The Debacles of the ICC

It is unquestionably that the issuance of the warrant arrest

against the Sudanese president Omar Al-Bashir on March 4th, 2009
triggered heated controversy and divided the world into partisans
and opponents of the court decision .Equally important, the warrant
arrest has brought the court's credibility and impartiality to the fore.
Four years after the Room Statute and the adoption of a treaty
to establish a permanent court, the ICC found its way to existence
and entered into force in July 2009. Pursuant to its establishment in
2002, the court proclaimed that all perpetrators and criminal found
guilty, irrespective of their nationality, status or political inclination,
should be brought to justice to be held accountable for their
violations of international law. In this respect, Kofi Annan,the ex-
Secretary General of the UN said: "Our hope is that, by punishing
the guilty, the ICC will bring some comfort to the surviving victims
and to the communities that have been targeted. More important,
we hope it will deter future war criminals, and bring nearer the day
when no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere will be able
to abuse human rights with impunity."
We applauded its establishment and eventually aspired that
peace, due justice, rule of law and respect for the fundamental
human rights would spread in the world. Nevertheless, our
aspirations quickly went to ashes and we felt that we were building
castles in the sand .Briefly stated, Bush together with his henchmen,
Colin Powell,Gondoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfield , orchestrated
the most deplorable and unprecedented crimes in Iraq. They waged
a barbarian war against a peaceful country in the name of bringing
democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. The result on the
ground is a fake democracy soaked in the blood of innocent people.
As such, the long-waited-for freedom, democracy, stability and
peace have become no more than a wishful-thinking for Iraqis.
The 29-day war waged on Lebanon by Israel in 2006 was
another flagrant infringement of all international law conventions.
The some scenario took place lately .The same aggressors but
against different victim and in a different battlefield. Israel waged a
merciless 22-day war, against defenseless and unarmed people,
using the most destructive and sophisticated weapons in hope to
inflict the maximum sufferance on people. In fact, it is needless to
restate the resounding destruction and indelible wounds that this
war left behind.
Albeit, it is with much regret to say that none of the
perpetrators of the above stated crimes was held accountable. As
very often, they went unpunished and rewarded impunity.
a. A late awakening

1
 After its long hibernation and its blind-eye attitude towards
the aforesaid grave crimes, the ICC, in show of bravado, issued a
warrant arrest for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on seven counts of
war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in massive
atrocities in Darfur. The court's decision and the speed by which it
relayed the arrest raises many questions and puts the court's
credibility at test. According to international law, aren't the crimes
stated above war crimes par excellence. Richard Dicker, director of
Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program, claims that:
"the International Criminal court is Pro-victim, not Anti – or Anti-Arab
African. The pursuit of justice for serious international crimes
wherever they are committed is vital". Such declarations may seem
promising if they truly reflect the reality. Nowadays, many powerful
non-African perpetrators systematically go unpunished for their
crimes.
The court's decision may hold some credibility if indeed there
is no double-standard approach to justice. How can we trust a
court's decision while the same court applies a deaf –ear and blind –
eye attitudes towards other cases where justice is highly needed?
At Doha's Summit, Omar Al-Bashir was warmly welcomed by
most Arab leaders. Such welcome then can be seen as a refusal of
the court's decision on the part of the Arab leaders' although such
rejection was not really substantiated by clear unanimous
declaration. The final communiqué of the Arab Summit made no
reference to this refusal or to the overall on-going procedures of the
court. The presence of Ban kimon, Secretary General of the UN, in a
summit where there is someone who is wanted by the international
community even further voids the seriousness of the UN vis-a vis
this case. In the same vein, Obama's envoy of Scot Gration in hope
to establish partnership and build stronger bilateral relationship with
Sudan is another sign that the USA is not genuinely convinced by
the court's decision. Otherwise how can a country such as USA look
for partnership with someone who is allegedly wanted by the
International Court?
Against this backdrop, we may unhesitatingly conclude that
the court has precipitated in taking such decision. A reappraisal in
its approach is urgently needed at least for face saving. The court
also needs to adhere to its core principle of non-discrimination and
impartiality in addressing legal allegations. The Arab countries need
to ratify the convention establishing the ICC. In doing so, the Arab's
opinion or stand in such international legal matter can bear weight
and hence yield influence.

Rachid Elalaoui
Jeddah ,Saudi Arabia
mailrachid27@yahoo.com
M.A in Human Right and Democratization
Gent University, Belgium

2
3