On April 3, 2009 – The International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted and issued arrest warrant for Sudan’s current president Oamar al-Bashir for the cooked-up crime list provided to ICC Prosector, Luis Moreno-Ocampo by the American Jewish Lobby and the pressure exerted by the US State Department – while the majority of judges found the proofs of genocide by Sudanese government to be unconvincing. Calling the arrest warrant as “a political charade to isolate Sudan from world community” – Omar al-Bashir has not stopped his official visits to foreign countries including some of USrael friendly regimes such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.
Interestingly, the US and Israel for which these group are pushing for the prosecution of members of the Islamist government in Khartoum – are not party to ICC’s Rome Statute (July 1998). The notable countries which still refuse to sign Rome Statute are the US, Israel, Russia, China, Iraq, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Czech Republic.
On April 17, 2007 – ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo was able to get arrest warrants for Sudanese minister Ahmad Harun and Ali Khushayb accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur under UN Security Council Resolution 1593 – sponsored by Britain – extending ICC jurisdiction over Sudan but not over the US, Israel, Russia or China. Incidently, none of the two has been arrested so far.
Practically, ICC is not an independent judical body. It was created, like the United Nations, to look after the interests of the five UNSC Veto-power regimes and their willing-partners – as is case with the US, which has used more veto (38) to protect the interests of the Zionazi state than its own national interests. There are 110 States Party to ICC – but the leaders of the five veto-power countries are immune to prosection by the ICC. In addition any state can reject ICC jurisdiction if it chooses so as the US and Israel have done. But, interestingly, its jurisdiction can be extended to any country on the behest of the UNSC’s five permanent members as was done in the case of Sudan.
On July 12, 2002 – the US got Resolution 1422 passed – giving immunity to American nationals working as UN peacekeepers from ICC prosecution for their crimes against other nations no matter how barbaric they maybe. The US government is known to force agreement upon States, which are parties to the Statute under which these states are committed not to surrender American criminals to the ICC. So far, over 100 foreign states has been bribed or blackmailed by Washington to follow this.
In 2005, the UNSC passed Resolution 1593, which approved by 11 members of the UNSC while four members (Algeria, China, the US, Brazil) abstained. Elfatih Mohamed Ahmed Erwa, the Sudanese representative commented on the UNSC ‘fatwa’: “the Council had persisted in adopting unwise decisions against his country, which only served to further complicate the situation on the ground. The positions over the ICC were well known. The Darfur question had been exploited in light of those positions. It was a paradox that the language in which the resolution was negotiated was the same language that had buffeted the Council before on another African question. The resolution adopted was full of exemptions. He reminded the Council that the Sudan was also not party to the ICC, making implementation of the resolution fraught with procedural impediments. As long as the Council believed that the scales of justice were based on exceptions and exploitation of crises in developing countries and bargaining among major Powers, it did not settle the question of accountability in Darfur, but exposed the fact that the ICC was intended for developing and weak countries and was a tool to exercise cultural superiority.”
As if to prove that like the US and EU – ICC is also a ZOG entity – Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s comment on Palestinian Human Right organizations’ submission to ICC to investigate Zionazi state’s genocide of Gaza residents during its 22-day invasion (Dec-Jan 2009): “In Gaza at present, the ICC lacks such jurisdiction. The ICC can investigate Israel’s war crimes only if Tel Aviv voluntarily accepted the court’s jurisdiction, or if it is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council.”