According to an Jan. 30 IPS article, the African Union is currently standing behind Bashir saying that charging him would result in a disruption of the peace process currently happening in the region. Many claim that this reasoning is without merit, citing his blatant attacks on certain ethnic groups and his reluctance to allow peacekeepers and aid into the war-torn region. ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo "concluded there are reasonable grounds to believe Bashir bears criminal responsibility in relation to 10 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," according to IPS. In short, it appears Bashir has not made the peace process easier by any means.
Perhaps history can better help us understand the situation. Looking back at other trials that have occurred to prosecute the guilty after previous genocides such as those in Iraq, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, again the issue is divided. Some say that they are a necessary part of the healing process, while others say they cause more rifts than they heal. This article provides a look at arguments both for and against international war crimes tribunals, while an NPR story provides a look through the eyes of two International Criminal Court experts.
While the final decision has not been made to prosecute Bashir, it is difficult to really understand the issue due to a lack of information about what acts were committed in Darfur and by whom. With journalists having problems entering the region since the conflict began, it has been difficult to provide a faithful and accurate telling of events. But to whomever was involved, accountability needs to be given, and that is not a question up for discussion.
New update: now a call for President Bush to face charges for crime against humanity for his so-called "War on Terror."
No comments:
Post a Comment