Political ruling

The unprecedented decision by the International Criminal Court to charge Sudanese President Al-Bashir with genocide casts doubt on the credibility of the legal system, reads Doaa El-Bey

---

Although nobody disputes the magnitude of the crisis in Darfur and the responsibility of the Sudanese government in not dealing with it quickly enough, the ruling by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is viewed as hypocrisy and influenced by Western powers.

Mahmoud Al-Mubarak described the court's ruling against Al-Bashir as a political and legal earthquake and a sign of the hypocrisy of the international legal system. On the political level, it is unprecedented, paving the way to changing political regimes in the Middle East through "legal invasion". The interest of the international tribunal in pursuing less dangerous criminals and leaving the real culprits who pose a genuine threat to world peace and security is an indication of the new international legal system.

Al-Mubarak believed that by allowing itself to be a dummy in the hands of superpowers, especially the US, the court lost its judicial credibility. "The bias shown by the ICC is not occasional but a systematic and well planned approach on the part of powerful states against the weak in the name of the new international judicial system," Al-Mubarak wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat.

In order to further demonstrate the hypocrisy of the international legal system, Al-Mubarak raised several questions: isn't it the US which tread on international laws by invading Afghanistan and Iraq? Why did the prosecutor-general focus on Sudan and ignore the report of the EU representative which accused Ethiopian forces of cooperating with Somali government troops in ethnic cleansing in Somalia? Why didn't member states call for trying Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians which includes invasion, ethnic cleansing, using internationally banned weapons against them and building settlements and the apartheid wall?

Al-Mubarak reached the conclusion that the court's ruling is a political rather than a legal decision. Thus he called on the Arab states to submit serious demands to try officials in the US and Israel who commit crimes against Arab and Muslim states. Although these calls may not achieve the desired results, Mubarak added, it will shed light on how Western states use laws to their own ends and will reveal the hypocrisy of their international legal organisations.

Tareq Al-Humayed regarded the mere threat by the court to seek charges against Al-Bashir after accusing him of genocide and crimes against humanity as a setback and a severe blow to Sudan. It would hamper all the efforts to reintroduce stability and a suitable atmosphere for investment in Sudan, and would put the state in an international crisis and the regime in a volatile situation given the fact that its enemies inside the country are more than its enemies outside.

The types of crimes presented by the court as well as the nature of the trial, Al-Humayed resumed, make it similar to the trial of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic who committed atrocities against Muslims in Yugoslavia. But he warned against rash responses from Khartoum's government because it would further complicate the situation. The best example would be the reaction of the Sudanese representative to the UN who described the prosecutor-general as crazy and malicious.

However, the Sudanese regime could have avoided much of this by quickly and wisely dealing with the humanitarian problems in Darfur rather than stubbornly standing up to the international community. "If Khartoum and Al-Bashir's regime had quickly confronted the Darfur crisis and took tangible steps towards domestic reconciliation and resolving its problems with the south, the situation in Sudan would have been far better today," Al-Humayed wrote in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat.

Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote in the same newspaper that the president of Sudan was accused of genocide five years after the start of the crisis and the death of 30,000 people in Darfur. He questioned whether the ruling, which will have repercussions in the whole region, carries any political or ethnic grudge against Muslims as the Sudanese government claims.

Al-Rashed believed that there are signs showing otherwise, because all the victims of Darfur are Muslim. In addition, Al-Bashir is not the first African president to be accused by the ICC which had previously charged Liberian President Charles Taylor with genocide. The court indicted Milosevic, a Christian president.

Al-Rashed did not expect the Sudanese government to prove its innocence in logical manner. Instead, he predicted Khartoum might first ridicule the court, reject its accusations then threaten to take measures against the peacekeeping forces in Sudan. This could be followed by warning that Al-Qaeda would launch attacks against involved parties. If all these attempts fail, Khartoum might resort to mediation.

The genocide in Darfur could possibly be the outcome of tribal conflicts as a result of famine and not the responsibility of the Sudanese government and president. Still the government is responsible for the way the crisis was handled during the last five years. The killing has not been recognised as genocide up until now in spite of the clear evidence and the presence of more than one million displaced Darfur citizens who live on international aid.