Third World countries as colonies again?

The request made by the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague last week to have a warrant issued for the arrest of Sudan's President, Omar al Bashir  on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity indicates a trend in the so-called international community to have heads of state of Third World countries whom they accuse of violating the fundamental rights of the people,  brought to 'justice' ignoring the long accepted right of the sovereignty of nations.

Sudan is a large African country rich in mineral resources though underdeveloped, and there have been for sometime, large scale clashes of sectarian violence in Darfur, in its southern regions. The Sudanese government has been unable to bring the violence under control and is being accused by Western governments and human rights organisations of promoting such violence.

President Omar al Bashir has been accused of 'master minding and promoting' a plan to destroy three main ethnic groups in Darfur: Fur, Masalit and the Zaghawa.

Order or chaos?

There are many such hot spots in the Third World where tribal, religious and communal conflicts are raging and the leaders of these countries have been unable to bring them under control. If a section of the 'international community' - not the United Nations - decides to take the law into their hands and dispense justice, a new world order will indeed be in the making. But whether such altruistic moves will result in resolving the disputes or bringing about global chaos is to be seen.

Prima facie, foreign interference may be justified if the people or communities are brutally suppressed by their rulers and gross violations of human rights are taking place. Today we have the doctrine of Right to Protect - (R2P) or in reality 'Right to Intervene' preached by some world leaders. Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair was one of the pioneers of this doctrine of the right of intervention: The right to intervention is justifiable when governments are unable to protect their people against violence.

But with such gross violation of human rights in so many countries, interference by these knights in shinning armour - not the United Nations - would lead to widespread violence breaking out around the world and going totally out of control.

Iraq and Afghanistan

No better example can be cited today than Iraq. President George Bush and his neo-conservatives decided to invade Iraq not only to seize "Weapons of Mass Destruction" of Saddam Hussein but also to "free the people from the cruel dictatorship of Saddam and make Iraq a model of democracy in the Middle East." Six years later there could be no place more chaotic and undergoing terrible privation than that country. And there is no end in sight.

Afghanistan was invaded seven years ago to capture Osama bin Laden. But bin Laden is obviously elsewhere and Americans with their NATO allies are dying in increasing numbers in addition to thousands of Afghan nationals while the Taliban whom they wanted to destroy are destroying the invaders.

History has many example of colonialists and neo-colonialists interfering in the affairs of poor nations ostensibly under the guise of civilising  'natives' but retreating - even after centuries - with the tail between their legs. In contemporary history, Vietnam is a good example. But colonialists of all kinds do not want to learn from history for they will have to give up their business of interference conducted under the cover of altruistic motives.

 Scaring al Bashir

In Darfur what is probably being contemplated is not even the arrest of President al Bashir. Legally, the ICC under its charter, has no powers of arresting him because Sudan is not a member of the ICC. What is being attempted is to scare him into giving in to Western demands. True, clashes between government troops and rebels in Darfur are taking a terrible toll of human life. But the answer is not to try the President before an international tribunal but to ensure peace first before justice.

The President of the African Union and President of Tanzania, Jakaya Kikwete warned last week that any attempt to arrest Al Bashir at this point of time will be counter-productive to the peace efforts and affect the Comprehensive Peace Agreement for South Sudan. The Arab League, Egypt, China and Russia have all warned against the issue of a warrant of arrest pursued relentlessly by ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo. But the United States and its allies - Britain and France want it carried out.

Is al Bashir the only person who can be accused of violation of human rights? What of Ariel Sharon who was described as 'The Butcher of Lebanon' and even George Bush and Tony Blair for invading Iraq without UN approval and causing misery to millions of Iraqis?

Other targets

Al Bashir is the latest sitting duck for Western 'humanitarians.' A few months ago we had hysteria and scorn directed at China for cracking down on Tibetan activists and several attempts made to scuttle the Olympics and stop Western leaders from attending the opening ceremony. A sudden outburst of sympathy was shown for Tibetan Buddhist monks similar to what was shown to Burmese Buddhist monks when they came out to protest against the Burmese military junta.

Robert Mugabe is still weathering the Western onslaught. Those like the leaders of the Burmese military junta, Mugabe and al Bashir have caused immense suffering to their people and have to be called in to account for their alleged crimes but should this be done by a select band of white Caucasian nations and not the UN?

If China and Russia use their veto in the Security Council it is because they know well that these altruistic motives are not inspired by humanitarian causes but commercial interests.

 Commercial interests

In Darfur it is oil where China has made headway and become the largest exporter of Sudan's oil. Where there is oil, Western interests find the need for 'humanitarian assistance' such as in Iraq. In Afghanistan it is transmission oil and gas pipelines while in Burma it is once again unexploited oil reserves. With Mugabe it is the land owned by former British settlers - 70 per cent of the land at one time being held by one per cent of the white settler population.

'Independent' media