The Karadzic Precedent: An Example of What is Coming to Sudan… and to Lebanon!
The capture of fugitive war criminal Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader accused before the International Criminal Court (ICC) of genocide against eight thousand Muslims, right in the middle of Europe in 1995, has dimmed the rising voices of Arab masses protesting against justice in the name of national dignity and of those who yelled "conspiracy" upon hearing news of the ICC directing charges of war crimes and genocide in Darfur against Sudan”s President Omar Al-Bashir.
The government of Serbia pursued and arrested Karadzic to bring him before the ICC in La Hague. This does away with the claim prevailing within Arab and African circles that the West, and White Europe in particular, is targeting the Black African continent. Additionally, Karadzic”s arrest comes as an equally important blow to those dreaming of political deals as a means to evade punishment. In particular, the Special Tribunal, which aims at punishing the perpetrators of political assassinations in Lebanon, will come as a major surprise to the sponsors and clients of impunity. This is because the international commitment to end the era of turning a blind eye to terrorism crimes and genocide has escaped from the genie”s lamp of bilateral deals, including those which involve highly important states. It is time for nations to cease to spontaneously confuse defending national dignity and defending the mistakes of rulers. Such confusion blinds them to what truly is in the interest of their countries. It also reinforces the impression that they trample on justice while at the same moment yelling that they are the victims of permanent injustice, inflicted upon them by their rulers and by Western and Eastern leaderships alike.
The first thing that comes to an Arab mind is the double standard applied to war crimes committed by the West and to genocide, ethnic cleansing and political assassinations perpetrated by Israel, in stark contradiction with its responsibilities as a state occupying Palestinian territories according to international law. Such permanent silence regarding Israeli violations has resulted in endless accusations of hypocrisy and of using double standards against Europe and the US by millions of Arabs and Muslims from various continents. Whitewashing American abuses in the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib Prisons, as well as silence over the invention of arbitrary laws in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attack in the US, only adds intensity to the overwhelming anger expressed against international prosecutions of crimes and violations committed in Africa and the Middle East. At the same time, pride, arrogance, and burying their heads in the sand prevent the West from hearing the complaints of the East about double standards and their consequences.
However, this does not exonerate those who oppose justice under the pretext of double standards. The opposite is in fact required to impose justice on those who protect the transgressions of the West and Israel.
The issue of Sudan is not merely a European conspiracy. In fact, it is an issue of neglect, negligence, and arrogance by the Sudanese government, finding refuge in China”s commitment to protect its oil interests.
International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo is not a well-liked personality, as he is known to be an excessively arrogant man. However, this does not automatically make him a fool when it comes to directing war crime charges against Sudan”s president, the first accusation of its kind against a head of state who is still in power. Had Ocampo not held enough evidence to direct such a charge, he would not have set such a precedent in the first place. Moreover, this was not a spur of the moment issue, but rather the result of the stubbornness and arrogance of the Sudanese president and his government.
The claims made by the Sudanese government did not help Sudan, especially those made through its ambassador at the UN, denying the occurrence of any massacres in Darfur or the use of rape against women, girls and minors as one of the means of the dirty war being waged there. Denial and displays of astonishment at hearing the charges could not conceal the fact that 35,000 people have been killed instantly, another 100,000 have suffered a slow death, and over 2.5 million have been forcibly displaced.
Atrocities have indeed been committed in Darfur, and the Sudanese government should have showed concern to bring these atrocities to an end rather than to claim that the accusations were false. The Sudanese president set himself up for yet another predicament by vowing that Sudan "would not hand over a single hair from the head of a single Sudanese to the International Criminal Court". This was his first response to the arrest warrant issued in his name, being the head of state who, according to the formal accusation, has committed genocide and perpetrated war crimes.
If the Sudanese government believes that China will protect it at the Security Council, it will have to reconsider its calculations. It is true that China has major oil interests in Sudan. It is also true that, earlier this month, it shielded Robert Mugabe from punishment by exercising, alongside Russia, its veto power to block a resolution meant to punish the president of Zimbabwe for his horrendous violations. However, China will not challenge the International Criminal Court, especially on the eve of its hosting the Olympic Games.
Additionally, it was the Security Council itself that assigned this mission to the International Criminal Court. It cannot do more than delay looking into the charges brought by Ocampo against Al-Bashir, at the very best. As Russia will not take the lead in defying the ICC either, especially in regard to the massacres and atrocities being committed in Darfur, all eyes have turned to Libya, the only Arab member at the Security Council, representing (symbolically) both the African Union and the Arab League.
