the peace process in Darfur."

Franklin Graham, speaking from the heart about his personal encounters with the Sudanese president, thinks al Bashir is a reasonable man who is willing to compromise. (Funny enough, that's what the Rev. Pat Robertson of 700 Club fame said back in the day about another African despot and ICC indictee, Liberia's Charles Taylor.)

For the other African leaders, I think they care less about the guilt or innocence of al-Bashir and more about the Court's proclivity to focus its lens on the sub-Sahara. They might have a point. In the end, the ICC will only go where the Security Council allows it to go. The U.S. would likely block any attempts to indict Israelis over Gaza, and the Russians would block attempts to indict over Chechnya. Once again, Africans feel they are being humiliated by the former colonial powers.

The rest of the world might feel good that one more bad guy might ultimately face judgment, but will justice be truly served if war criminals from powerful nations are free to walk, while Africans are left hanging in the breeze? Yes, I remember Milosevic. But there are hundreds more non-Africans worthy of the honor of being "served" by the ICC.

(First published March 5, World Politics Review)