Darfur loses in AU bid for independence

In the backrooms of the African Union conference, held in Libya on Friday 3rd July, member states voted against the ICC indictment of President Bashir, including 30 countries that have a legal obligation to the Court. They voiced legitimate concerns; however the blunt decision to denounce the Court’s ruling is a step back for the beleaguered population of Darfur. The decision for the indictment of Bashir was controversial. Several African states denounced the ruling as causing more harm than it could solve. The foremost issue was its potential to destabilise the CPI resolution with the Southern Sudanese government, an agreement ending 20 years of conflict. This was shown in the moderate reaction of the SPLM to the ICC ruling.These concerns were echoed in the peace negotiations in Darfur. For the Overseas Development Institute - based in London – it ‘will make it harder to negotiate an end to the crisis in Darfur’, given the peace negotiations in the Doha agreements. The concern is that Bashir could use the indictment as a pretext for emergency rule, endangering current government concessions. Equally, the court decision could empower resurgent Darfurian rebels, helping to prolong the pre-text for genocide. These are convincing arguments and it is in this context that the African states requested a deferral of the indictment. These demands do not however conflict with the general condemnation of Bashir, shown by comments from the Rwandan PM Makuza, stating ‘we do not accept impunity’.However the decision is perceived as acceptance of Bashir’s government. This has lead Human Rights Watch to label it a result of ‘bullying by Gaddafi’. The rejection of the indictment from its outset was honest and well-informed however the decision on Friday will prevent action, a fatal blow for the struggling in Darfur. A consequence of the AU decision has been to lend strong credence to the government’s blame on the ‘neo-imperialists’ for the crisis. This prompted the Sudanese Secretary of State to assert that ‘most of our problems are coming from post-colonial countries’, reducing potential domestic impact of the indictment. Resolution will only come from sustained pressure on the economic and political legitimacy of the regime. Without pressure, Khartoum will only pay lip-service to the prospects of peace, as shown in the Doha talks, in which government violence in the region disrupted negotiations. The bold affront to the ICC has caused Amnesty International to state it ‘undermines the credibility of the states’. The rejection was not a result of policy but a political statement, given the reputation of the ICC as a ‘western serving’ organisation, particularly given its failure to make any investigation into the Iraq war. The refusal of the court to act upon African demands has resulted in states acting upon their frustration. However if the AU were serious in their determination to end the ensuing crisis in Darfur, they would have voted not for a rejection but a complimentary and autonomous position of the fledgling AU Peace and Security department. They would work to assert a more effective policy, issuing incentives for Bashir to end the killing, an approach that the court is currently unwilling to concede. The African Union was certainly divided over the issue, Botswana stated it represented ‘a sulk’ and they were joined by Ghana, Benin and Chad. The hope for the people of Darfur is that the African Union will take the initiative and making the right decisions; an assertion of AU autonomy without crippling the ICC would lead to a resolution to the crisis for the people of Darfur. philiprushworth89@hotmail.com ENDS