Abdullateef Tanko Abubakar
27 October 2009
opinion
Abuja — The above piece, by Patrick Obahiagbon, which appeared in the Daily Trust of September 28 2009, made interesting reading. As someone who has been following developments in the region, I wish to respond to few points raised by the writer and to shed more light on the intricacies of the Darfur Crisis.
There are various interest groups that are fuelling the conflict, ranging from the local chiefs, NGOs, and the Western bloc, they are all beneficiaries of the Dafur crisis in different ways. The local chiefs are the custodians and distributors of relief materials and they have suddenly become stinking rich as a result, some of the NGOs who want to remain relevant and continue getting funding abroad, and the western bloc comprised of America and its allied are interested because oil has been discovered in Sudan. This view was confirmed by a British Politician George Galloway during a global Peace and Unity event held in London in 2005; he single-handedly mentioned former Prime Minister Tony Blair as one of the accomplice.
Obahiagbon's posited that "the Arab-African character of the crisis, the internal dynamics of the Sudanese Politics of the North-South divide, the interest of the external actors, especially, Arab league, with Libyan Ghadafi's ambition to 'arabize' the whole of Africa......."
This postulation is weak, because the Arab League which he tries to accuse has no any interest in Sudan or Darfur conflict, and majority of the Arab league member country are enormously rich and are endowed with enough resources at their disposal. What the Arab league did in their last summit in Qatar early 2009 was to re-echo the position of African leaders not to handover president Omar El-Bashir to the international criminal court. And the second issue which I strongly disagreed with Mr. Patrick, where he accused African leaders on their decision in the last AU summit in Libya that they are not going to support the international criminal court, he said "....they willingly see no need to join the rest of the world to pooh-pooh the Sudanese leader and pressure him to surrender him to the ICC".
The African leader's decision not to back the ICC on El-Bashir is the best option, as doing the contrary is a subversion of its sovereignty as a nation. And also is like justifying what George W. Bush or Israel Forces did in Iraq and Pakistan, while condemning the same offence in Sudan.
However, the killing of innocent lives in whatever form whether in Darfur, Afghanistan, Palestian or Pakistan is a criminal act. But the selective judgment or prosecution of alleged offenders is worrisome to every right thinking person.
In 2004, United Nation and United State officials accused the Sudanese government of recruiting, supporting and directing the Arab militias otherwise known as janjaweed against the Darfurians, and in July 2004, the United Nation Security Council passed a resolution demanding that the Sudanese government disarm and prosecute the militias or face the threat of punitive measures. And finally, the bombshell emerged as the ICC prosecutor Morino Ocampo made his arrest threat to El-Bashir, a sitting president. Lest we forget, the accusations and offences allegedly committed by Omar El-Bashir in Darfur for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the Human Rights Group, also indicted the Israeli forces for their atrocities during the siege on Gaza in December 2008/January 2009, for similar offence.
The Israeli forces embarked on "all-out war" against the defenceless Palestinians, they used heavy armed including the banned phosphorus. They bombarded Mosques, houses, hospitals even the United Nation - run schools were not spared, as the whole world watched helplessly another episode of genocide. Therefore, the ICC and even the United Nation lacked any moral right to ask Omar El-Bashir to summit himself for trial. If ex-US President George W. Bush and ex-Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni or Israeli army will not face charges for the role they played in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gaza respectively, United Nations body is only paying lip service and cannot be relied upon as a true arbiter. And lastly, the way forward is both the Sudanese government and the SPLA come together and to ensure that the comprehensive peace agreement CPA to end the Sudan's decade's - long civil war, is implemented and respected. The agreement outlined a six-year transitional period, during which Southern Sudan would established a separate administration and enjoy relative autonomy. According to the agreement, at the end of the period the people of the south would vote in a referendum in 2010 after the general election on whether or not to secede from Sudan.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2009 Daily Trust. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
African Heads of State should be commended, and not denigrated, for calling for a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the Sudan crisis in Darfur.
To give effect to this, the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, on the 3rd february, 2009 set up the independent African Union High-Level Panel on Darfur (AUPD) and appointed Mr. Thabo Mbeki as its Chairperson. Their task was to examine the situation in Darfur and submit recommendations on how best to tackle the issues of accountability and impunity, on the one hand, and reconciliation and healing, on the other hand, effectively and comprehensively, within the context of the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Darfur.
Having completed their assignment, the panel submitted their report to the African Union on October 9th, 2009. The AU has now convened to discuss this report, among other security issues, in Abuja as from October 29th, 2009.
Secondly, the AU passed a resolution asking the International Criminal Court to defer its Warrant of Arrest on President Omr Hassan Al Bashir and 3 others, pendinge its determination of a comprehensive peace programme.
Thirdly, the Sudan, like the United States, is not a member of the ICC. The US has signed but not ratified the treaty. Against all known principles of international law, it has consistently stated that it will not be bound by the statute of the ICC, including but not limited to, its powers to arrest, arraign, prosecute and convict. Ordinarily, Sudan is in a stronger position to make this argument: it has not even signed the ICC treaty. But, international is a rogue law, subject to the whims and caprices of the big powers, where the operative principle is: might is right. Based, on this the US Government and congress, not only canvassed but instigated the ICC to issue the arrest warrant. How justified?
Fourthly, Sudan is bounded by nine countries, namely, Egypt, Libya, Chad, Central African Republic, the Congo, Ethiopia, Eriteria, etc. Any major crisis in that country will have spill over effect and affect most or all of these countries, including a huge refugee problem.
Fifthly, there are external interests who are openly canvassing for the balkanisation and fragmentation of the Sudan. These interests should not be allowed to succeed. None of the movements in the Darfur has openly asked to secede.
Finally, the problem in the Darfur is not a problem of North and South as Mr. Patrick Obahiagon, simplistically asserted. In any case, Darfur is not in the south. It is in the west. In fact, its full name is the Western Region of the Darfur. The problem is one of marginalisation of the peripheral states by the center. And, these peripheral states are in the Northern Region, the Western Region and in the Southern Region, which has also had its own share of conflicts. And, the solution must be found around ending this marginalisation and exclusion and not just about arresting President Omar Al Bashir.
It makes you wonder if America and its allied would be so interested if NO oil has been discovered in Sudan. British Politician George Galloway during a global Peace and Unity event held in London in 2005; he single-handedly mentioned that it was the only reason for the huge interest he also said former Prime Minister Tony Blair was one of the accomplice. Over and over Mr Galloway British MP who was removed from the Labour party for stating the truth over and over should be the one who should be listened to . He predicted so many things that would happen and all for the sake of having the most power. This power which comes from having control from the oil and countries that have the oil. His stance on Palastine can only be commended and all I can say if the world were to listen more to those people in power who speak only the truth we would not be where we are now, I think the gouverments of the world should get there acts together and make George Galloway the world peace envoy