 Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir reviews Sudanese army soldiers during his visit to Darfur’s capital of al-Fasher, Sudan, July 23. He said he would not be cowed by his indictment on genocide charges nor allow it to distract him from the search for peace in troubled Darfur. / AP-Yonhap |
By Chandra Muzaffar
The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has alleged that Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has committed genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur.
The allegations are based upon statements from eyewitnesses and victims, recorded interviews with Sudanese officials, statements regarding the activities of the government linked militia, the Janjaweed, and documents from various other sources including the United Nations.
If there is a central argument it is that President al-Bashir is determined to eliminate three socially and politically dominant ethnic groups in Darfur, namely the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.
It should be emphasized that though in terms of ethnic origin, these groups are no different from the tribes aligned to al-Bashir's government.
The charges against al-Bashir are grave, and if found guilty, he should be punished in accordance with the law.
However, is an arrest warrant from the ICC the best way of dealing with al-Bashir?
The fact that Sudan is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court means it will be difficult to revive the stalled peace process in Darfur.
It is feared that a sizeable segment of the Sudanese population that supports al-Bashir will become even more antagonistic toward the targeted ethnic groups in Darfur.
Charging al-Bashir could also affect the recently concluded peace agreement between the government in Khartoum and the South.
If al-Bashir feels that he is under siege, he or his followers could scuttle the agreement.
On the other hand, if the agreement holds and leads to a more permanent peace, both the government and the ethnic groups may be persuaded to absorb some of its features, such as power sharing between different communities, and decentralized administrative arrangements, in a future deal between them.
Indeed, all those who cherish peace in Darfur and would like to see justice and democracy prevail should help the country move in the direction of greater autonomy for tribes and provinces within the framework of a decentralized federation.
China, which reportedly buys almost two-thirds of Sudan's oil, should be asked to coax Sudan to transform its political and administrative structure.
Of course, it is not going to be easy. Dictators don't relish sharing power. But what is the alternative? Isn't it significant that the very threat of arresting al-Bashir has already strengthened his hold upon his people?
This is why one should try to overcome the Darfur tragedy through a different route. Reviving the peace process should take precedence over everything else.
At the same time, one of the other major causes of the Darfur tragedy ― the conflict between subsistence farmers (mainly non-Arab ethnic groups) and nomadic herders (mainly Arab groups) over water and land should be addressed urgently.
Irrigation of the land is what Darfur needs.
Unfortunately, the West have given the impression that their conscience has been savaged by the alleged genocide in Darfur.
But if genocide is what distresses Washington and its allies, how does one explain their lack of concern over what is happening in another African state, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where ``as many as five million have died since 1994."
As Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, asks, ``Why is mass death the cause of indignation and confrontation in Sudan, but exponentially more massive carnage in Congo unworthy of mention?"
He said, ``The answer is simple: in Sudan, the U.S. has a geopolitical nemesis to confront: Arabs, and their Chinese business partners. In the Congo, it is U.S. allies and European and American corporate interests that benefit from the slaughter."
``Therefore, despite five million skeletons, there is no call to arms from the American government."
So it is not genocide or war crimes that move the centers of power in the West. Sudan has huge reserves of oil and gas. It also possesses one of the largest deposits of high purity uranium and copper in the world.
Besides, it is strategically located on the Red Sea, bordering eight other African states. Sudan has continuously sought to assert its political independence and refuses to yield to Washington's hegemony.
What makes Sudan more of an adversary in Washington's eyes is its close relationship with China and China's dominant role in its oil industry.
China also sells arms to Sudan. For some hawkish policy analysts, the Sudan-China tie fits in neatly with Samuel Huntington's discredited thesis of a Muslim-Confucian collusion to confront Western civilization.
In this regard, is the targeting of China in relation to Darfur in the mainstream Western media part of a larger agenda that is aimed at tarnishing China on the eve of the Beijing Olympics?
The Darfur conflict has provided the centres of power in the West with yet another opening.
This is yet another reason why we have to approach the Darfur conflict with circumspection. It is so inextricably intertwined with the complexities of global culture, economics and politics, at the kernel of which is the relationship between the centres of power in the West and the rest of the world.
However, when taking of the global scenario, one should not, as the respected Sudanese intellectual, Muddathir Abdel Rahim reminds us, minimize the culpability of al-Bashir and the Khartoum government. The failure to put one's own house in order has contributed in no small measure to the tragedy that is Darfur.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and professor of global studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia. He can be reached at muza@just-international.org. The views expressed in the above article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of The Korea Times.
