Darfur Genocide: Radical Islamism's Crime of Intention

The top prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Argentine Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has sought the arrest of the first sitting head-of-state to be indicted by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur. Moreno-Ocampo has presented his evidence in court, and has requested a warrant on 10 counts, three of them for genocide. The charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity include allegations of murder, torture, attacks against civilians, and pillaging.

The UN estimates that up to 300,000 people have died since the Darfur conflict broke out in February 2003. The Sudanese government puts the death toll at 10,000.

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. Accused of masterminding attempts to wipe out African tribes in Darfur with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation. Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo asked a three-judge panel at the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for al-Bashir on genocide charges.

The accused, Sudanese President General Omar al-Bashir, asserts the alibi that what his government has done is nothing but counter-insurgency. al-Bashir’s African Islamist regime introduced Sudan to a more radical brand of Islam and elements of Sharia law. The conflict in Darfur began in 2003 when ethnic minority rebels took up arms against the Arab-dominated regime, for a greater share of resources and power.

International Criminal Court (ICC) top prosecutor Argentine Luis Moreno-Ocampo

Moreno-Ocampo has evidence to prove that al-Bashir had “personally instructed” his forces to annihilate three ethnic groups in the western Sudanese region. He had ordered his forces “not to bring back any wounded or prisoners.” Moreno-Ocampo defends this as al-Bashir “wanting to commit genocide.”

According to the ICC top prosecutor, what happened in Darfur is a consequence of al-Bashir’s will. He said that the crime of genocide is a crime of intention. This means that al-Bashir had the intention to destroy the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups that were engaged in a rebellion in Darfur.

For the prosecution, all of al-Bashir’s crimes were aimed at civilians, and not rebel groups. The prosecution had collected evidence showing that al-Bashir’s target group, some 2.5 million people who are now displaced and found in refugee camps, was being attacked with the aim of elimination through the use of state machinery that include the army and intelligence services, as well as the Janjaweed militia.

"They all report to him. They all obey him. His control is absolute."

Prosecution Panel in the al-Bashir genocide case at the ICC

"Three main weapons are used to attack them in the camps: rape, hunger, fear. They are the most effective methods to commit genocide today, in front of our eyes."

Moreno-Ocampo’s campaign for justice comes at a cost. There have been warnings that it could fan the flames of tension in Darfur, undermine cooperation with the UN, and result in the expulsion of aid workers and peacekeepers in Sudan’s troubled western region. Sudan immediately rejected the bid as damaging to Darfur peace hopes.

The three judges of the court will now examine the application to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds for issuing a warrant. According to the prosecutor, this process may take two to three months.

Despite being under a United Nations-imposed obligation to execute any resultant warrants, the Sudanese government has refused to surrender two suspects named last year for war crimes in Darfur.

The courts, being what they are, will grind slower than what is hoped for. Even if universal jurisdiction can be levied against al-Bashir and will thus make him unable to run to and hide in a mansion in the Caribbean or the Pacific should he decide to build mansions there, time will still be on al-Bashir’s side. A lot can happen in those two or three months when the judges at the ICC examine Moreno-Ocampo’s application for warrant of arrest.

Lives may continue to be lost, including those of peacekeepers and aid workers. al-Bashir’s allies can come to his rescue and do all sorts of things, blatant or otherwise, for the genocider to get off the hook.

The UN may again prove to be inutile in diplomatic negotiations as it had shown in Zimbabwe.

I’m not sure if the justice system is the right tool to halt the doings of tyrants and dictators. But in the free world, it seems to be the only logical way.

Logical – only until that point in time when we all realize that justice delayed is justice denied.

End of Tyrants: Universal Jurisdiction is Pandora's Box

Universal jurisdiction addresses the phenomenon of impunity or that which arises when a state fails to investigate its own human rights violations.

Amnesty International, a proponent of universal jurisdiction, avers that anyone who has committed genocide, crimes against humanity, extrajudicial executions, war crimes, torture, and forced disappearances should not be able to run to and hide in any other country, to remain free. Because these crimes fall under international law, all countries have the right to prosecute these crimes on behalf of the international community.

Opponents of universal jurisdiction such as Henry Kissinger, on the other hand, alleged in his essay “The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction: Risking Judicial Tyranny” that universal jurisdiction is a breach on the equality of states in sovereignty, as proclaimed by the United Nations Charter (Chapter 1, Article 2). But let us not forget that Kissinger has been called the ‘butcher of Cambodia.’

He played a key role in a secret American bombing campaign of Cambodia to target PAVN (People’s Army of Vietnam) and Viet Cong (National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam) units that were launching raids against South Vietnam from within Cambodia’s borders, as well as the 1970 Cambodian Incursion where the armed forces of the US and South Vietnam conducted military operations and widespread bombing of Cambodia.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), often referred to as “world court” and established in 2002, is the permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. It was formed based on the treaty Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court joined by 106 countries, of which Sudan is not a part.

With the ICC’s recent indictment of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes – being the first head of state to be indicted by the ICC – Sudan has proclaimed that it will not cooperate as the ICC has no jurisdiction in Sudan.

If Khartoum, in retaliation against the arrest warrant, attacks refugees, aid workers, and peacekeeping forces, that will just be another sword on the heads of the leaders at Khartoum.

al-Bashir has been spoilt for too long – 5 years long, even more.

His defenders have been touting the fear of collapse of a supposedly ongoing peace process. With the ICC indictment stipulation on universal jurisdiction that eradicates head-of-state immunity for atrocity crimes, the peace process is said to possibly be endangered. A major negotiating ante is an offer of amnesty to al-Bashir, plus the possibility of quiet retirement in a third country.

Issue of national sovereignty aside, the doctrine of universal jurisdiction may have a basic handicap in eventually prosecuting al-Bashir. Universal jurisdiction is based on the proposition that the individuals or cases subject to it have been clearly identified.

al-Bashir can always resort to doublespeak. He can always claim that the atrocities committed by the janjaweed militia that he has armed and ordered to attack cannot be ascertained against the backdrop of ethnic clan wars (ethnic Arab attacks on ethnic Africans) and secessionist movements (the Sudanese Liberation Movement/Army or SLM/A and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A).

In all the legalese that will ensue from this case, al-Bashir can always contend that the conflict in Sudan’s western Darfur region has a long history of territorial dispute between nomads and pastoralists.

al-Bashir aside, the ICC has opened a can of worms. Sooner than later, the world will start openly asking about who should really be hanged for such mass slaughters as those in Iraq, Congo, even Burma.

Universal jurisdiction sends a clear message to the aspiring al-Bashirs and future Mugabes.

With the first head of state’s indictment in the ICC, the end of tyrants is nigh.

General Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan, the first head-of-state indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity