Sudan's presidents Bashir & Kiir re-elected - A lot of intimidation during the elections, especially in the south

Al-Bashir and Salva Kiir Reelected
From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Monday, 26 April 2010:

(Khartoum) - Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been re-elected as President of the Republic of the Sudan.

The NEC chairman, Abel Alier, announced the results at a press conference at the Friendship Palace in Khartoum on Monday.

[Abel Alier]: “According to the result of the general elections, the winner for the post of the President of Sudan is the National Congress Party candidate, Omar Al-Bashir. He won with 6, 901, 694 votes. This is equivalent to 68.24 percent of the total votes cast. The total number of votes cast was 10,114,310 votes.”

Abel Alier also announced that Salva Kiir Mayardit was reelected as President of the Government of Southern Sudan.

[Abel Alier]: “The winner for the post of President of the Government of Southern Sudan is Salva Kiir Mayardit; he obtained 2,616,613 votes. This amounts to 92.99 percent of votes. His counterpart, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, received 197, 217 votes, or 7 percent of the total votes.”

The results for the governorships of six southern states were announced by the head of the NEC technical department, Alhadi Mohammed Ahmed.

[Alhadi Mohammed Ahmed]: “The winner for the governorship of Jonglei state is Kuol Manyang Juuk. For Central Equatoria state, Clement Wani Kong’a. For Eastern Equatoria, Luis Lobong Lojore. For Western Equatoria, Joseph Mario Bakosoro. In Upper Nile state it is Simon Kun and in Lakes state, Chol Tong Mayay was elected.”

Alhadi Mohammed Ahmed was announcing the results in Khartoum on Monday.

- - -

Presidents Bashir and Kiir will form a coalition government

From FT.com Monday, 26 April 2010:

Mr Bashir and Mr Kiir will form a coalition government. Some senior regime officials have said the ruling National Congress party would also be willing to include other opposition groups, including those that boycotted the polls, in order to defuse tensions and build consensus in the precarious months ahead of the southern referendum.

- - -

SPLM candidate Yasir Arman came second

From Sudan Tribune Monday, 26 April 2010:

The ruling National Congress Party (NCP) presidential candidate was declared winner with a 68.2% of the vote, the state electoral commission said on Monday.

The SPLM candidate Yasir Arman came second with 21.7%.

In the South SPLM chairman Salva Kiir got 93% of the votes. His challenger Lam Akol 7%.

- - -

From VOA Monday, 26 April 2010:

Yasir Arman, the northern secular Muslim slated by the southern-based Sudan People's Liberation Movement to challenge Mr Bashir, came in second with 22 percent, most of which came from the southern states.

- - -

Bashir says referendum in south Sudan will take place on schedule

From BBC 26 April 2010:

Speaking in a televised address after the poll result was announced, Mr Bashir said: "The referendum in south Sudan will take place on schedule."

He described his election win as a victory for "all Sudanese", and played down criticism of the poll, praising "the civilised and respectful conduct during these elections, which saw no clashes or friction".

- - -

South Sudan: Some election results are still expected

From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Monday, 26 April 2010:

(Juba) – The Southern Sudan High Election Committee had confirmed the results for the governorships in the other four states in southern Sudan earlier in the day.

Speaking at a press conference in Juba on Monday, the leader of SSHEC, Anthony Ariki, made this announcement:

[Anthony Ariki]: “We have already received the results for four states governors: that is the governor of Unity State, Taban Deng Gai, the governor of Warrap State, Nyandeng Malek and the governor of Northern Bahr el-Ghazal State, Paul Malong Awan and the one announced yesterday, the governor of Western Bahr el-Ghazal state, Rizik Zakariah. So far, out of the ten governors of the states four results have been announced and six are still expected.”

Ariki also said the results for elections to the national assembly in two states have also been announced:

[Anthony Ariki]: “In Warrap state, six geographical constituencies for the national assembly were declared together with twenty state assembly constituencies. In Central Equatoria state, seven constituencies have been declared and more are expected.”

Ariki called on citizens to remain calm and to wait for the announcement of the final results.

Meanwhile, there is heavy deployment of policemen and security personnel all over Juba to deter any outbreak of violence following the announcement of the results.

- - -

South Sudan: Unity State - Angelina Teny v Taban Deng

From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Monday, 26 April 2010:

(Khartoum) – The independent candidate for the governorship of Unity state, Angelina Teny, says she vehemently rejects the results of the elections in Unity state.

A media spokesman for Angelina Teny, Yohanis Musa Pouk, addressed a press conference in Khartoum on Saturday.

[Yohanis Musa Pouk]: “At around 4 o’clock [on Friday] Taban declared on the state’s local radio station that he was the winner. The announcement was not made through the National Elections Commission but through one of the radio announcers. He declared that Taban won the elections and said that was the announcement coming from the NEC. Following that announcement, our people went to the street collectively and spontaneously in a non-violent manner because nobody told the people of Unity state that there was going to be any announcement of the results. They went out spontaneously and found themselves together going to the radio station to inquire about the source of the news. They were surprised by soldiers from Sudan People’s Liberation Army who fired live bullets randomly at the moving crowd and instantly two people were shot dead. One is called Choul Ruai from Koch county and the other is called Gadwich. We were not able to get his second name. Four people were hospitalized and there were other people who sustained minor injuries.”

Pouk said the people of Unity state will never accept Taban Deng as a governor.

