a guy named Omar

first of all, let me acknowledge the economist for the pictures. ahh they might not care that a snobby college student is copy pasting their pictures and writing a n00b article on Sudan..

but oh well..

so there's this guy named Omar, he's currently the dictating leader of Sudan. Heard of Sudan? No? Well not much happened there, like only genocide!

Sudan has always been a multi racial nation, consisting of tribal africans and nomadic arabians, at that time. Friction started as early as when the nomadic arabs moved all the time throughout the whole year in search of water supplies (you can see why this is a problem in Africa :D). Sometimes these people, the Arabs, don't really care who's land they're trodding, so aggression sometimes is resolute to happen.

This social construction was preserved up until the level of governmency. The Sudanese government is an entity powered by the Arabian people. Especially Omar, since he was a dictator and all, that led him to believe that he was able to push people around. The friction between rebel groups to the Darfur administration led to many deaths systematically. This is why Sudan crisis is classified as tragedies of humanity.

Has the security council try to alleviate problems? Oh yes they have had special plennary council meetings to debate about economical sanction. Oh oh but a veto happened. From who? The United States??? Now let's not be prejudice people, it's not all the time they stir problems, as much of an angry state with evergreen thirst for world dominance, it wasnt them. So who? Chinaaaaaaaa!!

China? yes. Hu? Yes,sir. What, Yasser? I thought he was a Palestinian!

Anyhoo, China vetoed the resolution to sanction Sudan through embargos since they have oil investments in parts of the Sudanese territory. Actually most of their oil refineries are located in the neighbouring Chad, but I suppose some of their pipelines go through Sudan. So an economic embargo would also mean loss of Dollars for China. So there goes "UNSC to the rescue!!!" down the loo..

Now you know what it means by a "politicized right" in the security council :)

So, what next? Early 2009, the toothless tiger; ICC suddenly decided not to just dawdle and played with the magna charta for toilet wipes and stood up to take iniciatives. They imposed an allegation to someone!!!

Okay, so that you know. ICC have never allegated someone just for the sake of it. Milosevic in his Former Yugoslavian Tribunal was under the pressures of NATO countries. The Arusha Tribunals probably had been orchestrated by Belgium to prosecute the Rwandan dictators. Even with Pinochet, as weird as that proceeding was, it was the Spanish Supreme Court that released the Arrest Warrant for the aging General as he was having his medical checkups in London.

So, this became a controversy. What next? In international law enforcement, you cant just go barging into other states and nick their dictator. Usually there's this small obstacle called sovereignity. This small thing is what hinders the world from having a supernational body and legal system. Now, states who have agreed to surrender their sovereignity to the International Criminal Court (ICC) must sign the Roma Statute, which came into activation in the mid of 1998 after 50 states ratfied its initial protocols. But some countries chose not to sign this, among them United States, Indonesia, etc. Sudan included.

So the train of thought goes like this; is the values of humanity paramount? if there were any other value higher than human rights itself, what are they? but if human rights shall be the sole goal of a state, what can happen to a state that has violated the very thing that they should aim to protect in the first place. Let alone protecting, what happens when a state IS the perpetrator of crimes against humanity?

Would you think ICC have rights to undermine Darfur to apprehend Omar? Or shall Omar have the last dance hiding behind Head of State Immunity act?

This issue is something to monitor. Why? If this allegation is passed, ICC will then have the power to bring George W. Bush down into trials to demand his accountability for Iraq (including Abu Ghraib etc).. so, interesting, eh?