|
|
Raila Odinga is right
E. Ablorh-Odjidja
Bravo. Prime Minister Raila Odinga of Kenya must be commended
for voicing the obvious. He is reported by AFP to have told his
people in Kenya the following:
"It was wrong to invite President Bashir because he was indicted
on crimes against humanity -- as much as we want to foster good
neighbourliness with countries in the region…" Mr. Odinga said.
His remark, coming after days of weak official excuses to cover
the wrongful invitation of the President of Sudan to the
promulgation of the new constitution by the Kenya government, is
refreshing.
At least, the spirit of the new constitution of Kenya has been
set right and the minds of discerning Africans will be put at
ease by Mr. Odinga’s admission.
Obviously, except to the most obstinate, Kenya’s invitation for
Bashir to attend the ceremony clearly breached the statutes of
the International Criminal Court (ICC) of which Kenya, in spite
of her official protestations, is a signatory.
Bashir, the president of Sudan, is the first sitting head of
state the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for, and he deserves
to be hauled to the ICC for the charges “of crimes against
humanity and genocide committed in Sudan's Darfur region.”
According to Human Rights Watch “the Sudanese leadership,
including al-Bashir, is responsible for creating and
coordinating the government's counterinsurgency policy in
Darfur, which deliberately and systematically targeted civilians
in violation of international law.”
Over 400,000 Darfurians have lost their lives. Bashir needs to
answer or explain some of these policies and acts.
Omar al-Bashir, a former brigadier in the Sudanese army, came to
power in 1989 when he ousted the government of Prime Minister
Sadiq al-Mahdi in a military coup. He is twenty one years in
power and still counting.
The Kenyan Foreign Minister, Moses Wetangula, before Mr.
Odinga’s wholesome admission, has not been particular impressed
by the ICC demands against Bashir, and, least of all, the order
for his arrest and handing over to the ICC.
“We invited all neighbors and he is a neighbor," Wetangula
brusquely responded to press’ question on why Bashir was
invited.
And to crown the silliness of his response, he intoned that the
invitation was also done in the interest of peace. What peace,
one would ask: The one wished for by the ICC, or the one
supervised by Bashir in Sudan for all these years, or the one
the AU has been unable to enforce in the Darfur region?
Sudan has not known peace for a good part of Bashir’s rule. The
invitation and the failure to arrest Bashir will not bring peace
to Sudan or the region. It will only assure that leaders like
Barshir remain untouchable.
Kenya is not acting alone in this manner. In July of this year,
Chad also a signatory to the ICC, refused to arrest Bashir while
on a visit there. In both instances, each had the backings of
the African Union, a union which should be highly interested in
the safety of the people of the Darfur region; where genocide
against Sudanese of African origin, as opposed to Arabic, is
still raging.
Instead, this union has elected to serve the individual
interests of member heads of state with this illogical stance.
Apparent to all discerning Africans, the AU is protecting Bashir
and all individual heads of state by stopping what seems to be
an attack on their leaderships’ bastions of power, privilege and
misrule. The AU does not want the unsavory precedence of having
a member head of state, while in office, hauled away to answer
to charges at the ICC.
Expect the Mugabes, the Gaddafies, the Bashirs and many leaders
of similar tendencies to spearhead the effort to resist the ICC.
A minority group of African countries has already called on
African ICC members to withdraw their membership under the
pretext that “the court targets Africa.”
Naturally, as we say, the man who has no cloth to cover his bare
chest prefers the dance of the bare-chested. Likewise, a leader
that wants no cover of justice for his people would seek the
removal of the one the world body offers.
Thirty-one African countries have “ratified or acceded to” the
Statutes of the ICC; as of August, 2010. Absent in the signatory
column are: Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe and others. The absentee list
is self-explanatory.
Yet some members of the AU, who are signatories, like Kenya and
Chad, ignored the warrant to arrest Bashir. Why be a signatory
when you are unwilling to enforce the consequences?
And, just going along with the gang of bad governors in Africa,
it must be said, has not and will not help the continent.
Of the 50 something current heads of state in Africa, and
hundreds of past dictators and murderers, only one former head
of state has been arrested by the ICC. Bashir ought to be next,
followed by many more human rights abusers; current or past.
For the argument that the ICC has so far targeted mostly African
leaders, we can only respond by asking what continent abuses her
citizens on the same scale as we do. Where else can Rwanda,
Darfur, Southern Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Zimbabwe or Sierra
Leone happen with such impunity?
And if not the ICC, what other body can do it for Africa? Kenya
could have avoided Bashir, but instead, chose to invite him to
show solidarity with the AU and to broadcast its disdain for the
order to arrest a sitting African leader.
E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher
www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC,
August 30, 2010
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or
reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website,
email a copy of the web page to
publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.
|