[Yohanis Musa Pouk]: “We are seeing that it is impossible as we are going towards the year 2011 that Taban will be the governor of Unity state. Nobody in Unity state has this in mind and nobody will accept it, but this issue will not end in one day. No citizen would be able to vote for Taban. Those who voted for him are those working in the government: ministers, wives of the ministers and those in the assembly who are with him, in addition to the votes that were rigged. No ordinary citizen will ever accept that Taban should continue in power. This is not the end of it; let’s not think that this is the end of everything and that the results have been announced, no. we don’t believe in these results because they are neither “free nor fair” and we are waiting for what will come from Juba - not from Bentiu.”

Pouk claimed that according to the statistics he had received from various constituencies, Angelina Teny won 68,000 votes while Taban Deng won 44,000 votes.

- - -

South Sudan: NEC says Malik Agar Eyre wins the gubernatorial seat in Blue Nile state

From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Friday, 23 April 2010:

(Khartoum) – The NEC has announced Malik Agar as the winner of the gubernatorial seat in Blue Nile state.

The chairperson of the NEC technical committee, Al-Hadi Mohamed Ahmed, announced Agar’s victory in Khartoum on Thursday.

[Al-Hadi Mohamed]: “We will start announcing the results of the winners in the gubernatorial elections, in Blue Nile state, the winner is Malik Agar Eyre, the political affiliation is the SPLM. The number of votes he got is 108.119, followed by the NCP candidate Farah Ibrahim Mohamed Agar who got 99,419 votes.”

NCP had earlier announced that their candidate Farah Agar was the winner in the state.

- - -

National Election Commission Announces NCP Wining of (6) State Electoral Constituencies in North Kordofan State
From www.sudan.gov Wednesday, 21 April 2010 17:18:

The NEC has announced this afternoon 20/4/2010 in a meeting chaired by NEC, / Chairperson Mr Abel Alier in and in the presence of a number of NEC members, the results of six of State Constituencies in North Kordofan State.

General Police Mr. Al-Hadi Mohammed Ahmed-, Chairperson of the Technical Committee of Elections, said in a press conference held by the NEC today at the center of results announcement at the Friendship Hall in Khartoum in the presence of a large number of representatives of the local & international media local along with international observers , that the NEC accredited the wining of the National Congress Party’s candidates in (6) of the State constituencies as follows:-

No (1) East Al-Obeyed.
No. (5) Al-Obeyed East of railway line .
No. (5) Suburbs of Al-Obeyed.
No. (7) Abu Haraz.
No. (13) Tayba.
No. (14) The state constituency Um-Kireidim and Al-Mazroub.

General. Al-Hadi further announced the wining of the National Congress Party’s candidates in the following constituencies:-

Suleiman Ibrahim Mohamed Ahmed, Constituency No (1) East Al-Obeyed.
Mr. Al-Siddiq Abdul-Gadir Ali, Constituency No. (4) Abu Haraz.
Mr. Ezeirig Mohammed Ezeirig Constituency No. (5) Al-Obeyed Eastern railway.
Ahmed Mohmed Saleh, Constituency No. (5) Al-Obeyed. Suburbs
Al-Hassan Abdullah Al-Haj Omara, Constituency No. (13) Tayba.
Abdul Shafi Habib Habiballa Othman., Constituency No. (14) Um-Kiradim and Al-Mazroub.

Last Updated on Thursday, 22 April 2010 08:55

- - -

A lot of intimidation during the elections, especially in the south

From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Thursday, 22 April 2010:

(Khartoum) – The UK-based Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis or CFPA, says the domination of the two ruling parties in the north and south was an obstacle for a free and fair elections in the country.

The CFPA director, Prof. Paul Moorcraft, addressed a press conference at the Friendship Palace in Khartoum on Wednesday.

[Prof. Paul Moorcraft]: “The dominance of the two incumbent parties in the north and south presented obstacles to a “free and fair” election and they were serious impediments in the election, especially in southern Sudan. The two ruling parties’ interference in the media throughout the country was also observed. Nevertheless, the overwhelming countrywide commitment to voting, the infectious enthusiasm and the generally disciplined desire of the citizenry to participate are appreciated and applauded. After the continuous disaffection of war since 1955, the fact that a national election was held in Africa’s largest country, with few traditions of democratic contests, widespread illiteracy and poor infrastructures, especially in the south, is to be commended.”

Prof. Moorcraft disclosed that there was a lot of intimidation during the elections, especially in the south.

[Prof. Paul Moorcraft]: “We did see quite a large amount of intimidation. We have recorded intimidation by the SPLM. Lam Akol was ringing me up for example on a number of occasions saying what was happening to him. But I’m also talking about issues in the north, but mostly all of the intimidation we saw was in the south, largely by the SPLA but not exclusively. So we had a lot of evidence of that and sometimes with direct observation and obviously when politicians ring me up we go and try to check it on the ground which we tried to do. So yes, there was intimidation.”

Professor Paul Moorcraft, the head of CFPA observer mission to Sudan was addressing reporters in Khartoum.

- - -

More news from SRS:

19-Apr-2010

• AU Gives Sudan Elections Free and Fair Imprimatur
• Civil Society Groups Criticize NEC

18-Apr-2010

• NCP Reiterates Coalition Offer
• PCP Refuses to Recognize Election Results
• Arab League Satisfied With Election Process
• Yambio Compiles Results

17-Apr-2010

• EU Observers Declare Elections Did Not Meet International Standards
• NCP Rejects EU Observer Statement
• Carter Center Critical of Elections Procedures
• No Security Problems in Darfur During Voting Says HEC
• Counting Delayed in Unity State As Pay Dispute Continues
• NEC Announces Election Re-run in 17 Constituencies
• SHEC Staff in Juba Refuse to Begin Count Until Salaries Arrive
• Failure to Pay Arrears Delays Count in Unity
• Musician Attacked in Juba

Fifty EU Election Observers from UK deploy to S. Sudan - Darfur issue could still be resolved after the elections

Sudanese people have a wonderful way with words. A year or so ago, Sudan's president Al-Bashir warned warmongers to go lick their elbows (try licking your elbow to see what he means). Last week, Mr Bashir said he will cut off the fingers of international observers if they interfere.

