In an act of self-condemnation, the Arab League has denounced the genocide charges and defended Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir. Many of these 22 countries engage in rampant abuses and torture. While they expressed fears of danger to national sovereignty, there is no doubt a fair measure of concern over their own acts of abuses.
The group held an emergency council to support al-Bashir, who remains one of the most vile figures in the world. Notably, the group could not get itself to describe the charges of organized murder and rape — it merely defended al-Bashir.
For the full story, click here.
28 thoughts on “Arab League Denounces Genocide Charges Against Sudan President Omar al-Bashir”
hello mr “many of these countries engage in rampant abuses and torture”, i have a doubt in “legal theory” as you call it, the “US”, “Russia” and “china” have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICC, the US has in fact openly defiled previous judgments of the ICJ, by what stretch of imagination can the US government vis a vis the UNSC pull up charges against Bashir? Or is it more oil related?
i am not defending al bashir, or what he did, it is ironic however that people chose to comment only on under developed african nations say rwanda or chad or sudan, heard of georgia recently? or Abu gharaib detention centre? please take note that human rights violations take place in these ‘indignant at the blatant human rights abuse all over the world’ nations as well
I wonder why, when about 75% of the US media is composed of Jews and the other 24% Christians, Jews and Christians feel the need to voice their negative opinions on other religions especially Islam on sites like this too?
Isn’t CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, The New York Times, everything from Murdoch, everything from Bloomberg (all owned, run or edited by Jews) enough?
We’re not actually in total disagreement on this topic. I just don;t think allowing the ICC to intervene in the internal matters of a non-signatory nation is the prudent way to deal with Sudan. I find it generally to be bad thing to allow courts to expand their jurisdictions.
Even the US chose to let Iraq try Saddam. One could argue that it was a US-proxy court, but at least we didn’t apply foreign law to another nation’s head of state.
Michael also points out the long-term risk of international judgments quite well.
Sudan is undoubtedly a hellhole, but many of the Arab League nations also treat many of their citizens badly. It would be foolish to expect that they would condemn the Sudanese genocide. Indeed, the human rights record of nations around the world is also none to good.
The question really devolves on whether most nations are willing to relinquish some national sovereignty in order to ensure that these genocidal tragedies and human rights violations are ended. We all know that solution will not happen in our lifetimes, if ever. Until then the only solution is unilateral or joint action by interested nations.
The flaw with this is obvious when looking at Iraq, Viet Nam, or the USSR’s debacle in Afghanistan (ours too perhaps). Who gets to make the decision and what are the motivations behind it?
As to Martha H and Jonolan I would suggest that they really read up on what the USA is supposed to be about, before inviting others with whom they disagree to leave it. I love the country and I was born here. I’m not going anywhere. You two, on the other hand might be a lot more comfortable in a place like Singapore, North Korea, or the Ukraine, where you can play follow the leader (Daddy?) more easily and win praise for it.
Well said Mespo.
I have no specific thoughts on the situation in Sudan except to deplore the actions of its leadership. As a general proposition, I have no problem with signatories to a treaty complying with their treaty obligations, conversely I would not require a non-signatory to comply. That rule is circumscribed by the obvious exception that if a situation becomes out of control so as to risk a whole segment of the population to genocide, I believe it the responsibility of the international community, both morally and legally, to intervene in the most prudent way to diffuse the situation regardless of the consent of the offending nation. I make no general assertions about sovereignty of nations except to say that governments may, by their actions, waive sovereignty in the most extreme circumstances such as wars of aggression, utter lawlessness, and ethnic cleansing. When those situations occur the international community is compelled to act. Sovereignty, like most rights, is not absolute though worthy of great respect.
Thank you for responding to my and Gyges question. I do not have enough real information to comment on the ICC situation. I need to do a great deal of research to give a good response. The only thing that comes to mind is that we sign treaties and that is “giving up” complete sovereignty.
Well, you’ve attacked people – no surprise there – but have failed to share your own opinion on the ICC’s involvement in Sudan. So what is it?
Comments are closed.