Although the Arab League criticized Ocampo”s decision, its reactions were not extreme. Arab foreign ministers drafted an Arab plan that is said to include suggestions for an international and regional conference to resolve the issue of Darfur and provide face-saving means to Al-Bashir, to allow him to do what he had previously arrogantly refused to. This does not hide the fact that slogans challenging the International Criminal Court were raised, not only in demonstrations orchestrated by Khartoum on a daily basis, but also in the stance taken by the head of the Arab Summit, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. He issued a presidential statement where he describes the warrant against Al-Bashir as "an attempt to blackmail Sudan, as well as a flagrant interference in its internal affairs", and expresses the rejection of the resolution by "the leaders and Syrian people". Damascus had previously condemned Ocampo”s decision and considered it a "dangerous precedent in international relations".
The Sudanese president says that Sudan is not a signatory party to the Rome Statute which established the International Criminal Court. Consequently, Sudan is not concerned with any of its decisions. However, the Security Council has placed the Darfur issue under Chapter Seven of its Charter, which makes it binding for all states. According to Syrian attorney Nayef Salim Qaysiya, "international law is binding; and in the event of contradictions between international law and national law, international law takes precedence".
That is also the case in regard to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon which was established by the Security Council under Chapter Seven. The tribunal, which began this year, will be activated early next year to try those implicated in the terrorist crime that claimed the life of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and his companions, in addition to the political assassinations and other terrorist attacks proven by the investigation to be linked to the Hariri assassination.
It is true that the winds of political change are blowing in Washington, Paris, Damascus, Tehran, Doha, Ankara and Tel Aviv, and that traces of the Grand Deal being woven are evident, behind the scenes and behind closed doors. However, there are basics of law, with respect to the tribunal for Lebanon, which will be extremely difficult to bypass, whatever the nature of the deals and bargains being made. Additionally, the UN has taken moral obligations, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in particular will not jeopardize these obligations and compromise his career, and his place history as a whole, to grant political favors at the expense of justice, law, and Security Council resolutions, especially those issued under Chapter Seven. If there is to be one, the hallmark of Ban Ki-moon”s term in office as Secretary-General should be the end of the era of allowing impunity and showing leniency to those involved in terrorist crimes and political assassinations.
More importantly, the international investigation into these crimes is not limited to one person, nor is it a political bargaining chip in the hands of the Security Council, its members or other influential states. There is evidence and proof, there are documents and documented conclusions, and there are binding international resolutions. There is also a detailed process, involving several states, which has reached the point where it can neither retreat nor be stopped, unless the Lebanese government decides to commit suicide by blowing itself up within the body of the international tribunal.
It is currently said that only two factors could significantly harm the tribunal: its financing and the Lebanese government. Some may like to imply that these two factors have already been ensured to lead to the retreat of the tribunal and its gradual termination.
As a matter of fact, as far as financing is concerned, the UN has sufficient funds to operate the tribunal for the first year, and sufficient assurances over the availability of funds for the year that follows. The problem is that most governments are incapable of allocating specific amounts of money for the second year because of their legal processes for ratifying budgets. However, a few Arab countries would be able to prevent "financially starving" the international tribunal.
Under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, the Lebanese government has the obligation to cooperate with the international tribunal. Hence, if it tried to stall or evade its responsibilities, it will only harm itself. However, activating the tribunal depends on a decision that must be taken by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in consultation with the Lebanese government, but without its opinion being binding, according to the tribunal”s regulations. Moreover, refusing to cooperate with a tribunal that has been established to try those involved in political assassinations of Lebanese people, among them a prime minister, will be suicide no matter how hard certain parties try to open friendly channels with the UN”s Secretary-General. That was the case with Hezbollah”s Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, who initiated direct and friendly contacts with Ban Ki-moon without involving the Lebanese government, specifically to negotiate with Israel over the prisoner exchange.
Whether white or black, no criminals shall evade being held accountable and punished for their crimes, regardless of whatever bargains are made. It does not matter that some may imagine that they enjoy the protection of China or Russia at the Security Council, or the care of the US or Israel in bilateral deals. Orchestrated demonstrations and burying their heads in the sand will not help them.
Protesting double standards is most certainly appropriate. However, exposing those who practice it cannot be attained by denying facts and rejecting justice. Rather, this can only be attained by embracing justice, so that it can be a sword raised in the face of those who practice double standards.