The Sudanese president gave a stern warning to foreign election monitors threatening to expel them if they call for a delay of the polls scheduled for April 11th.

The warning appears directed at the US based Carter Center which last week called for a slight delay in elections because of logistical and procedural issues.

The NEC deputy chairman Ahmed Abdullah insisted the elections would take place on April 11, as planned.

But Bashir had tougher words to the US based elections watchdog. "We brought these organizations from outside to monitor the elections, but if they ask for them to be delayed, we will throw them out... any foreigner or organization that demand the delay of elections will be expelled sooner rather than later, " he said.

"We wanted them to see the free and fair elections, but if they interfere in our affairs, we will cut their fingers off, put them under our shoes, and throw them out," he added.

Heh. Best of British luck to Paul Moorcraft and all other election observers. Thinking of you, wishing you well. Click on labels at the end of this post to read more about Paul Moorcraft and European Union observers for Sudan's elections.

UK Elections Observers Deploy To Help Sudan Move Towards Democracy
From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Tuesday, 29 March 2010:

29 March 2010 - (Khartoum) – the UK-based Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis, says it will deploy fifty election observers in south Sudan as part of the international community’s mission to observe Sudan’s general elections scheduled for April this year.

Speaking to the press in Khartoum on Saturday, the Director of the CFPA, Prof. Paul Moorcraft, emphasized that the observers are independent.

[Paul Moorcraft]: “We have fifty observers in the group. They come from a wide range of professions in the United Kingdom. We are independent; we are not aligned to government, although some of the people in the team have a military background or government background or academic background, they are here as neutral, absolutely neutral observers, independent, not tied to any government or creed or philosophy. Fifty people, many of them are lawyers, constitutional lawyers, some of them are eminent professors and some of them have been most of the time in observation recently. So we put together a very experienced varied team who speak Arabic. We tried to put together a team that will understand this country.”

Prof. Moorcraft said the CFPA wanted to help the Sudan move towards real democracy.

[Paul Moorcraft]: “In the final report which we will make, we will put our observations down and if there are some things that we think in our opinion could perhaps in terms of procedures be done better, we would make some suggestions as a way of perhaps trying to help. We are here simply to observe and this is a major operation. So we are here to look at the transition from your previous systems to a multi-party democracy. We are here to help but not to interfere. We are here to see what went right and perhaps one or two things that went wrong and we will record it as honestly and faithfully as we can. That is what we are here to do. We are here to help Sudan.”

Moorcraft described the recent statement by President Omar al-Bashir that he would expel foreign observers if they continue to call for the postponement of the elections as a “threat”.

According to him, the CFPA was invited by the National Elections Commission to assist with the observation of Sudan’s general elections in April.

- - -

Election Observer Presses for Elections to Go Ahead
From SRS - Sudan Radio Service, Wednesday, 31 March 2010:

31 March 2010 - (Khartoum) – An international election observer says tribal conflicts in south Sudan should not serve as a pretext to postpone the elections.

Speaking to SRS in Khartoum, Paul Wesson from the UK-based Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis explains why he thinks the elections should be conducted as scheduled.

[Paul Wesson]: “I think the issue is that in the whole country you have 17 million people having an election and the election should not be delayed because of the actions of a few thousands people in one area. But if there is no election in that area, then that can be dealt with at a later stage, but the important thing is to have elections for the 17 million people — yes, the electorate is 17 million people - and the tribal conflicts are carried by a few thousand people who perhaps don’t have the national picture in their minds. It is possible that if an election doesn’t take place in one state or in one constituency it could be held separately at a later stage. The important thing is that the main election takes place.”

Wesson also suggested that the anti-government groups in Darfur should allow the elections process to go ahead as scheduled. He says that the Darfur issue could still be resolved after the elections.

- - -

Two Citizens of Rumbek Comment Election Process
From SRS - Sudan Radio Service:

29 March 2010 - (Rumbek) – As the general election campaigns intensify and the election nears, SRS collected views of people in Rumbek, the capital of Lakes state.

[Vox 1 - male]: “I think the elections are going to be fair and free. I am going to vote in these coming elections because it is something I have been waiting for and the person I am going to vote for is some one that will implement the will of the southerners especially after the long struggle that took 21 years to achieve.”

[Vox 2 - female]: “The elections process is good and I think I am not a politician to comment about it. I work in the hospital. I think unity could be good for us southerners. I would like southern Sudanese to stay united. Let there be no such thing as this belongs to that and this to that. My right as a citizen is to unite with others so as to have one voice in achieving our long-awaited freedom.”

Those were views of two people in Rumbek concerning the elections.

More news from SRS - Sudan Radio Service:

30-Mar-2010

• Opposition Parties Postpone Polls Participation Decision
• NEC Deputy Denies Rumours of Chairman's Resignation
• Salva Kiir Pledges A People's Government in Southern Sudan
• GONU Sets Deadline For Darfur Peace Signing in Doha
• UNMIS to Patrol Potential Flashpoints During Elections

26-Mar-2010

• Coalition of Opposition Parties to Meet on Saturday to Decide on Elections
• Gore Welcomes Kiir Reconciliation Speech to Independents
• Kiir Campaigns in Turalei
• SPLM Claims 125 Defectors from SPLM-DC Return to Party Fold
• GOSS and GONU Ignore Agriculture in South
• Sudan Sports Latest
  
  

Paul Moorcraft says ICC Bashir arrest warrant will undermine Sudan's CPA, peace must come before justice

Paul Moorcraft says the ICC Bashir arrest warrant will undermine Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). Peace must come before justice. The Doha talks between JEM and NCP were about to succeed but were more or less sabotaged by the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrant.

