Now that the shock of the International Criminal Court's ruling to press charges against the Sudanese president has worn off, writers look at the issue with a more analytical eye, reads Doaa El-Bey Some writers regarded the ruling as interference in internal Sudanese affairs. Others saw it an opportunity for the government to review its policies towards Darfur, while still others looked at the present balance of power between rich and poor countries. The United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan described the Arab foreign ministers meeting on Saturday, responding to the International Criminal Court (ICC) ruling, as extremely sensitive, which is why it took the ministers a long time to reach a unified stand in rejecting the ruling as well as the court's intervention in the internal affairs of an Arab state while ignoring many other issues that threaten global peace. The ministers tried to adopt a firm stand, and tabled their resolution in the best diplomatic language possible in order to shut the door before any other attempt is made against an Arab leader or any plans are drawn up interfering in Sudan or any other Arab state. The ministers described the court ruling as unbalanced and affirmed in their final communiqué that the Sudanese judicial system is the only party that can achieve justice in Sudan. Thus they called for the resumption of the trial of those convicted of committing crimes against humanity. These trials could be monitored by the Arab League and the African Union. The editorial hailed the firm stand of the ministers who managed to reject any politicisation of the principles of international justice and the encroaching on the sovereignty, unity, security and stability of any state. "The roadmap that the Arab ministers drew requires wisdom in order to save Sudan from external interference that wears the cloak of defending human rights," the editorial added. Fouad Dabbour wrote that the court's odd ruling serves the political and economic aims of the US administration and the Zionist entity. It is clear to whoever follows the developments in Darfur that given that the region is rich in oil and minerals, US companies aim to control its resources. Khartoum's decision to withdraw excavation rights from a well known US company in 1993 and give it to a Chinese firm instead was a blow to Washington. Ever since, the US administration has been launching a ferocious war against Sudan by highlighting differences among Sudanese, then imposing political and economic embargoes against Khartoum, and finally influencing the Security Council to issue resolutions accusing Sudan of terrorism. "Thus the court's ruling that targets the highest figure and other officials in Sudan is an outcome of policies drawn up by the neo-cons and an alliance of Christian and Zionist groups," Dabbour wrote in the Jordanian independent political daily Addustour. Ezzeddin Darwish regarded what happened in Sudan as part of what the Arabs in general are suffering from -- aggression, pressure, embargoes and attempts to divide them. The only new thing is pushing the ICC into these machinations on the pretext of human rights and crimes against humanity. Whoever follows the situation in Sudan, as Darwish wrote in the Syrian political daily Tishreen can see that there are hidden American and Israeli hands trying to shake stability in Sudan as they did in Iraq. The Arabs are not capable at present of stopping such measures, and the ICC shut its eyes to Israeli crimes in the Palestinian occupied territories and American crimes in Iraq to focus instead on Sudan. Darwish did not deny that there was a genuine humanitarian crisis in Darfur but cast doubt that the Sudanese government was responsible. "The Sudanese government as well as the people living in Darfur are victims of the crisis. Everybody shut their eyes when Khartoum warned of the dangers of external intervention in Sudan and submitted evidence that there are US and Israeli plots working to aggravate the situation in Darfur," he added. He called on Arab states to launch a counterattack by supporting the Sudanese government to prevent the danger that could affect the whole region. He believed Iraq and Sudan were just the beginning. Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed regarded the court's ruling as a chance to look objectively at the situation. He wrote that he did not know whether Khartoum had overcome the shock of the court's ruling but that he himself had been exposed to the anger of the Khartoum government when it chided him for saying that in principle, the court has the right to punish any regime that abuses its authority against its people. He argued he did not mention anything about Bashir or any other leader being guilty or not. He suggested that instead of blaming the court and intimidating writers who differ with them, they must listen to them. "The government is in need of balanced and wise thinking to reach a solution to the problem because it is not stronger than Saddam Hussein or richer than Libya during the Lockerbie crisis or more important than Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war." Al-Rashed wrote in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat that Khartoum committed a number of mistakes during the last three years, the worst defying international and human right organisations which called on the government to help resolve the crisis in Darfur. "Although the authority was capable of resolving the crisis in Darfur in its early stages, it took international demands and demonstrations lightly. Now the issue has reached the court without Sudanese leaders realising that there is a popular demand for their trial." No international leader has the power to stop the court's proceedings during this year's big US elections, he added. The United Arab Emirates daily Al-Khaleej focussed on the status of rich and poor countries. It said what happened in Sudan was no different from what has occurred in many weak and poor states in the past. It all tells the story of Western intervention and colonisation of these states. The West still sticks to the policy of intervention and colonisation for humanitarian purposes. When discussing US policy on Iran, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was simply mimicking former British prime minister Winston Churchill when she said the US had no permanent enemies. This is the Western way of thinking, its editorial added. Interests are the controlling factors of relations between states, human and minority rights and democracy. Under present Western political policy, absolute power is always right and the weak countries are the permanent victims. Submissiveness is not useful in a conflict void of human morals, the editorial concluded.
