What Do You Think About the Arrest Warrant for Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir?
Yesterday, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, making him the first sitting head of state to be wanted for arrest by the court, which has charged him with committing war crimes. Amid the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan, the AP reports that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called the arrest warrant "a serious setback to lifesaving operations in Darfur." The AP reports further that many "African and Arab nations fear the warrant will destabilize the whole region, bring even more conflict in Darfur, and threaten the fragile peace deal that ended decades of civil war between northern and southern Sudan." What do you think about the arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir? Could the International Criminal Court's actions jeopardize international aid agreements or the U.N.'s peacekeeping presence in Darfur? Post your thoughts.
Previously: Signed, Sealed, Delivered?
Reader Comments
fuels store down
end summary digital economy chemical america technology
genocide or civil war
The Sudanese people see this as a civil war not genocide, and the western countries are claiming that this is just attack towards Black African civilians. The question is “how can this be real when the two sides are Muslims and have the same color”? It is logical if all the war leaders get couth, because arresting one person will not solve the problem. Just like when Iraq was issued that they had weapons of mass distractions, and today it is worse than the way it used a decade ago.
In order to end the fighting and the abuse of human rights it would be a good idea if the UN send a troop that is from around the world just like the one they did in Somalia 1993; however, it is good to avoid the mistake that happen in Somalia that day. The action is not about to colonize Sudan, but to solve for the good of everyone. It is useless to arrest Omar al-Bashiir for what the international court called “with five counts of crimes against humanity.”
How far?
This could easily bring attention my way from undesirables, but i feel compelled to comment:
I wonder: Do we allow our multi-national corporations to raid other nations for their natural resources under the guise of "assassinations," "indictments"(as in this case,) and "coups?" a la Halliburton (Iraq) or Chevron (Bolivia) or United Fruit (Guatemala)
I realize this relatively new activity of covert colonialism ultimately benefits the U.S. more often than not, in the short-term. Philosophically however, if scruples can be suspended in the name of for-profit dominance in this case (ignoring historical sovereignty & quality of life), what's to say scruples can't be suspended for the same reason when environmental sustainability is in question? Or in instances of our OWN sovereignty as Americans? At what point do scruples exceed the priority of profit & dominance? Do morals have a place in the dialogue of exploitation or does the end always justify the means?
advertisement