From Sudan Radio Service 17 June 2009 (Nairobi/London):
Arrest Warrant Will Undermine the CPA Says UK Analyst

As debate over the arrest warrant issued against President al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court continues, a foreign political analyst thinks that the warrant will undermine the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

The Director of the UK-based Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis, Professor Paul Moorcraft, told Sudan Radio Service on Tuesday that peace must come before justice because arresting Bashir at this time will destroy the CPA as well as complicate the peace process in Darfur. He added that both parties have committed atrocities in the region.

[Professor Paul Moorcraft]:“I don’t particularly like President al-Bashir but my main argument is that the ICC arrest warrant is more likely to end up ensuring that al-Bashir stays in power for life. But it also puts pressure on the CPA. You could argue that the president says he is innocent, well, he should go to The Hague, but we know he is unlikely to do that. There is no doubt that a lot of atrocities were committed by the Sudanese Army in Darfur, just as today, the JEM and the rebel elements of the SLA are also committing awful atrocities, especially against workers in the NGOs who are trying to feed the Darfur people. So, yes there are crimes on both sides but at the moment what am saying is in short, peace must come before justice. It is great to have both and maybe they will come in time, but what matters is bringing peace to Darfur, end the suffering and not to undermine the north-south agreement and that’s what I fear the ICC will bring. Peace before justice.

Professor Moorcraft also doubts that an African Union court would resolve the Darfur conflict.

[Professor Paul Moorcraft]: “Africa doesn’t have a good record, the African Union is full of dictatorships, but there is no simple solution. As long as African states are badly governed there will be no easy solution to get rid of presidents-for-life”.

He said that the imposition of European standards in solving African issues can be disastrous, adding that only a political solution can end the Darfur conflict.

[Professor Paul Moorcraft]:“I think sometimes when there is western intervention it can cause negative consequences in Africa. So, political investment is good, political investment like in Naivasha, repeating itself in Darfur. But I have doubts about the intent to impose European standards. Remember, very few - only 27 percent - of the world has signed up to the ICC. it is not an International Court of Justice, many countries have not joined and at the moment virtually all those who have been indicted have been African leaders, it seems to me that that smacks a little of colonialism.”

Professor Moorcroft added that the Doha talks between the Justice and Equality Movement and the National Congress Party were about to succeed but that they were more or less sabotaged by the ICC decision to issue President al-Bashir with an arrest warrant.

- - -

Analyst forecasts change in US Policy towards Sudan

June 17, 2009 report from Sudan Radio Service (Nairobi/Paris) - excerpt:

On Monday, the GONU Foreign Affairs Minister Deng Alor said he expects the United States government to ease economic sanctions and to remove Sudan from the list of states which sponsor terrorism. Roland Marchal, a Paris-based political analyst, suggests that the Obama administration could reverse its policies towards Sudan. He spoke to Sudan Radio Service on Wednesday.  Full story.

“The world would have been a different place had the US accepted to work with Sudan.” -Paul Moorcraft

The following report, dated March 2008, is filed here for future reference.

From Sudan Media Centre, Khartoum
By Professor Paul Moorcraft

11 March 2008

Sudanese-European Political and Diplomatic Relations: Paul Moorcraft

Professor Paul Moorcraft, the director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis in London, presented a paper at the Sudanese European Relation Forum on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, titled “Out of step with Hyperpower? The European Union and Sudan.”

The paper addressed Sudan’s political and diplomatic relations with the European Union. In it, Dr. Moorcraft emphasized the difference in approaches between the EU and the US toward Sudan.

“We can describe the US as a ‘hard power’ while Europe is a ‘soft power’,” he said, emphasizing the tough approaches the US adopts against Sudan while the European approaches tend to be more diplomatic.

“European policy toward Sudan is less ideological than the US,” Moorcraft added.

One of the major differences according to Moorcraft was the evident impact of lobby groups.

“You don’t see the impact of lobby groups in Europe like in the US,” said Moorcraft, using the example of the Black Caucus and the Christian Right’s influences in the US in shaping US foreign policy toward Sudan.

“European foreign policy is not hijacked by lobby groups,” Moorcraft said comparing it to US foreign policy.

Moorcraft also pointed to the fact that while the US imposed economic sanctions and closed its embassy in Khartoum in 1996 after the attempt on Egyptian President Mubarak’s life in Addis Abba and accused Sudan of involvement; Britain kept its embassy fully opened.

“Europeans tend to take a more relaxed attitude towards these developments.”

On intelligence gathering, Moorcraft also compared how the US refused to co-operate with Sudanese intelligence on the Usama bin Ladin file, but the French on the other hand accepted Khartoum offer on Carlos the Jackal.

“The world would have been a different place had the US accepted to work with Sudan,” Moorcraft said.

Moorcraft went on to describe how Khartoum’s cooperation with the US after the attacks of September 11 against terrorism was well received in Europe.

“The British were impressed by Khartoum’s actions,” he said.

This led to Europe seeking gradual improvements in its relations with Sudan, explained Moorcraft, which became tied to Sudan reaching an end to the North-South civil war. When the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed, it resonated well in Europe.

