In Focus: Hand in glove Galal Nassar examines the extent of Washington's "soft force" tactics against Khartoum In a move that sent shock waves across Sudan and around the world the International Criminal Court's (ICC) prosecutor-general called for an arrest warrant to be served on Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir. This is the first time that an incumbent president faces such a challenge. The Serbian president underwent international trial earlier but only after he left office. This is the first time an Arab leader faces such charges. Not that it matters to the ICC that Sudan has an electoral law that allows for the president to be directly elected in internationally monitored polls. The international community is clearly willing to go after any leader at which the Americans point a finger regardless of how much democratisation he may have introduced in his country. This is also the first time the head of a state that is not a signatory to the ICC has faced such measures. Under the ICC statute officials from non-member states may be prosecuted upon the recommendation of the UN Security Council. The precedent opens the door for politically-motivated trials designed to promote the interests of major powers at the expense of international peace. Under the UN Charter the Security Council is supposed to maintain international peace, not interfere in domestic issues. If there is anything to be learned from the current episode it is that US and Western policymakers are adept at manipulating the media so as to alter the course of events. The tribal conflict in Darfur began as an ethnic and political problem. It graduated, thanks to political and media manoeuvring, into a question of genocide. Accusations were made first against senior Sudanese officials and then the president, especially after the latter rejected US conditions during talks in Khartoum. US negotiators emerged from the table to urge sanctions on Sudan. Then the ICC sprang to action. Interestingly, the US leaked news of Al-Bashir's indictment days before the ICC prosecutor- general made the announcement. In the Arab world the move has raised many questions. Why has Al-Bashir been singled out when known perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and war crimes in Palestine and Iraq remain at large? Why haven't arrest warrants been issued against Israeli leaders despite their record of ethnic cleansing and war crimes? Why hasn't any US official been brought to account for war crimes committed across the world, not least in Iraq? When crimes are committed against Arabs and Muslims the world turns away. Yet mere suspicion against the head of an Arab and Islamic country is sufficient ground for indictment, even in a conflict as murky as that in Darfur, one that has been costly for everyone involved, the Sudanese state, government and army included. Recently, members of the US House of Representatives pressed charges -- worse than those levelled against Al-Bashir -- against the US president yet no action followed. Several US congressmen filed a 35-article bill on 16 June 2008, requesting the impeachment of President Bush. The congressmen accused the president of orchestrating a campaign of disinformation to justify the war against Iraq, of falsely linking the 9/11 attacks to Iraq, and of calling Iraq a security threat with insufficient evidence. The president was accused of misleading the American people and Congress by claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. They accused the US president of violating decision 114 by the Congress, of invading a foreign country without declaring war, of violating the UN charter and of granting immunity to security contractors who commit war crimes in Iraq. The contrast between the two cases did not escape the notice of Arab audiences. But the action against Al-Bashir goes beyond the symbolism. It is an action that may trigger another round of confrontation among the world's major power. Earlier, both Russia and China vetoed a US-UK attempt to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe and its president, Robert Mugabe. This may happen again. With China and Russia increasingly willing to challenge US policy, the move against Al-Bashir is likely to ignite another round of international confrontation. China, which has extensive oil exploration rights in Sudan, including Darfur, and is a major arms supplies to the Sudanese, is inextricably bound up in the issue. And Russia, which recently announced its intention to consolidate ties with African countries, will also demand its voice is heard. The Arab world has reasons for concern. What we see today is a major escalation of pressure against countries in the region at a time when everyone thought that the US was too busy putting its own house in order. The mood in the region resembles that which followed the execution of president Saddam Hussein. The action against Al-Bashir, whose country has not signed the ICC statute, can only be interpreted as a warning to any Arab ruler or official who dares to challenge US policies. It is a sign that some countries are willing to use any internal developments in other states for their own purposes. It is an indication that the arrest and trial of leaders is no longer out of the question. Sudan has been torn by tribal conflict and factional strife for decades. With its president facing international charges, the domestic situation is likely to get worse. The Sudanese government, which some may argue has not lived up to Western standards of good governance, is hardly united. It is a government beset by differences between its northern and southern leaders, as the dispute over Abyei amply demonstrates. Now insurgencies in the country will get worse. In the case of Iraq the US used "hard force" to alter the reality of that country. In Sudan it is using "soft force" instead. It is not that the US has suddenly become averse to bloodshed or uninterested in regime change. It is just that the US is unable to invade and occupy the extensive territorial mass that is Sudan. Sudan reacted to US machinations with "soft force" of its own. Hoping to avert any major change in the country's political, economic and social fabric, the Sudanese government gave in to some US demands. It agreed to share power and wealth with the southern rebels. It accepted African, then an international, military presence in Darfur. The Sudanese regime wavered and wriggled. It gave in at times and stood firm at others, hoping to cling to power as long as possible while making the least possible adjustments on the domestic front. Such behaviour was particularly evident in Sudan's acceptance of international deployment in Darfur. It was also evident in the way Khartoum reacted to the referral of two of its senior officials to the ICC. Just before the ICC took action against the Sudanese officials the Sudanese government put together a local court to hear charges similar to those announced by the ICC. Then Sudanese leaders said they had no intention of letting their citizens face international trials. The Sudanese regime has unleashed a battery of domestic measures to shore up its position. It has also contacted Arab, African and international forums in a bid to shake off US-orchestrated pressure. It has sat down with parties and groups in northern Sudan, sent diplomats to Libya to discuss Darfur, and made friendly noises to Eritrea, Uganda and Chad. It has even made attempts to improve ties with Europe. It is a battle in which Sudan has tried to mimic Washington's "soft force" approach. In every round of sparring, though, the Sudanese regime has lost on points. Now Al-Bashir finds himself on the receiving end of international wrath. So will the Sudanese regime attempt to change its tactics yet again?
