Criminal accusations over Darfur are not innocent but smack of foreign efforts to tear apart Sudan, writes Mahmoud Murad* We have to do something about Sudan and frankly it has to be something more effective than the decisions passed recently by Arab foreign ministers. The crisis Sudan is facing has unspeakable consequences for the Arabs, the Africans and the rest of the Third World. It is a crisis that has so far developed in a scenario alarmingly similar to that we've seen in Iraq. In both cases, an Arab country was singled out for alleged crimes. The fact that the crimes turned out to be groundless in Iraq's case is beside the point, for the damage was done anyway. But this time we know better than to take it lying down. In Iraq's case, we watched helplessly as foreign armies invaded and occupied that country. This time it has to be different. We should stand by Sudan all the way, with deeds and not just rhetoric. Given the connivance of some European and non-European countries in the current crisis, one can safely assume that sooner or later we'll be looking at a conviction. From this point onwards there will be no going back. Many countries, I guarantee you, want to see Al-Bashir convicted, if only because this would give them the chance they've been waiting for all along to pounce on Sudan and use it as a regional springboard. With oil, uranium, water and land at stake, Africa is only too tempting -- all the markets awaiting to be conquered, all the pharmaceuticals that can be tried out, and all the deadly weapons that can be sold to inflame local rivalries. Should we allow this to happen, we'll never have a chance to be left in peace again. We need to engage politicians in talks. We need to make our voice heard through the media. We need to reach out to the public in Europe, the United States, Latin America and beyond. But we also have to stay ahead of the legal game, because this is where we have a real chance. Some argue that because Sudan is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court's (ICC) founding statute it is not obligated to abide by its mandate. Wrong, for the ICC is going to leave the matter in the hands of the UN Security Council, which can send in men with guns blazing. It was the Security Council that asked the ICC to look into the matter after all. Here is how we got here. The UN secretary-general received reports on Darfur and referred the matter to the Security Council. Acting under Chapter VII, the council asked the ICC to investigate. Russia and China were sitting at the Security Council when all this happened and they didn't object to any of this, by the way. The ICC prosecutor- general looked into the case and concluded that President Omar Al-Bashir must be brought in for trial as a war criminal. And here is what's going to happen now. The three ICC judges, once they get back from their summer vacation in early September, will concur with the prosecutor-general's conclusion and sign a warrant for Al-Bashir's arrest. At which point, all countries would have to comply -- not because they are ICC members, but because they are UN members. The trial would be carried out, perhaps in absentia. And I wouldn't be astonished if some Sudanese officials hail it as an act of justice, for it will give them a chance to pounce on power. You'll hear them say that the interests of the nation should come before those of any individual. Sudan should hand over Al-Bashir, they will argue. For otherwise it would face international sanctions, a trade boycott, a ban on travel, and all the rest of it. Will China or Russia veto sanctions against Sudan? I don't think so. As I said, they didn't veto the referral of the case to the ICC. And it is not exactly in their interest to be seen as obstructing international justice. I'd say, let's go legal. According to Article 16 of the ICC statute, "no investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, has requested the court to that effect." So we have 12 months to get in touch with ICC members, Security Council members, and anyone who will listen. A bit of political pressure wouldn't be bad at this point. But we have to stay focussed on the legalities, for this is where our real chance lies. We need to prepare a legal memorandum challenging every point in the existing charges. We need to look into the nature of the crimes and the evidence that they actually took place. We need to remind everyone that the Sudanese judiciary has already ordered trials on the matter and executed three officers in connection with the crimes. The ICC mandate is supplementary to the mandate of national judiciaries. Let's not forget that. So in the legal memorandum we would need to review the history of the conflict in Darfur, the conduct of rebel movements, and their attacks on the Sudanese capital. Recently, the rebels marched on Um Dorman, waging an offensive that cost tens of millions of dollars. Where did they get the money? For the past five years or so, rebels committed crimes of their own, and certain foreign powers have aided and abetted them. So what is the legal position of a government faced by such a challenge? Italy, Spain, Canada and the US faced similar separatists groups in the past. What did they do? We all agree that governments must do all they can to spare civilians the horrors of war, Sudan being no exception. Some say that civilians need the protection of international forces. Sudan didn't contest the point. It allowed in peacekeepers, but only on the condition that they come from African and Arab countries. Arab and African organisations supported this position. As it happened, the African Union offered to send troops to Darfur, but when it asked Europe and the US for logistical support, surveillance equipment, and all-terrain vehicles, its request was turned down. Interestingly enough, when the rebels attacked Um Dorman recently, killing civilians in the process, they used 500 brand new four- wheel drive vehicles, equipped with sophisticated weapons and communication systems. Who is supplying this hardware? Had the peacekeepers been that well equipped the situation in Darfur would have been different today. Sudan has also tried to arrange peace talks, but rebel leaders didn't show up. We need to know who exactly has been aiding the rebels. If we use Article 16 skilfully, we may be able to turn things around. Many have mentioned the immense number of casualties in Darfur, forgetting that the rebels -- as well as those who support them -- have their own share of the blame. Some still wonder why Sudan refuses to admit foreign troops, American or British, on its land. This is not hard to explain. International observers from the US and the UK are acceptable, but not troops. Once US and UK troops take position in Sudan, it won't be long before the country breaks into pieces, just like Iraq. * The writer is deputy editor-in-chief of Al-Ahram.