“Nivasha altered Sudan’s image in Europe,” he said.

But the conflict in Darfur, and the influence of the anti-Sudan lobby, especially in the US, had delayed a full normalization of relations with Europe. Moorcraft, however, was critical of media coverage of Darfur and of those calling for UN and foreign intervention in Darfur without a political solution to the problem.

“I have publicly written that Darfur is not a genocide…the US has 130,000 troop in Iraq and can’t control the insurgency there. How than can a UN force with less numbers enforce peace in Darfur where there is no peace to keep?”

Moorcraft also called on Europe and the US to help with a peace process for Darfur similar to the CPA.

“Darfur is primarily a political crises that can be addressed in months…My view is the Western powers should replicate the time, energy patience and leverage displayed at Naivasha in persuading the rebels to accept the Darfur Peace Agreement, perhaps with some modifications.”

Moorcraft also praised the eventual handling of the Gillian Gibbons “teddy-bear affair,” the British school teacher who was accused of insulting Islam be allowing her class pupils to name a teddy-bear Muhammad. Lord Nazir Ahmad, a British Muslim MP, was able to intercede with the Sudanese government to ensure Gibbons’ release.

“If this had happened in Saudi Arabia, things would have been very different.”

Moorcraft ended on a positive note, stating that “Sudan has a lot to look forward to.”

Paul Moorcraft's meeting with Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir in Khartoum (April 2009)

Here below is a must-read report by one of my favourite reporters on Sudan, Paul Moorcraft, a Welshman who resides here in England, UK. He has been numerous times to Sudan, Darfur (8 times since 2003) and all over the south and east. A few months ago he chaired and co-sponsored an international conference on the ICC and Bashir/Mugabe, at the Royal United Services Institute, Whitehall, London.

Last month, I purchased some First Editions of his books via Amazon UK that included Guns and Poses (2001) and his most recent book (2008) Shooting the Messenger: The Political Impact of War Reporting.



Photo: Dr. Paul L. Moorcraft directs London’s Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis and is a visiting professor at Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media, and Cultural Studies. He has been a war correspondent; a military affairs expert for the BBC, Sky, and Al-Jazeera; and an editor of security and foreign policy magazines.

From The American Spectator
Bashing Omar al-Bashir
By Paul Moorcraft on 29 May 2009

He is hurt, angry and hunted by the International Criminal Court. He is also the first sitting president of a country to be issued with ICC arrest warrants -- in March this year. Amid resplendent chandeliers, I visited Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, in his palace in Khartoum in April.

Eschewing his field-marshal's uniform, and wearing traditional white flowing robes and a turban, the President said: "When Morgan Tsvangirai raised his hand to take the oath of office in the Zimbabwean government of national unity -- with Robert Mugabe -- all the international pressures and legal threats were forgotten. Maybe I should ask Tsvangirai to raise his hand here as well?"

Africa has many nasty despots, including Mugabe, so why is the ICC concentrating on Bashir? Does its selectivity conjure up suspicions of political targeting by the West? And what will be the results of ICC intervention?

Political Target?

Bashir is accused, inter alia, of war crimes in Darfur. Whereas the government in Khartoum says the Court's ambitions are political, not legal: regime change in another oil-rich Islamic country. Many African leaders, even those who disdain Bashir, are outraged that all the indictments have been in Africa. Besides the Sudan, the ICC has intervened in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic.

Khartoum argues that the ICC has no legal right to intervene in Sudan, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute which established the Court in 2002. Moreover, say Bashir's lawyers, he has sovereign immunity as head of state. Further, they say, the ICC -- while claiming universal jurisdiction -- is simply not international. Less than 27% of the world's population comes under its jurisdiction, and this excludes, for example, the U.S., Russia, China, and India.

Many African leaders caricature the ICC as neo-colonialism, white man's justice, especially French, German and British meddling, which ignores indigenous systems, such as South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation process. They ask why the Court does not actively investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Iraq, Afghanistan or Gaza. So far, however, the Court -- which has no dedicated police mechanism -- has not secured a single conviction of African defendants.

The Court has indicated that it may encourage signatory states to detain Bashir in international air space. Some senior lawyers have argued that this could violate international law, if Bashir were hi-jacked. Thus could air piracy compound Washington's difficulties with piracy at sea.

Washington has long declared its opposition to the ICC, arguing that it would be used to exact "political" justice, and that states and individuals would be pursued for bogus political reasons under the façade of justice. Paradoxically, the American position on Sudan and the ICC has proved this to be absolutely the case. While attacking the ICC in the strongest terms, Washington nevertheless acquiesced in the Security Council referral of Darfur to the ICC (while demanding immunity for its own citizens). Washington has urged Sudan to submit to ICC demands. To many observers this is precisely the sort of political vendetta the U.S. had itself warned that the Court might be used for.

Peace Before Justice?

The ICC acted in order to improve conditions in Darfur. Instead they have been made worse. The timing of the arrest warrants could not have been more unpropitious. Just before March, peace talks in Doha were moving towards a possibly favourable outcome. The various rebels groups in Darfur are now encouraged to stall on talks. And Khartoum's knee-jerk response of ejecting major humanitarian agencies, alleging that they spied on behalf of the ICC, will also exacerbate the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Bashir's advisors make the point that the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement which ended the longest war in Africa's biggest country -- the north-south conflict -- did not include specific judicial claims to punish the numerous war crimes on both sides. The 2005 agreement, an unsung triumph of the Bush administration, could itself now be disrupted. That is why the former southern rebels, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, now a part of the National Unity government in Sudan, fret about a possible return to war because of ICC intervention.

