From: Berhane Habtemariam (Berhane.Habtemariam@gmx.de)
Date: Sat Jun 06 2009 - 05:33:34 EDT
The ICC: An instrument of imperialism
by Zafar Bangash
(Friday, June 5, 2009)
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62974
_____
"Church groups, Zionists and a number of Western governments are interfering
in Sudan. Since all people in Darfur are Muslim, the anti-Muslim card cannot
be used as was so effectively done in Southern Sudan. Here, an ethnic twist
is utilized: the Darfurians are presented as "Africans" while the central
government in Khartoum is run by "Arabs". Why Arabs cannot be Africans is
not explained but the propagandists can count on the ignorance of their own
people, especially in North America. Africa is a continent and being African
is not an ethnic label: if white South Africans are considered Africans
because they reside in an African country, on what logic are northern "Arab"
Sudanese excluded from being African?"
_____
Imperialist countries have created a vast array of instruments to force the
rest of the world to follow their diktats. To such high sounding bodies as
the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank that
respectively manipulate others politically and financially, must now be
added the International Criminal Court (ICC). Established in 2002, the ICC
based in the Hague has an annual budget of $125 million. This number is
considered grossly inadequate to deal with serious issues of war crimes
committed by a long list of people strutting about the globe as world
leaders and statesmen, but the West finds special utility in the new body.
The issue, however, is neither its low budget nor even where it is located
although it could be argued that based in a European country, it leaves a
distinct impression of being an instrument of Western hegemony. When set up
in 2002 only 66 out of the world's 195 countries -- barely one-third --
ratified the Rome Statute. Seven years later, this number has inched to 108
but that is still only half the countries of the world. Why the other half
is not impressed needs to be addressed. The non-ratifiers clearly have no
faith in it for a variety of reasons ranging from reluctance to relinquish
sovereignty to seeing it as the white man's justice. Since the overwhelming
majority of countries in the world fall in the category of "non-white" and
are situated in the South -- as opposed to the European and North American
North -- this division clearly comes into play.
The issue that has greatly sharpened contradictions revolves around the
March 4 warrant issued against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on
charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity -- the first time in its
history that the ICC has charged a sitting head of state. The allegations
were leveled because of the ongoing civil war in Darfur where an estimated
200,000 have died and millions have been displaced since March 2003. Darfur
has become a political tool in the hands of anti-Muslim Western powers that
have set their sights on destabilizing Sudan with the ultimate aim of
destroying it. There are vast oil and mineral riches in Sudan that Western
corporations covet; Khartoum's real "sin" is that it signed exploration
agreements with China for which it is now being punished.
There is no question about the suffering of the people of Darfur, nor about
the ongoing war in which different tribes are killing each other but the
issue is not as simple as has been presented by the West's self-serving
propaganda. Both the timing of the uprising in Darfur, coming immediately
after the Sudanese central government signed an agreement with Southern
rebels ending a 20-year-long civil war, and the mode of operations of the
Darfurian rebels armed with heavy weapons that even the Sudanese forces did
not possess, clearly point to foreign hands. Church groups, Zionists and a
number of Western governments are interfering in Sudan. Since all people in
Darfur are Muslim, the anti-Muslim card cannot be used as was so effectively
done in Southern Sudan. Here, an ethnic twist is utilized: the Darfurians
are presented as "Africans" while the central government in Khartoum is run
by "Arabs". Why Arabs cannot be Africans is not explained but the
propagandists can count on the ignorance of their own people, especially in
North America. Africa is a continent and being African is not an ethnic
label: if white South Africans are considered Africans because they reside
in an African country, on what logic are northern "Arab" Sudanese excluded
from being African?
The Darfurian rebels launched attacks on government forces in March 2003 but
the Sudanese government did not take any action until the rebels attacked a
military base killing a Sudanese general and destroying a number of aircraft
in April 2003. No government worth its salt would tolerate such brazen
attacks nor allow rebels to challenge its authority with impunity. While the
West and its media have been crying hoarse about the killings in Darfur,
there is not even a hint that the Sudanese government has the right to
defend its territorial integrity.
One can see the contrast in demands made of the Pakistani government to go
after the Taliban and tribesmen in the mountains of Western Pakistan on the
pretext that they are challenging federal government writ. The US has even
threatened to attack directly if the Pakistan army would not do so. The US
has done just that: it has used drones to attack suspected rebel bases in
the region that has killed thousands of innocent civilians but only 14
militants, according to US media reports. Why is the US justified in
violating another country's sovereignty and forcing the government there to
attack its own people but it is forbidden for Sudan to defend its
territorial integrity and to defeat the insurgency that is trying to break
up the country?
The case against President Bashir is riddled with numerous contradictions.
It was initiated by a UN Security Council referral even though three of its
five permanent members -- Russia, China and the US -- have not signed on to
the statute. So while 60 percent of the Security Council's permanent members
do not have any faith in the ICC and do not recognize its authority, they
still believe they can give the West and the ICC the right to charge a
sitting head of State with war crimes and crimes against humanity! Further,
the ICC has thus far pursued only Africans, in the Central African Republic
and Congo as well as Sudan and Uganda. "That," said the African Union (AU)
chairman Jean Ping in February, "is a problem." He rightly asked why no
cases had emerged from conflicts in Gaza, the Caucasus, Colombia or Iraq. He
could have named names: former US President George Bush, his vice president
Dick Cheney, former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a host of
American Zionist neocons as well as the Zionist rulers of Israel: President
Shimon Peres, then prime minister Ehud Olmert, defence minister Ehud Barak,
air force chief Major General Ido Nehushtan and Chief of Staff General Gabi
Ashkenazi and many others who between them are responsible for killing
millions of innocent people have not been charged. AU chairman Ping said,
"We don't want this double standard." This is an understatement; the ICC is
nothing more than an instrument in the hands of the imperialist powers. Both
the Non-aligned Movement and the Organization of Islamic Conference have
condemned the ICC's warrant against Bashir.
Successive US governments have pursued genocidal policies that have resulted
in the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million people in Iraq due to sanctions
(1991-2003) and the subsequent war unleashed on a pack of lies in March 2003
that has so far claimed 1.3 million lives in Iraq. Thousands have been
tortured and are still being tortured in Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
Countless others have suffered horribly at Bagram and Guantanamo Bay. Cheney
has proudly admitted on television that he authorized torture. There are
memos to prove it. Bush, Rumsfeld and a long list of others are guilty of
war crimes and crimes against humanity. So why is the ICC not going after
them? After all, these people invaded two countries thousands of miles away
and are now spreading their wars into Pakistan and the Central Asian
republics as well. The ICC has merely alleged President Bashir's wrongdoing;
Bush, Cheney et al's war crimes are well documented as are those of the
Zionist rulers of Occupied Palestine.
The fact is the ICC is an instrument of Western imperial hegemony.