ANALYSIS-Sudan’s Bashir vulnerable despite defiant front

ANALYSIS-Sudan’s Bashir vulnerable despite defiant front

Wed Apr 1, 2009 7:39am EDT

By Andrew Heavens KHARTOUM, April 1 (Reuters)

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s defiant response to international efforts to arrest him for war crimes in Darfur hides vulnerabilities that could embolden his enemies. On Wednesday, Bashir travelled to Saudi Arabia in another challenge to the arrest warrant issued against him by the International Criminal Court on March 4 over seven charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bashir’s visits — he has now made five trips abroad in just over a week, showing the court’s inability to arrest him — have won expressions of support from Arab countries and a measure of public admiration back home. “If there was an election now, he would win it. The people admire a strong man and he has also managed to show himself as a victim of the West,” said Faizal Silaik, deputy editor of daily newspaper Ajras al-Huriya. Bashir has also closed down 16 aid groups accused of helping the court and addressed a string of nationalistic rallies. “All the Sudanese people have rallied around their leadership against these allegations,” Bashir himself was quoted as saying on state news agency Suna. But his stance has done nothing to resolve major issues that could eventually loosen his hold on power. Those include the festering conflict in Darfur, oil-dependent Sudan’s sinking economy, fears over a fragile peace deal between north and south Sudan, and relations with the United States and United Nations that have worsened since the aid expulsions. “He (Bashir) gives the appearance of a strong position. But that is more apparent than real,” said one Western diplomat in Khartoum. “The regime remains fragile. People are looking for weakness. If they see him falter they will throw him overboard.” DARFUR THREAT The most immediate challenge could come from Darfur itself. The rebel Justice and Equality Movement attacked Khartoum last year and has promised to return, threatening to arrest Bashir themselves if nobody acts to hand him over to the court. The rebels say their resolve will be sharpened if Bashir manages to remain at large. “It will show the only hope we have is through our guns,” JEM leader Khalil Ibrahim told Reuters by satellite phone. Sudan’s economy is another area of weakness. During the boom years of soaring oil prices, Bashir’s government was easily able to pay supporters, civil servants, soldiers and militias. But the collapse in the global oil price has emptied government coffers. “When the government stops giving them enough for their day to day life, will they stand with him? Surely not,” the vice president of Sudan’s opposition Umma party Fadlalla Burma Nasir told Reuters. The Umma party opposes the arrest warrant. It is still unclear which, if any, of Sudan’s political forces could stand up to Bashir and his power base in the Sudanese army. Opposition parties have weakened and splintered in the almost 20 years since Bashir seized power in a bloodless coup. The south’s Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) — in a coalition government with Bashir’s National Congress Party since a 2005 peace deal that ended two decades of north-south civil war — has so far stood by its political partner. But that could all change if Bashir shows signs of backing down on any parts of the fragile Comprehensive Peace Agreement, most importantly the highly-prized referendum on southern independence it promised in 2011. There are a host of other issues Bashir will have to face if he wants to keep the south stable and relatively on side — not least south Sudan’s own even deeper economic crisis, caused by the region’s near total dependency on oil revenues. INTERNAL CHALLENGE? Some Western diplomats and political analysts believe that a challenge from within Bashir’s own party is possible. Potential plotters could be spurred on by any sign of further sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, imposed over Sudan’s refusal to deal with the ICC or its aid expulsions. “He owns the aid problem now. If there is a cholera outbreak or a meningitis epidemic, it was the government that said it would take care of it,” said the Western diplomat. There is scope for the United Nations to expand sanctions against Sudan — its arms embargo currently only covers Darfur and it has the power to freeze the assets of Sudan’s political elite and restrict their travel. “That is the question — what are the Security Council’s next steps going to be, more sanctions?” said Hafiz Mohammed, Sudan programme coordinator for London-based campaign group Justice Africa. “Already some wise people are starting to come forward in Sudan saying this can not continue.” So far, there have been few signals from abroad to encourage internal plotters. U.S. President Barack Obama has yet to give details on how he will deal with Bashir’s regime. “Bashir is strong in the short term — maybe for the next six or seven months, maybe even a year. But in the long term we are all losers,” said one senior opposition figure. “If there is no change, if Bashir just goes on without settling the Darfur situation … then things are going to be very bad in Sudan.” (Additional reporting by Skye Wheeler in Juba; Editing by Matthew Tostevin)

Alex De Waal response by proxy on Darfur genocide question

Alex De Waal response by proxy on Darfur genocide question
Friday 27 March 2009.