The ICC wants peace, but threatens to undermine it throughout Sudan. In a glaring example of the law of unintended consequences, the ICC action has made Bashir a poster-boy for the Sudanese nation. He will probably easily win the presidential election early next year. With the exception of the rebels in Darfur, many Sudanese -- both opponents and allies -- are likely to rally around him. Another unintended consequence is that, like Mugabe, fear of the ICC will make Bashir president for life. He cannot risk retiring, even if he wanted to, 20 after coming to power in a coup. No one expected the ICC to entrench dictatorships.

The Future

Sudan is often projected as a tough authoritarian "Islamo-fascist" state. It is certainly authoritarian, but also potentially fragile. If the destabilisation of the peace process in the West (Darfur) and in the South leads to further explosions in the unsettled East, then a replay of the meltdown in Somalia could result. Sudan has borders with nine states, including Egypt, a strategic partner of the US. The implosion of Sudan would mean its removal as a key ally in Washington's counter-terrorism campaign. Surely President Obama has enough failed or failing states to worry about?

Recent Western intervention in Africa rarely makes things better and usually makes them worse. Richard Dowden, the director of the Royal African Society, summed it up nicely: "The ICC cannot hand out justice in Sudan as if it were Surrey [England]." More robustly, The Hague has also been dubbed "Europe's Guantanamo Bay for Africans".

In Africa and in the Islamic world, the ICC is seen to ignore those voices, be they Ugandan, Sudanese or in the African Union, who say that the Court's arbitrary pursuit of African leaders is delaying peace.

It can be argued that the ICC has inadvertently prolonged the horrific war in northern Uganda by aborting seemingly fruitful peace talks by issuing warrants against rebel leaders. In the case of Darfur, the ICC warrants against Bashir have merely bolstered the insurgents' intransigence regarding peace talks. They claim they will hold out, until Bashir is arrested. This could mean an indefinite extension of the Darfur war.

The answer is straightforward: the ICC can defer its arrest warrants for renewable yearly periods. That may be one inducement for Khartoum to start talking again to the Darfur rebels, who then cannot expect rapid regime change. Bashir has not been defeated, the historical precedent for trials of national leaders. Arguably, he is politically and militarily stronger than he has ever been. Economically, the recent oil bonanza has strengthened Bashir's hand. And, in a further twist, the U.S. economic sanctions against Sudan, in place since 1977, have largely insulated the country from the Western economic meltdown.

Bashir was a vital ingredient in the north-south peace; likewise he may also be crucial in guaranteeing peace in Darfur. Any successor may not be able to hold the country together, let alone have the power to finesse peace deals.

Also vital is the Obama's administration re-engagement in the political process there. No military solution is on offer; only a replay of Western political will and local cooperation can repeat the success of the major 2005 peace agreement. Darfur is doable, now, given the will -- provided the sword of Damocles is removed from the neck of Sudan's president.

Save Darfur?

The ICC action may serve as a warning shot across the bows of Africa's monsters, not least Mugabe's destructive presidency. This might be a soothing psychic balm to the liberal consciences in the West. But, in a war-ravaged continent, peace must precede justice, whether defined as African or European. Meanwhile, to its many African critics, the ICC's arrest warrants for Bashir look like the 21st-century equivalent of old-fashioned 19th-century gunboat diplomacy -- but minus the gunboats. Meanwhile, the suffering goes on in Sudan's refugee camps. The ICC may have failed, not fixed Darfur.

Paul Moorcraft is the director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis, London, an independent think tank dedicated to conflict resolution. He has worked in all parts of Sudan, including Darfur, since 1996. He also holds something of a world record for being arrested by the Khartoum government.
- - -

Further reading
March 23, 2006 - Sudan Watch:  DARFUR: Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state - How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan (Dr Paul Moorcraft)

Moral Blindness: The Case Against Troops for Darfur (by David Rieff)

David Rieff in Boston is a contributing editor at The New Republic. Here are some excerpts from his excellent opinion piece (TNR, 25 May 2006) Moral Blindness: The Case Against Troops for Darfur:

Except for those who frankly favor the anti-government insurgents in Darfur--and they are more to be found on the Christian right, which has supported Minni Minnawi's Sudan Liberation Movement as it once supported John Garang's insurgency in Southern Sudan--advocates of a U.S. deployment have been maddeningly vague about what will transpire in Darfur after foreign forces halt the killing. [-edit-]

To his credit, [Eric] Reeves has written that any outside military force would have to ensure that the rebel guerrillas do not take advantage of the foreign presence to improve their position on the ground. But that is what an international deployment will almost inevitably do, which is why Minnawi and others have been campaigning so hard for one. The deployment of foreign troops, whose mission will be to protect Darfuri civilians, will allow the guerrillas to establish "facts on the ground" that will strengthen their claims for secession. That is what makes the interventionists' claim that the intervention will be purely "humanitarian"--that it will protect civilians being murdered, raped, and displaced by the Janjaweed but do little or nothing else--so disingenuous. For it is virtually certain that this is not the way events will play out if U.S. or [NATO] forces deploy. To the contrary, such a deployment can have only one of two outcomes. The first will be the severing of Darfur from the rest of Sudan and its transformation into some kind of international protectorate, a la Kosovo. But, at least in Kosovo, the protectorate was run by Europeans--by neighbors. In Darfur, by contrast, it will be governed by Americans (who are already at war across the Islamic world) and possibly by [NATO] (i.e., Africa's former colonial masters). Now there's a recipe for stability.

