Reuters reported that International Criminal Court judges had elected to indict Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes allegedly committed in Darfur. They also confirmed that there was a warrant issued for his arrest, which they later amended to say that the judges were still considering the warrant.
Though allegations of genocide in Sudan keep cropping up in the media, what is not receiving nearly as much attention is the fragile peace deal reached between North and South Sudan in 2005. That arrangement, while far from ideal and constantly being infringed, is far better than the all-out civil war that preceded it. Moreover there is the real fear that should Bashir be arrested the deal might well collapse. As a result the African Union and Arab League are expected to try invoke Article 16 of the Rome Statute which provides that a year’s suspension of the charges can be entertained where the peace process may be jeopardised thereby.
Though I am all in favour of regimes accused of genocide being brought to book and put before the courts, there are a couple of issues that need to be considered:
Firstly if the warrant to arrest Bashir is executed and this leads to an outbreak of war — with enormous casualties — then the ICC courts are leaning too heavily towards being courts of law and not nearly enough towards being courts of equity. In essence, if by insisting upon the strict enforcement of international law, without regard to the consequences of that action, you occasion mass slaughter, then that system is too rigid and causes more harm than it does good.
Secondly the biggest war crime currently on the planet’s books, namely the invasion of Iraq, has for some obscure reason never quite made it to the ICC. Is that perhaps because it’s just not cricket? (Maybe they’re confusing the two ICCs).
As things currently stand there is a heated and ongoing debate regarding whether the invasion of Iraq was launched with or without the explicit authorisation of the United Nations and in accordance with international law. In terms thereof, both camps have been pointing out resolutions passed by inter alia the world body, which half claim as confirmation the war was sanctioned by the UN and which the other half claim constitute proof that there were still issues that had to be addressed before proceeding to invade. Issues which they say had not been dealt with before the invasion was launched.
Seems simple enough to me.
In every criminal case that I have gone to trial with, there has been a prima facie case which if proved against my client would result in his or her conviction. In terms of the ICC case this translates as marking the prosecution down to the team which alleges that there was no legal basis for going to war in Iraq. If that is proved to be true then there are several hundred thousand dead bodies that need to be answered for. The defence to that charge is of course proving that the war was in fact authorised by the UN (mark that down to the team claiming that).
Where is the problem? Bring the charges and let the court decide.
As things stand the body count in Iraq and surrounds is far in excess of anything that Bashir is accused of and yet somehow those charges are hardly receiving anything like the same attention. Why is that? Is there one law for the heads of powerful nations and one for the rest of humanity? What makes the purportedly illegal invasion of Iraq by a superpower and friends more palatable than that of an alleged internal genocide? If anything the fact that the US under Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless of whoever or whatever is far scarier than any conflict confined to national borders. It means pull the tail of the wrong tiger and they will reach out and touch you regardless of whether that attack is justified and sanctioned or not.
Of course the cost of this conflict in terms of human lives and the world economy must not be overlooked either. Where Darfur is localised, Iraq has effected the entire planet and continues to heighten global tension even now. So in real terms we should be examining a court roll headed by one George W Bush and Anthony Blair with Bashir a bit further down the page.
It is this kind of double standard that gets up the noses of many countries around the world. Here we have Bashir whose arrest could set off a powder keg which may now be imminent while Bush and Blair carry on regardless.
If you want countries to take the UN and the ICC seriously you have to start showing that nobody is above the law nor beyond its reach.
@Lyndall,
The point I am trying to make, is that muslims today use some verses in the koran and sayings in the hadith to justify killing “infidels”. The slightest “insult” is justifying ridiculous over-reaction from muslims worldwide.
There is plenty of violence in the bible. However I don’t see christians using such verses to justify killing those who are not christians.
One could argue about whether god gave Israel to the Jews till the cows come home. Personally I feel that Israeli’s are merely protecting themselves from attempted anihilation muslims in the middle east, with the support of muslims world wide. This support is merely because they are all part of the ummah and islam declares this.
Jeff
The Neo-Jihardists are like the Inquisition – only their interpretation of their religion is allowed. They are fanatics who twist the words of the Holy Books to suit their own ambitions.
Like The Reformation stopped the Catholic Church (who had to change itself to keep any congregants); so only Islamic scholars and moderate Muslims can stop the Jihad.
To get off Islam for a little. Want to explain to me where in the Bible, expecially in The New Testament, it says that birth control is prohibited, or priests/rabbis must be celibate?
Hi Lyndall,
If there is a god, then I really can’t see it being this almighty, good, all-seeing, thing that listens to and answers prayers. There are of course other versions of god, all of its followers having the one true god. Take your pick.
Maybe the god of the old testament; the jealous, “vengence is mine” one is a lot more accurate notion than the all-loving, all-caring one. It certainly seems that way to me.
If that’s the case I wouldn’t waste my time believing. I don’t understand why you look at the world and think there is a god at all, let alone one worth worshipping. The place seems a pretty random mess to me.
Jeff
The older I get, and the more I read and try to learn, the simpler and less complicated my beliefs.
When I look at The Empire State Building or London Bridge, I don’t think they built themselves. When I read Shakespeare I don’t think the book wrote itself.
When I look at a flower, or a tree, or a cheetah, or the stars – I think the same.
I do believe in a Creator God – and think His/Her wisdom can be found in many places.
The verse from the Quraan that I quoted above is one of those insights.
God did not want one people, one nation, or one religion. One religious system would be too small and restrictive. And the religion of the atheists is one of those religions as well. Some of the major scientific breakthroughs could only have been made by atheists.
Lyndall,
My point exactly. People will take the bits of the holy scriptures that suit them and say this is the one true way. These scriptures are all full if contradictions that can be exploited by power-hungry people. It is often easy then to convince enoug of your co-religionist to go along with your version.
I had a conversation with a Tunisian muslim recently where he denied that there was any violence in the koran. I showed him some violent verses and he still denied it. This man, like so many religious people, has been brainwashed from birth. The first words spoken to a muslim child when it is born are: There is no god but allah, into one ear; and Mohammed is his prophet into the other. From that moment he is brought up in his home, mosque and madrassah to believe this. His whole cultural environment militates against him questioning this. He would be ostracised by his family, friends and community for questioning it.
So as the Jesuits knew: Give me a child until he is seven and he is mine for life.
There is no chance of a reformation in islam.
@Lyndall
Islamic scholars are there basically as apologists and marketers of islam. Just as biblical scholars promote Judeo/Christianity. They are studying fairy tales. As Richard Dawkins as been at pains to explain, theology as the study of god and god’s so-called word is not any subject at all. One might as well be a scholar in fairy tales as an islamic scholar.
I don’t get your point about the celibacy and birth control bits being, or not being, in the bible. There’s nothing about rock music in the bible either to the best of my knowledge, but some christians see it as satanic (whatever that may mean).
I happen to think people should make up their own minds about birth-control based on their own cicumastances. That is if all women/men are given a fair choice.
As for celibacy that should also be one’s own choice. Not a way I’d go myself. Then I’ve always mistrusted the words of religious spokesmen.
Incidentally I have almost as much disrespect for roman catholicism as I do for islam. They are also a bunch of fascists in my view.
Jeff,
It looks like only you and I; the rest have left – even Mustafa.
I suggest we say thanks to Traps for the use of his space, and move this to my blog. Once you comment there, I have your e-mail address, and we can communicate direct (without moderation).
To get to my blog, you click on my name(in red) below this comment. Scroll down till you find my post “Faith-to Faith: Homosexuality”, which relates to what we are discussing here.