Raila Odinga is right

E. Ablorh-Odjidja

August 30, 2010

Bravo to Prime Minister Raila Odinga of Kenya.  He must be commended for voicing his opposition to the invitation of President Bashir of Sudan to Kenya, as was reported by AP News.

"It was wrong to invite President Bashir because he was indicted on crimes against humanity -- as much as we want to foster good neighborliness with countries in the region…" Mr. Odinga said.

His remark, coming after days of weak attempts of excuses from official Kenya for the wrongful invitation of the Mr. Bashir of Sudan to witness the promulgation of the new Kenya constitution, is refreshing.

At least, the minds of discerning Africans will be put at ease by Mr. Odinga’s admission.  And, hopefully, the spirit of his statement will go a long way to steer the new constitution of his country to higher aspirations.

Kenya’s invitation for Bashir to attend the ceremony breached the statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC) of which Kenya, despite her official protestations, is a signatory.

Bashir, the president of Sudan, is the first sitting head of state the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for, and he deserves to be hauled to the ICC for the stipulated charges “of crimes against humanity and genocide committed in Sudan's Darfur region.”

According to Human Rights Watch “the Sudanese leadership, including al-Bashir, is responsible for creating and coordinating the government's counterinsurgency policy in Darfur, which deliberately and systematically targeted civilians in violation of international law.”

Over 400,000 Difurans have lost their lives. Bashir needs to answer or explain some of the policies of his acts.

Omar al-Bashir, a former brigadier in the Sudanese army, came to power in 1989 when he ousted the government of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi in a military coup.  He has been in power for 21 years and still counting.

The Kenyan Foreign Minister, Moses Wetangula, before Mr. Odinga’s healthful admission, has not been particularly impressed by the ICC demands against Bashir, and, least of all, the order for his arrest and handing over to the ICC.

“We invited all neighbors and he is a neighbor," Wetangula brusquely responded to the press’ question on why Bashir was invited.

And to crown the silliness of his response, he intoned that the invitation was also done in the interest of peace.

What peace, one would ask: The one wished for by the ICC, the one the AU has been unable to enforce in the Darfur region, or the peace supervised by Bashir in Sudan for all these years?

True, Sudan is a neighbor of Kenya and a sister country of the AU.  But the citizens of the Darfur region have not known peace for a good part of Bashir’s rule. The failure to arrest Bashir in Kenya will not bring peace to Sudan or the region. It will only assure that African leaders like Bashir remain untouchable.

Kenya is not acting alone.  In July of this year, Chad also a signatory to the ICC, refused to arrest Bashir while on a visit there.

In both instances, each had the backing of the African Union; a union which should be highly interested in the safety of the people of the Darfur region; where most are of African ethnic origin as opposed to Arabic.

While almost half a million Difurans have perished by genocide, the AU, with this illogical stance, has elected to serve the interests of individual heads of member states.

Obvious to all discerning Africans, the AU’s stance of siding with Bashir is a protection signal to AU leaders from future attacks by the ICC. The AU does not want the unsavory precedence hanging over the heads of its leaders.

Expect the Mugabes, the Ghaddafis, the Bashirs, and many leaders of similar tendencies to welcome the effort to resist the ICC.  It could serve as a warning to other similar international bodies.

A minority group of African countries has already called on African ICC members to withdraw their membership under the pretext that “the court targets Africa.”