By Steve Paterno

March  26,  2009  — I wrote an article published in Sudan Tribune on March
23rd,  2009  entitled  “Alex De Waal and Darfur Genocide Question.” In the
article,  I  stated and explained that Dr. Alex De Waal, a foremost expert
and  scholar  on  Sudanese  affairs has, of recent, been dismissive of any
claim  of  genocide  committed  in  Darfur,  skeptical  of the strength of
evidence of genocide that can be presented in court, and adamantly opposed to  the  prosecutions of President Omar al-Bashir on the alleged crimes he committed  in  the ongoing conflict in Darfur. The article also points out to  De  Waal’s  relentless  attacks on the prosecutor of the International Criminal  Court (ICC) Luis Moreno-Ocampo, and it as well exposes De Waal’s drastic shift of position over a short period of time on the same subject.

In  what  seems  to  be a rather disguised reaction to my article, De Waal
made  a  very  weak  attempt  to refute some of the concerns I raised with
respect  to his position on the subject matter. His feeble effort surfaced
in  an  article  he  published, following my article, on his blog which he
later  forwarded  the  same  article  to  be  carried in Sudan Tribune the
subsequent  day with the title Genocide by force of habit? In his article,
De  Waal made endeavored to completely avoid any direct reference to me or my  article.  The closest he ever comes to making reference to me is where
<!–
D([“mb”,”\n\u0026nbsp;he \u0026nbsp;used \u0026nbsp;generic \u0026nbsp;pronounce such as “those” and “some.” Interestingly, he\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;instead \u0026nbsp;picked up on a likely target, Professor Eric Reeve who is similar\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;to him in some odd ways as his point of reference. He makes a reference of\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Reeve’s \u0026nbsp;article written awhile ago, which pointed out that he has shifted\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;his position on the genocide question.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal \u0026nbsp;goes \u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;his \u0026nbsp;article \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;charge that “those” pointing out his\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;drastic \u0026nbsp;shift \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;position \u0026nbsp;are “half-witted critics,” because though he\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;shifted \u0026nbsp;his \u0026nbsp;position, it is “a minor shift” that changes with facts. For\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;those \u0026nbsp;who \u0026nbsp;follow \u0026nbsp;De Waal’s shifting of position, the fear is that he is\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;trying \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;change \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;facts as he goes other than trying to allow facts\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;change \u0026nbsp;him. According to him, some of the facts, which make him shift his\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;position \u0026nbsp;include: \u0026nbsp;lack \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;evidence \u0026nbsp;on part of Khartoum regime for its\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;intention \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;commit genocide in Darfur; advice from lawyers who told him\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;not \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;use \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;term genocide when referring to atrocities committed in\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Darfur; \u0026nbsp;the dropping down of mortality rate; the reduction of violence by\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;90%; and the bringing of humanitarian crisis under control.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Though \u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal \u0026nbsp;sought \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;address my article by proxies, I was in away\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;compelled \u0026nbsp;to respond to his article by posting my comments on his blog to\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;address \u0026nbsp;some \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;issues that he tried to refute. To my surprise, De\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Waal decided to block my commentaries. He then wrote me privately, issuing\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;a \u0026nbsp;condition \u0026nbsp;that before he would post my commentaries, I “must apologize\u003cbr /\u003e”,1]
);

//–> he  used  generic  pronounce such as “those” and “some.” Interestingly, he
instead  picked up on a likely target, Professor Eric Reeve who is similar
to him in some odd ways as his point of reference. He makes a reference of
Reeve’s  article written a while ago, which pointed out that he has shifted
his position on the genocide question.