If anything, the second possibility is even worse. Assuming the intervention encounters resistance from the Janjaweed and the government of Sudan (and perhaps Al Qaeda), the foreign intervenors will arrive at the conclusion that the only way to bring stability to Darfur is, well, regime change in Khartoum: In other words, the problems of Darfur are, in fact, the product of Al Bashir's dictatorship, and these problems can be meaningfully addressed only by substituting a more democratic government. Such an intervention may well end up being Iraq redux, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. [-edit-]

The idea that, after Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Iraq, intelligent activists can still speak of humanitarian intervention as if it were an uncomplicated act of rescue without grave implications is a testimony to the refusal of the best and brightest among us to think seriously about politics. Is this what the marriage of human rights and American exceptionalism has led us to? If so, God help us. [-edit-]

Reeves may sneer at the idea of national sovereignty and bemoan the African Union's insufficiently aggressive line toward the government of Sudan. The fact remains that the consensus in postcolonial Africa has been to maintain the national borders that existed at the time of independence, despite their obvious artificiality, because, in redrawing them, Africa might reap the whirlwind. But that is why there was so little sympathy in Africa for Katangese or Biafra secession; it is why most African leaders insist that the Eritrean secession remain an exception for the sake of continental stability. There is nothing stupid, venal, or contemptible about this. And, whatever Reeves may imagine, there are many thoughtful African leaders whose reluctance to confront Khartoum is based in large part on these considerations. [-edit-]

If, on reflection, Reeves and those who think like him believe that it [military intervention in Darfur] is worth doing anyway, that is a perfectly defensible position. What is indefensible is not seeing--or pretending not to see--the problem.
- - -

How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan

Excerpt from Sudan Watch entry entry Mar 23 2006:

People who cry out for military intervention (an act of war) in Darfur ought to take a few minutes to read a most insightful opinion piece by veteran war correspondent Dr Paul Moorcraft, a Brit who has worked in thirty war zones over twenty years and visits Sudan and Darfur regularly.

Dr Moorcraft's op-ed provides an excellent easy to read summary of Sudan's complex situation. It tells us Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state and that, quote:

More important is the recognition that there is no military solution in Darfur. Neither side can win the war, nor can the AU (nor UN) impose peace where there is none. It will take nine months to a year for the AU to be beefed up. Use this precious time to enforce the peace process, not least in the Nigerian capital, Abuja."

Sudanese Embassy says the 'Stop Genocide' rallies April 30 tells Darfur rebels: "Don't Make Peace. The US supports you"

In response to massive 'Stop Genocide' rallies being held across America on April 30 to urge the Bush Administration to intervene in Sudan, the Sudanese Embassy in Washington has released a Statement asking demonstrators to "Think About Their Actions" - excerpt:

"Today, the organisers of the April 30th rally include veterans of the Sudan Coalition. As part of their protest they are targeting the peace negotiations in Abuja, Nigeria, which, by all accounts, will reach a successful conclusion in the very near future. By implication, the message that will be sent by the demonstrators to the Darfur rebels is: Don't Make Peace. The US supports you. These are the same misdirected, naive tactics that delayed a peace deal in Sudan for more than eight years. Yet we are certain that delaying peace is not the reason why so many of you are motivated to participate in this rally.

There is a human tragedy today in Darfur that will be most effectively and quickly addressed through peace negotiations, not rhetoric. Peace will not be achieved by sending the wrong message at just the wrong time to the perpetrators of that tragedy, the Darfur rebels, who demonstrated their goals and methods through violent attacks in Southern Darfur earlier this week."

[Note, I doubt the message will be understood by many people. From what I can gather, most Americans speaking out about Darfur appear to view Khartoum regime as the bad guys. As a human rights advocate, my view is any party using violence to get their own way are bad guys - talks are the only way to settle disputes]

Washington foments division - Propaganda for NATO intervention

Snippets from an opinion piece at Workers World by G. Dunkel Apr 27, 2006 "Oil is behind struggle in Darfur":

The US government, among others, is trying to exacerbate these differences by defining this conflict as between "Arab vs. black." Washington has accused Sudan of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing." However, Paul Moorcraft, a British expert on Sudan, points out, "Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous African Muslims - just like Darfur's non-Arabs."

The New York Times, whose right-wing columnist Nicholas D Kristof just won a Pulitzer prize for demanding US intervention in Darfur, supplies the liberal cover for imperialist troop deployment.

Two Zionist groups, the American Jewish World Service and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, have taken a very active role in building a national rally set for April 30 whose main demand is direct US intervention in Darfur to "stop the genocide." The AJWS is pushing to replace the African Union soldiers in Darfur with 20,000 UN or NATO troops.

The US want to get President Deby out and a new president in who relies on it, not France.

[See Mar 23, 2006 DARFUR: Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state - How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan (Dr Paul Moorcraft)]
- - -

Feb 28 2006 UN envoy Jan Pronk cites Al-Qaeda threats to his own life and non-African UN troops deployed to Sudan's Darfur
- - -

Save Darfur Coalition - Rally To Stop Genocide April 30, 2006

Many thousands of people are expected to attend rallies being held on Sunday across America. See details at Save Darfur.org.

Hollywood actor George Clooney will speak at the Save Darfur Rally to Stop Genocide in Washington, D.C. A video of his recent trip to southern Sudan and eastern Chad is available at: www.thenewsmarket.com/clooneyinsudan

DARFUR: Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state - How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire in Sudan (Dr Paul Moorcraft)

People who cry out for military intervention (an act of war) in Darfur ought to take a few minutes to read a most insightful opinion piece by veteran war correspondent Dr Paul Moorcraft, a Brit who has worked in thirty war zones over twenty years and visits Sudan and Darfur regularly.

