Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir waves to supporters during his visit to the North Darfur state capital of el-Fasher on March 8, 2009
Sudan: ICC decision could provoke backlash
Published: 08 April, 2009
The International Criminal Court’s warrant for the arrest of President Bashir in Sudan is at best ineffective – and at worst counterproductive, experts say.
On March 4, after protracted speculation, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, for two counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity. The court accuses Mr Bashir of intentionally directing attacks on civilians during a counter-insurgency campaign by the Sudanese government against militia groups operating in the Darfur region.
Mr Bashir has repeatedly laughed off the threat of an arrest warrant, saying on the eve of the announcement that the court could “immerse [the warrant] in water and drink it”, and it is unclear to what extent it will affect his presidency.
The document is widely considered to be unenforceable in practice. Sudan’s major international partners are China and the Arab states. Of the latter, only Jordan has ratified the Rome Treaty, which binds its signatories to uphold the court’s warrants.
The Arab League has said it will not uphold the warrant, and Mr Bashir will visit an international conference in Qatar at the end of March without the threat of arrest. China, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, is likely to veto or abstain on any resolution to remove Mr Bashir.
Some analysts, including Dr Alex de Waal, a Sudan expert and programme director at the Social Science Research Council in New York, believes that issuing the warrant is counter-productive and calls it “a completely futile exercise in grandstanding” by the ICC prosecutor.
“The only way in which it would ever take effect is if there were a coup d’état in Sudan, and they handed over Bashir,” Mr de Waal says. This would pose a moral dilemma for the ICC, he adds.
“Is it the function of the ICC to promote an unconstitutional change in government? Even if he were to be deposed and handed over, it’s very far from an ideal outcome.”
Mr de Waal does not believe that a coup is likely. Many of Mr Bashir’s associates are as implicated as he is, and to hand him over to the ICC would be to invite testimony by the Sudanese president of their culpability.
A backlash against international aid organisations began shortly after the announcement, with several having their registration revoked instantly – a de facto expulsion order. This was followed by the announcement that all overseas aid bodies, with the exception of UN agencies, were to leave within the year. Sudan would welcome their supplies, the government said, but not their presence. Many non-governmental organisations have been vocal in their criticism of Mr Bashir.
Susan Rice, now US ambassador to the UN and US president Barack Obama’s principal spokesperson on Sudan, has urged the Arab League and African Union to protest the decision to expel aid agencies. To date, this is the extend of the US’ overt engagement.