De  Waal  goes  in  his  article  to  charge that “those” pointing out his
drastic  shift  of  position  are “half-witted critics,” because though he
shifted  his  position, it is “a minor shift” that changes with facts. For
those  who  follow  De Waal’s shifting of position, the fear is that he is
trying  to  change  the  facts as he goes other than trying to allow facts
change  him. According to him, some of the facts, which make him shift his
position  include:  lack  of  evidence  on part of Khartoum regime for its
intention  to  commit genocide in Darfur; advice from lawyers who told him
not  to  use  the  term genocide when referring to atrocities committed in
Darfur;  the dropping down of mortality rate; the reduction of violence by
90%; and the bringing of humanitarian crisis under control.

Though  De  Waal  sought  to  address my article by proxies, I was in a way
compelled  to respond to his article by posting my comments on his blog to
address  some  of  the  issues that he tried to refute. To my surprise, De
Waal decided to block my commentaries. He then wrote me privately, issuing a  condition  that before he would post my commentaries, I “must apologize
<!–
D([“mb”,”\n\u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;public” for alleging that he (De Waal) opposes the arrest of al-Bashir\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;and for questioning his motive for having alerted al-Bashir weeks prior to\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;prosecutor \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;ICC \u0026nbsp;officially \u0026nbsp;filing \u0026nbsp;for \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;arrest \u0026nbsp;warrant against\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;al-Bashir.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;To \u0026nbsp;me, \u0026nbsp;it \u0026nbsp;was apparent that De Waal was attempting to blackmail me into\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;apologizing \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;him, \u0026nbsp;given \u0026nbsp;that \u0026nbsp;my \u0026nbsp;article \u0026nbsp;has \u0026nbsp;clearly impacted him\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;negatively. \u0026nbsp;It also became obvious that he was in away trying to suppress\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;my \u0026nbsp;freedom \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;expression \u0026nbsp;and limit my ability to exchange ideas by not\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;only \u0026nbsp;blocking \u0026nbsp;my commentaries, but also by threatening to deny me access\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;public \u0026nbsp;platform. \u0026nbsp;It \u0026nbsp;would \u0026nbsp;only \u0026nbsp;be \u0026nbsp;fair \u0026nbsp;if \u0026nbsp;he \u0026nbsp;would \u0026nbsp;allow \u0026nbsp;my\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;commentaries \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;be \u0026nbsp;posted \u0026nbsp;along \u0026nbsp;his \u0026nbsp;article, because his article was\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;attending \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;my \u0026nbsp;previous article by proxy. In addition, my commentaries\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;were \u0026nbsp;relevant \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;his \u0026nbsp;article. \u0026nbsp;But \u0026nbsp;instead, \u0026nbsp;De Waal chose the art of\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;blackmailing \u0026nbsp;and \u0026nbsp;power \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;suppression to deal away with me, though not\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;successful. So the concept of censorship is not only practiced in Khartoum\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;or by some dictators with big names. It seems to be all over.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Anyway, \u0026nbsp;on \u0026nbsp;my \u0026nbsp;part, \u0026nbsp;I \u0026nbsp;see \u0026nbsp;no \u0026nbsp;reason \u0026nbsp;to apologize to De Waal for my\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;article. \u0026nbsp;I \u0026nbsp;don’t \u0026nbsp;think \u0026nbsp;I can also be blackmailed or succumbed into any\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;threats. \u0026nbsp;And \u0026nbsp;I \u0026nbsp;am not in any way bound to have my freedom of expression\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;restricted \u0026nbsp;and \u0026nbsp;my \u0026nbsp;ability \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;exchange \u0026nbsp;ideas get limited by those who\u003cbr /\u003e”,1] in  public” for alleging that he (De Waal) opposes the arrest of al-Bashir
and for questioning his motive for having alerted al-Bashir weeks prior to
prosecutor  of  ICC  officially  filing  for  the  arrest  warrant against
al-Bashir.

