Sudan is yet again under the spotlight on Darfur and the ICC indictment of Al-Bashir, writes Gamal Nkrumah There is plenty of blame to go around between the Sudanese government and the International Criminal Court (ICC). This week, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo put his political weight once again behind Western plans to unseat Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir. In a series of strongly worded statements Ocampo pledged to bring Al-Bashir to book. "Respect for the court decision to issue an arrest warrant against President Al-Bashir," Ocampo declared "was irrevocable." This no- nonsense tone is nothing new. Ocampo has long been a thorn in the flesh of the Sudanese leader. "President Al-Bashir," Ocampo stressed "will face justice." The Sudanese president was indicted by the ICC on genocide crimes in the war-torn westernmost Sudanese province of Darfur, a charge Al-Bashir refutes. Sudanese officials hastened to defend Al-Bashir. Sudan's Ambassador to the United Nations Abdel-Mahmoud Mohamed promptly dismissed Ocampo as a "mercenary of death and destruction". What infuriated Ocampo and Western governments backing the ICC indictment of the Sudanese president is the fact that Al-Bashir once again this week flew to Kenya to participate in celebrations marking the promulgation of a new constitution. The ICC had urged the Kenyan government to arrest the Sudanese president on his arrival in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. Instead, the Kenyans honoured Al-Bashir with the red carpet treatment. African leaders on the whole contend that there are good and bad arguments that will be deployed against this course of action. Underneath the differences between Western leaders and their African counterparts lie two differing conceptions of dictatorship and democracy. As in the past, African leaders prefer to open up their societies at their own speed, and largely on their own terms. There is little appetite among African leaders to prosecute Al-Bashir. Would that benefit anyone? African leaders have adopted a less confrontational relationship with Khartoum and have committed themselves to foster closer economic and commercial collaboration with oil-rich Sudan. Good neighbourliness has become a cornerstone of African politics and the leaders of the continent are banking on the adage that good neighbourliness indeed may prove to bring more than its own award. The contrast between Ocampo's dogged determination to prosecute Al-Bashir and African leniency is glaring. African governments are careful to curry favour with Sudan. While Ocampo trumpets his rallying cry of fair play, African leaders in the old stereotype are sticking to their guns as far as standing by each other in times of trouble. And these are indeed troubled times in Sudan. For domestic Sudanese politics, at least, the old African stereotypical reputation of sticking together against imperialist powers is becoming threadbare. All sides are playing hardball. In certain quarters of Sudan's body politic and particularly in Darfur and southern Sudan and among opposition forces in northern Sudan, the focus has been on the shrieking rhetoric brandishing Al-Bashir as a Machiavellian dictator. Al-Bashir's detractors are insisting that the underlying issues and injustices that prompted the ICC indictment of Al-Bashir on genocide charges need to be openly talked about and debated within Sudanese political circles. Public opinion in Sudan is divided over the matter. There is a strong constituency that hope to see Al-Bashir handed over to the ICC in The Hague for trial. They howl and stamp their feet in what is sometimes seen as hysterical exaggeration that obscures a real issue: a lack of consensus among the Sudanese people as to what constitutes a viable democracy. Others view such high strung behaviour as a political miscalculation that infringes on the national sovereignty of Sudan. Yet one should not dismiss either of the Sudanese protagonists out of hand. Ocampo's announcement comes at a time when both Khartoum and Juba are trying to redefine their position in the world order. South Sudan has a sense of itself as a rising power in Africa, a model democratic and secular state. Khartoum, on the other hand, is undergoing a moment of introspection. The principal complaint of the defenders of the Sudanese president and his ruling National Congress Party (NCP) in Sudan about the anti-Al-Bashir protests is that they are orchestrated by outside forces bent on the destruction and dismemberment of the country. The protests look more like a futile exercise in propaganda by those who ideologically disagree with the NCP. One other thing might be said in their defence. Ocampo's statements are awkwardly timed. "President Al-Bashir instead of stopping the crimes is stopping the information about the crimes," claims Ocampo. The Al-Bashir regime's critics can hardly complain that they are denied a chance to engage with the NCP if, when the opportunity arises, they insist first on his arrest and prosecution on foreign soil. Ocampo and Al-Bashir's detractors argue that the NCP is manipulating the chaotic situation in Darfur to curtail the military mandate of the joint African Union and United Nations peacekeeping forces in Darfur (UNAMID). Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Darfur is fast deteriorating, which in effect is tantamount to genocide. "The decisions to expel humanitarian workers and silence others by threat of expulsion in the attempts at restricting the freedom of movement of UNAMID are part and parcel of this policy to reduce the monitoring capacity of the international community," Ocampo concluded earlier this week. There is, however, an underlying issue that needs to be flagged. If Sudanese democracy is to flourish freely, then outsiders like Ocampo, who are obviously tempted to pursue their own preferences for leadership in Sudan, must permit the Sudanese the prerogative of choosing their own leaders through a test of political support at the ballot box in free and fair elections.