In my view, Dr Moorcraft's op-ed provides an excellent easy to read summary of Sudan's complex situation and rightly concludes Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state and that, quote:

"More important is the recognition that there is no military solution in Darfur. Neither side can win the war, nor can the AU (nor UN) impose peace where there is none. It will take nine months to a year for the AU to be beefed up. Use this precious time to enforce the peace process, not least in the Nigerian capital, Abuja."

Paul Moorcraft, formerly in the UK's Ministry of Defence, is now director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis, London. The op-ed entitled How to avoid another Iraqi quagmire, published at icWales 23 March 2006, is copied here below, in full, for future reference.

Last weekend the African Union delayed its decision to hand over its peacekeeping role in Darfur to the UN. The repercussions, for Africa and the West, could be significant, writes Paul Moorcraft:



GEORGE BUSH set the cat among the pigeons during an un-scripted question- and-answer session in Tampa, Florida, last month.

He said he wanted an expanded international role in Sudan's Darfur battleground, suggesting a "Nato stewardship". This statement caught many policy-makers off-guard, although there is a growing bi-partisan movement in the US Congress for a greater effort in the region, where hundreds of thousands have been displaced or killed.

At first glance there is much to be said for an augmented Nato role. Already the alliance and the European Union are assisting with logistics, especially American air transport, for the 7,000 peacekeepers of the African Union (AU) operating in Darfur. The US air force has transported tons of supplies and thousands of African troops, and provided some but not all of the promised $190m for training and building camps for peacekeepers. The idea is for the west to provide a stop-gap until a large UN force - perhaps 20,000 troops - can replace the AU. A more robust and better-led force could do much to prevent the tribal fighting.

This sounds good. The problem is: it won't work. Putting white, western, Christian troops on the ground in Darfur is the only thing which would unite all the warring tribes - but in a holy war against outsiders. Defence officials in London and Brussels caution Washington by invoking the debacle in Somalia in 1993. And, in the last few days, the Bush administration has been backpedaling.

Darfur has been consumed by a brutal conflict, but it is not genocide. Khartoum is accused of sending in Arab militiamen - the so-called Janjaweed - to wipe out African tribespeople. The complex origins are tribal and political, but not racial. Intermarriage makes it usually impossible to physically differentiate "African" from "Arab" among the 35 tribes and ethnic groups. Darfur's Arabs are black, indigenous African Muslims - just like Darfur's non-Arabs.

Darfur's conflict is founded on historical banditry and the struggle for grazing lands and water. It is also about national politics - Islamic extremists in Khartoum, disciples of the disgraced spiritual leader, Hassan al-Turabi, have stirred the pot in Darfur. Turabi has backed one rebel Darfur group with the express purpose of destabilising the new government of national unity in Khartoum. Western intervention would play into the hands of Turabi's Jihadists. The tribal politics of next-door Chad have also intervened.

In 2003, when the renewed fighting began in Darfur, military intelligence in Khartoum - believers in a military solution - acted aggressively to crush the rebels who claimed that their region had been marginalised.

There is already a framework for peace. Sudan, Africa's largest state, ended the continent's longest war in 2004 - the 50-year on-off struggle between the Islamic government in Khartoum and the largely Christian/animist south. Washington - aided by London and Oslo - banged heads together during the complex haggling in Kenya. The west invested much time, patience and political energy in securing the peace deal, which will lead to more than 10,000 UN troops being positioned in the south.

Both sides in Darfur have committed terrible atrocities, and disrupted one of the world's largest humanitarian aid programmes. Rightly, the overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan has not blinded the US and London to the killing grounds in the three Darfur states, an area bigger than France.

Khartoum violently opposes UN military intervention (though it accepts the 13,000-strong UN- led humanitarian workforce). The new government of national unity - involving former warring parties from north and south - has said it might quit the AU, if that body decides to hand over to the UN. The government in Khartoum is under great pressure already; many within the former ruling Islamic junta argue that too much has been given away.

The new government in Khartoum could implode, not just along north-south lines, but also because of bitter divisions among Islamic hardliners. All the years of international negotiations would have been in vain. Sudan has all the potential ingredients to be a failed state.

UN troops have been accepted in the largely non-Muslim south; they would be treated very differently in the fervently Islamic west. At the beginning of March nearly one million militant Sudanese in the north personally pledged to fight a Jihad if western troops intervened.

This is not a call for inaction. More people are being killed in African wars than in all the rest of the world. But the number of UN troops has nearly quintupled since 1999, from 12,700 to over 60,000 (and a lot more if you add police and UN civilians). The system is under acute strain.

African Union credibility is at stake. It should not be seen to fail in its first real attempt at international peacekeeping. On March 10, the AU decided to extend its Darfur peace mission until September at the earliest, before a possible handover to the UN. And, yes, the AU force should increase its size.

More important is the recognition that there is no military solution in Darfur. Neither side can win the war, nor can the AU (nor UN) impose peace where there is none. It will take nine months to a year for the AU to be beefed up. Use this precious time to enforce the peace process, not least in the Nigerian capital, Abuja. Despite some useful US assistance there, the peace talks and ceasefires in Darfur have been relatively ineffective. What is required is the same international effort put into Sudan's north-south peace agreement signed in Kenya in January 2005.

The independent Sultanate of Darfur was conquered by the British 90 years ago. It is surely time for London and Washington, who played a highly credible political role in ending Sudan's north-south war, to do the same in the west.

Further reading:

Feb 2005 (Paul Moorcraft Abstract) Sudan: End of the Longest War? - The Royal United Studies Institute Journal.