To  me,  it  was apparent that De Waal was attempting to blackmail me into
apologizing  to  him,  given  that  my  article  has  clearly impacted him
negatively.  It also became obvious that he was in a way trying to suppress
my  freedom  of  expression  and limit my ability to exchange ideas by not
only  blocking  my commentaries, but also by threatening to deny me access to  public  platform.  It  would  only  be  fair  if  he  would  allow  my
commentaries  to  be  posted  along  his  article, because his article was
attending  to  my  previous article by proxy. In addition, my commentaries
were  relevant  to  his  article.  But  instead,  De Waal chose the art of
blackmailing  and  power  of  suppression to deal away with me, though not
successful. So the concept of censorship is not only practiced in Khartoum
or by some dictators with big names. It seems to be all over.

Anyway,  on  my  part,  I  see  no  reason  to apologize to De Waal for my
article.  I  don’t  think  I can also be blackmailed or succumbed into any
threats.  And  I  am not in any way bound to have my freedom of expression
restricted  and  my  ability  to  exchange  ideas get limited by those who
<!–
D([“mb”,”\n\u0026nbsp;falsely \u0026nbsp;think \u0026nbsp;they \u0026nbsp;have monopoly of thoughts. I have not made any false\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;allegations \u0026nbsp;against \u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal, \u0026nbsp;but \u0026nbsp;my \u0026nbsp;points are all supported by hard\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;facts—the \u0026nbsp;facts, which mostly originated from De Waal’s own writings. For\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;example, \u0026nbsp;on \u0026nbsp;a \u0026nbsp;notion \u0026nbsp;that De Waal opposes the arrest of President Omar\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;al-Bashir, \u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;an \u0026nbsp;Op-Ed \u0026nbsp;for \u0026nbsp;Washington Post, even weeks before the ICC\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Prosecutor \u0026nbsp;Ocampo \u0026nbsp;could \u0026nbsp;file \u0026nbsp;a \u0026nbsp;request for the arrest warrant against\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;al-Bashir, \u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal \u0026nbsp;warned \u0026nbsp;that \u0026nbsp;bringing \u0026nbsp;charges “against the highest\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;echelons \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;government” in Khartoum is a terrible gamble. (This was when\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;De Waal had already a tip-off on the possibility of imminent charges being\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;leveled \u0026nbsp;against al-Bashir where in turn he alerted al-Bashir of it). Ever\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;since \u0026nbsp;then, De Waal continued to argue against the arrest warrant against\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;al-Bashir. \u0026nbsp;Just \u0026nbsp;months \u0026nbsp;prior \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;ICC \u0026nbsp;Pretrial Chamber making the\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;rulings \u0026nbsp;against \u0026nbsp;al-Bashir, \u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal \u0026nbsp;went \u0026nbsp;on \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;critique \u0026nbsp;the public\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;application \u0026nbsp;by \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;chief \u0026nbsp;prosecutor \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;the ICC for an arrest warrant\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;against al-Bashir where De Waal recommended that there should never be any\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;charges \u0026nbsp;“brought \u0026nbsp;against \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;Sudanese \u0026nbsp;President.” He urged the United\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Nation \u0026nbsp;Security Council to invoke article 16 for “unconditional” deferral\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;al-Bashir \u0026nbsp;arrest \u0026nbsp;warrant. \u0026nbsp;The \u0026nbsp;facts that De Waal is opposed to the\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;arrest \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;al-Bashir \u0026nbsp;are \u0026nbsp;very \u0026nbsp;clear \u0026nbsp;and \u0026nbsp;can be inferred from all his\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;writings, \u0026nbsp;even way before the application of arrest warrant for al-Bashir\u003cbr /\u003e”,1]
);

