A nivel Autonómico:

In July 2008, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague in the Neth- erlands had announced that the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir may be in- dicted because of genocide and crimes against humanity. It is the fi rst time that the Court would indict a president in offi ce. Th e Argentinean attorney general, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has formulated ten complaints and three judges will have to decide whether this justifi es an arrest. Th e president is considered the brains be- hind a plan to annihilate three ethnic groups on the basis of their ethnicity. Th ese groups are the Fur, the Masalit and the Zaghawa. Th e attorney general is quoted in the newspaper (NRC, 14 August, 2008) as saying: “he could not beat the rebels and hence he went behind their people”. He continues: “the motives were largely political. Th e alibi used was controlling a revolt, but his intention was genocide”.

Sudan immediately reacted that an indictment would undermine the peace process in Darfur. The Sudanese governing National Congress Party warned that an indictment could lead to more violence and bloodshed. The United Nations have reacted by withdrawing “non-essential” personnel, around 2,000 people in July 2008 (Financial Times, 16 July, 2008). Mid-February 2009, there were ru- mors that the ICC was indeed going to issue an order to arrest the Sudanese president (New York Times, 11 February, 2009). Reuter also quoted a diplomat who had said that the ICC had decided to do so, but the ICC officially denied that such a decision had been taken. A Sudan specialist, Alex de Waal, argued in Amsterdam (3 February, 2009) that it would not serve its purpose to arrest Bashir. His main argument is that the rest of the world would not have a party to negotiate with, while important issues like Darfur and the possible independ- ence of the Southern region were on the international and national policy agenda. Several African and Arab countries have protested against the decision to arrest him, pointing to the risk of even more violence in Sudan.

The actual indictment announced in March 2009 will put the UN in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the UN asked for a study of the violation of human rights in Sudan, on the other hand, the UN is currently present in the Darfur region with peacekeepers, whose safety was put in danger by the court’s indict- ment. The journal carries a special box on Beijing ’s reaction (see Box 7.2). China

 The political impact of the Chinese in Sudan

expressed “grave concern” over the charges by the International Criminal Court in the Hague, the Netherlands.

It is unique that when asked for a reaction by the foreign press, Chinese govern- ment offi cials gave a reaction immediately, and that it took such a strong position in public. Th e position has been published in full in the Western press (for exam- ple in the Financial Times). Two days later, Sudan’s envoy to the UN declared that Sudan does not recognize the jurisdiction of the court and added: “With his action against Mr. Bashir, he (the prosecutor) is inviting the rebels to be more intransi- gent and not to join the peace process” (Financial Times, 16 July, 2008).

Box 7.2 China expresses “grave concern” over charges by International Criminal Court

“China expresses grave concern and worry about the International Criminal Court prosecutor’s indictment of the Sudanese leader”. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court was also investigating alleged war crimes by rebel groups seeking to overthrow the Khartoum regime (Financial Times, 18 July, 2008). He said he had the names of two rebel commanders alleged to have been involved in an attack on African Union peacekeepers in the Darfur town of Haskanita last September. The action of the International Criminal Court must be “benefi cial to the stability of the Darfur region and the appropriate settlement of the issue, not the contrary”. The spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry added that China, “which has a close relation with Sudan would consult with other members of the UN Security Council over the issue”.

Source: Financial Times (16 July, 2008)

In the end the Security Council of the UN has the power to delay the arrest for a year if this would be in the interest of peace. The main argument for such a deci- sion would be that the UN does not want to put their troops in Darfur at risk.

China criticized

China has made choices (like supporting Sudan and Zimbabwe), which do not al- ways please Western countries and NGOs. Human rights groups say Chinese arms exported to Sudan fuel the confl ict in Darfur (IHT, 3 November, 2006). Chapon- nière, in Chapter 3, explains that China publishes no data on its foreign aid. It cer- tainly does not provide data on its arms exports to Sudan. Th e data on investment published by UNCTAD (2007 and Chapter 4) do not include arms sales, while it is also not very clear from the trade statistics how much and what type of arms have

 Meine Pieter van Dijk

been supplied. Arms would be excluded or be included under diff erent labels, say as imports of textile and garments. Sources like the Financial Times (23 June, 2006) note that China has stepped up sales of arms, including fi ghter aircrafts. It adds that manufacturing of Chinese weapons and ammunition in Sudan complicates the enforcement of a UN embargo on supplies to militias in the Darfur region.

The Financial Times (23 June, 2008) adds that while China claims it abides by a United Nations embargo on sending weapons directly to Darfur, a panel of UN experts found that Chinese weapons were making their way to Darfur. The special Chinese convoy, Mr. Liu, denies that China is a big supplier of weapons to Sudan, arguing that Chinese sales accounted just for 8 percent of total arms exports to Sudan (Financial Times, 23 February, 2008). He insisted that the total value of Chinese arms sales to developing countries was well below that of the US, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany, which is somewhat besides the point if we are discussing the problems of arms export to or production of arms in Sudan, instead of exports of arms to developing countries in general.