On July 14, 2008, Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, was formally indicted by the International Crimes Court (ICC) on three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of murder.  The ICC stated that prosecutors demonstrated evidence that al-Bashir has carried out a planned genocide in Sudan [1].
The fact that this will be the ICC’s first case of genocide since it’s establishment in 2002, and that al-Bashir is still a sitting president make this case particularly interesting in the history of international relations. This is also the strongest international reaction to the events in Darfur since the violence began in 2003. Since then, the genocide has claimed an estimated 300,000 lives and displaced around 2.5 million people [2].

South Africa’s president Thabo Mbeki has also publically rejected the bid for indictment.  On September 15th, after overseeing the signing of power-sharing agreements in Zimbabwe, Mbeki met with President al-Bashir and issued a joint communiqué stating that the indictment “could seriously undermine the ongoing efforts aimed at facilitating the early resolution of the conflict in Darfur and the promotion of long-lasting peace and reconciliation in Sudan as a whole [4].”

China, a notorious supporter of the al-Bashir government, has also voiced reported concern over the allegation, claiming to believe also that the indictment could “damage the peace process.”  China has refrained from voting on most UN proposals that would take a hard-line against the violence in Sudan [5].

The government of Sudan also appealed to Rwanda for support, arguing that unlike the genocide in Rwanda (a state with three different major ethnic groups), Sudan is a country with 33 different major ethnic groups, some of which are backed by rich or powerful states, and that the government is simply trying to untangle this web of violence [6].  Rwanda is standing against the ICC indictment, claiming the reason to be that the ICC is inherently flawed as an organization and should not be have jurisdiction over states.  The Rwandan president and nine of his top officials have previously been indicted by the ICC for involvement in the assassination of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana [7].

Louis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor for Darfur, does not believe that the indictment will be the reason for continued violence in the area.  He is avidly pushing for stronger international action, arguing that the violence is already on-going.  Last week Moreno-Ocampo visited the UN Security Council, summarizing his actions within the ICC leading to the proposed indictment of al-Bashir.  He also urged the Council to prepare for a ruling as ICC judges are likely to make a decision concerning whether or not to proceed with the indictment soon [10].

Meanwhile, in Sudan, the president refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the ICC. Although Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute, which would make it a member of the ICC, the court has referred to provisions in the Statute that allow it to deal with non-party countries that are decided to be a threat to international peace and security [11].
Sudan’s government has previously refused to turn over other citizens for trial on separate counts of indictment.  One of those accused is a government minister who not only remains in the Sudanese government, but is also in charge of humanitarian aid to Darfur.  A representative of the Sudanese government has been quoted as saying, “We don’t recognize whatever comes out of the ICC, to us it is non-existent [12].”

The IIJD strongly supports the indictment of President al-Bashir, and commends Louis Moreno-Ocampo for his dedication to international justice.  There is no excuse for the lax international reaction thus far to the crisis in Sudan, and it is important that the international community take a stand against the violence that is still going on there.  Governments must be held accountable for any infringements on the livelihood of their citizens and the ICC was established to enforce this.  The suggestion that the indictment will further violence in the region is not acceptable – the violence has continued for far too long already and something serious must be done in order to end it immediately.

The African Union reaction to the indictment is troubling, and slightly reminiscent of the organization’s passiveness in the wake of Mugabe’s performance in Zimbabwe.  The organization should be encouraged to take a stronger stance in the region in order to address the blatant violation of human rights.  International organizations such as the African Union are critical to international cooperation, and the AU should be working with the ICC to ensure that the tragedy in Sudan is dealt with immediately and effectively.  Protecting the indicted government is not going to be effective in ending the violence, and the AU needs to step up as a promoter of peace in the region - even if this means taking a hard-line against some African governments.