//–> falsely  think  they  have monopoly of thoughts. I have not made any false
allegations  against  De  Waal,  but  my  points are all supported by hard
facts—the  facts, which mostly originated from De Waal’s own writings. For
example,  on  a  notion  that De Waal opposes the arrest of President Omar
al-Bashir,  in  an  Op-Ed  for  Washington Post, even weeks before the ICC
Prosecutor  Ocampo  could  file  a  request for the arrest warrant against
al-Bashir,  De  Waal  warned  that  bringing  charges “against the highest
echelons  of  government” in Khartoum is a terrible gamble. (This was when
De Waal had already a tip-off on the possibility of imminent charges being
leveled  against al-Bashir where in turn he alerted al-Bashir of it). Ever
since  then, De Waal continued to argue against the arrest warrant against
al-Bashir.  Just  months  prior  to  the  ICC  Pretrial Chamber making the
rulings  against  al-Bashir,  De  Waal  went  on  to  critique  the public
application  by  the  chief  prosecutor  of  the ICC for an arrest warrant
against al-Bashir where De Waal recommended that there should never be any charges  “brought  against  the  Sudanese  President.” He urged the United Nation  Security Council to invoke article 16 for “unconditional” deferral of  al-Bashir  arrest  warrant.  The  facts that De Waal is opposed to the arrest  of  al-Bashir  are  very  clear  and  can be inferred from all his
writings,  even way before the application of arrest warrant for al-Bashir
<!–
D([“mb”,”\n\u0026nbsp;was \u0026nbsp;filed \u0026nbsp;as \u0026nbsp;demonstrated \u0026nbsp;in the examples above. De Waal is a featured\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;celebrity \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;pro Khartoum regime Sudan Media Center, where his arguments\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;opposition \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;ICC \u0026nbsp;are echoed in that platform over and over for the\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;amazement of the regime in Khartoum and its supporters.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;As \u0026nbsp;for De Waal complaints for being questioned on his motive for alerting\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;al-Bashir \u0026nbsp;prior \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;ICC \u0026nbsp;prosecutor \u0026nbsp;filing the application for the\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;arrest \u0026nbsp;warrant, \u0026nbsp;it \u0026nbsp;is \u0026nbsp;up to De Waal to explain his motives and for the\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;general public to interpret or even speculate on those motives.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Well, \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;last \u0026nbsp;time \u0026nbsp;I \u0026nbsp;checked \u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal’s \u0026nbsp;blog, Eric Reeve, the lone\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;respondent \u0026nbsp;whom \u0026nbsp;De Waal picked-on and allowed to comment on his article,\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;is \u0026nbsp;being \u0026nbsp;pounded \u0026nbsp;by \u0026nbsp;the \u0026nbsp;supporters \u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;the regime in Khartoum. Those\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;supporters \u0026nbsp; of \u0026nbsp; the \u0026nbsp;regime \u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;Khartoum \u0026nbsp;are \u0026nbsp;allowed \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;post \u0026nbsp;their\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;commentaries \u0026nbsp;at \u0026nbsp;the expense of those who disagree with De Waal. The most\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;shocking twist of events is that De Waal had no choice, but to forward his\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;article \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;be \u0026nbsp;published \u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;Sudan Tribune as a counteraction to my own\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;article. \u0026nbsp;I hope this is not “counteraction on the cheap.” This is ironic,\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;because \u0026nbsp;De \u0026nbsp;Waal \u0026nbsp;could \u0026nbsp;privately threaten to deny me access to a public\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;platform \u0026nbsp;he controls while he would sneak around to go after me in search\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;of \u0026nbsp;another \u0026nbsp;public platform that I thrive on. After all, De Waal does not\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;control \u0026nbsp;public \u0026nbsp;platform at least that is what he found out. Now with his\u003cbr /\u003e”,1]
);

//–> was  filed  as  demonstrated  in the examples above. De Waal is a featured
celebrity  of  pro Khartoum regime Sudan Media Center, where his arguments in  opposition  of  ICC  are echoed in that platform over and over for the amazement of the regime in Khartoum and its supporters.

