Sudan and ‘human rights’ charges

Sudan and ‘human rights’ charges
Imperialists try to recolonize key African state
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire

Published Aug 24, 2008 9:46 PM

On July 14, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, charged President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan with genocide and crimes against humanity. This announcement was made while the government in Khartoum, the capital, was carrying on negotiations with the various rebel groups based in the western Darfur region of the country.

In response, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail, adviser to President Bashir, reiterated the Khartoum government’s position that it will in no way deal with the ICC. The Sudanese government has declared it will never hand over any of its citizens for trial in a foreign court. Ismail maintains that the ICC has no jurisdiction or mandate over the nation of Sudan or its people.

The decision to transfer the Darfur question to the ICC was made by the U.N. Security Council—in which the Western imperialist powers dominate. Dr. Ismail pointed out that this decision was defective because it included a clause exempting U.S. nationals from standing before that court—“a matter that undermines the whole concept of international justice and allows for impunity.” (Sudanese Media Center)

The African Union and the Arab League have stated openly that recent ICC charges leveled against Bashir and other Sudanese governmental officials have done more to delay a peace agreement with rebel groups than create the conditions for a settlement. However, the U.S. government and its allies have demonstrated through various actions that a normalization of the political situation within Sudan is not their priority.

Ismail emphasized in the Sudanese Media Center interview that the question of Darfur has become “a window threatening the national security of the country.” He said Sudan had waited a long time for the “international community” to come up with a solution, but that it breached the accords to which it was a party “when it sought to transfer the question of security arrangements from the [African Union], as stipulated in the Abuja Agreement, to the international community.” He called this a clear attempt to divide Arabs and Africans.

He also mentioned that “the international community has so far failed to organize any meetings between the government and the Darfur rebel movements despite the continued declarations by the government that it was ready for talks anywhere, any time.”

Sudan has warned the U.N. that there will be “serious consequences” for its personnel and infrastructure if the ICC moves forward on threats to authorize an arrest warrant for President Bashir. On Aug. 18, Ashraf Qazi, head of the U.N. Mission charged with supervising the peace accord signed in 2005 between the political parties in the north and those in the south, indicated that the monitoring group was preparing for such actions. The accord had brought about the end of the two-decades-long civil war.

Qazi also stated that a recent outbreak of fighting in the town of Abyei placed the overall 2005 agreement to the test. In addition, attacks by Darfur rebels on the city of Omdurman also created difficulties in the government’s efforts to reach a lasting peace with the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), as well as other groups fighting the government in Khartoum.

It has been reported that as a result of the fighting in Abyei in May, tens of thousands of people have fled their homes. Abyei is located in an oil-rich area near the boundary between the northern and southern regions of Sudan, which is Africa’s largest nation-state in territory.

Long history of hostile threats and attacks

For many years the government in Sudan has attempted to chart an independent course in regard to the interventionist policies of the United States. As far back as the U.S. war against Iraq in 1991, Khartoum refused to support the actions of successive imperialist regimes in Washington.

In August of 1998, during the Clinton administration, the U.S. military bombed the only pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, claiming it produced chemical weapons. This was done supposedly in retaliation for attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

However, no evidence was provided that the plant had ever produced any type of weapons. Moreover, it was never substantiated that Khartoum had any connection with the attacks on the U.S. embassies.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government has accepted no blame for its unprovoked destruction of this facility, which deprived millions of Sudanese of direct access to medicines.
Over the last decade, closer political and economic ties have developed between Sudan and the People’s Republic of China. Approximately 80 percent of Sudan’s oil exploration and distribution is done in cooperation with China. China has entered into economic and political partnerships with various African states.

It is within this context that the present-day conflict between Sudan, the U.S. and its allies should be viewed. It is also significant that many of the people within the country are Islamic and that the ruling party is closely allied with other Muslim and Arab countries. The U.S. administration can conjure up its so-called war on terrorism and radical Islam when waging its diplomatic, economic and military struggle against Sudan.

Nonetheless, anti-war and peace movements within the U.S. and Europe must uphold Sudan’s right to self-determination, including its right to find its own methodology for forging national unity and social stability.

The ICC indictments and the threat to issue arrest warrants against the Sudanese president and other officials are designed to provide a rationale for further interference in the country’s internal affairs. On Aug. 18, however, in defiance of the ICC and other threats from Western nations, President Bashir traveled to Istanbul to participate in an African-Turkish summit.

With all the crimes being committed against the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Colombia, Palestine, Zimbabwe and others by the U.S. government and its allies, any objective observer can see clearly that the current hostile posture towards Sudan is crafted to advance the interests of the imperialist countries.

http://www.workers.org/2008/world/sudan_0828/