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.
Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email:
[email protected]
Subscribe
[email protected]
Support independent news
DONATE