As  for De Waal complaints for being questioned on his motive for alerting
al-Bashir  prior  to  the  ICC  prosecutor  filing the application for the
arrest  warrant,  it  is  up to De Waal to explain his motives and for the
general public to interpret or even speculate on those motives.

Well,  the  last  time  I  checked  De  Waal’s  blog, Eric Reeve, the lone
respondent  whom  De Waal picked-on and allowed to comment on his article, is  being  pounded  by  the  supporters  of  the regime in Khartoum. Those supporters   of   the  regime  in  Khartoum  are  allowed  to  post  their
commentaries  at  the expense of those who disagree with De Waal. The most
shocking twist of events is that De Waal had no choice, but to forward his
article  to  be  published  in  Sudan Tribune as a counteraction to my own
article.  I hope this is not “counteraction on the cheap.” This is ironic,
because  De  Waal  could  privately threaten to deny me access to a public
platform  he controls while he would sneak around to go after me in search
of  another  public platform that I thrive on. After all, De Waal does not
control  public  platform at least that is what he found out. Now with his
<!–
D([“mb”,”\n\u0026nbsp;article, \u0026nbsp;which \u0026nbsp;he \u0026nbsp;denied \u0026nbsp;me \u0026nbsp;to \u0026nbsp;comment on already published in Sudan\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Tribune, \u0026nbsp;I am in a liberty to comment on it as much as I want, but out of\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;respect, \u0026nbsp;I am not going to. I leave it for those who agree with him to do\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;the commentaries.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;If there is any lesson learned, it will be that my article affects De Waal\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;negatively and exposes his contradicting positions on the ongoing conflict\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;in \u0026nbsp;Darfur, \u0026nbsp;though \u0026nbsp;it \u0026nbsp;is difficult for him to openly admit the obvious.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;Another \u0026nbsp;lesson \u0026nbsp;learn \u0026nbsp;is \u0026nbsp;that \u0026nbsp;knowledge \u0026nbsp;is \u0026nbsp;independent of any single\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;individual \u0026nbsp;regardless of their race, region, class or what have you—there\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;is \u0026nbsp;no one in charge of monopolizing knowledge—no matter how many times he\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;or \u0026nbsp;she \u0026nbsp;is called “expert.” The search for truth, which is independent of\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;any individual human being or a race, is left to all. The good thing about\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;the truth is that it will always prevail in the end and set one free. With\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u0026nbsp;that, this must be the lesson of today.\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\nCopyright © 2003-2008 SudanTribune – All rights reserved.\u003cbr /\u003e\n–~–~———~–~—-~——\u003cwbr /\u003e——~——-~–~—-~\u003cbr /\u003e\nYou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups \u0026quot;JFD info\u0026quot; group.\u003cbr /\u003e\nTo post to this group, send email to \u003ca onclick\u003d\”return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\” href\u003d\”mailto:jfdinfo@googlegroups.com\”\u003ejfdinfo@googlegroups.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\nTo unsubscribe from this group, send email to \u003ca onclick\u003d\”return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\” href\u003d\”mailto:jfdinfo%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com\”\u003ejfdinfo+unsubscribe@\u003cwbr /\u003egooglegroups.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\nFor more options, visit this group at \u003ca onclick\u003d\”return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)\” href\u003d\”http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl\u003den\” target\u003d_blank\u003ehttp://groups.google.com/\u003cwbr /\u003egroup/jfdinfo?hl\u003den\u003c/a\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\n-~———-~—-~—-~—-~–\u003cwbr /\u003e—-~—-~——~–~—\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003cbr /\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e”,0]
);

//–> article,  which  he  denied  me  to  comment on already published in Sudan
Tribune,  I am in a liberty to comment on it as much as I want, but out of
respect,  I am not going to. I leave it for those who agree with him to do
the commentaries.

If there is any lesson learned, it will be that my article affects De Waal
negatively and exposes his contradicting positions on the ongoing conflict
in  Darfur,  though  it  is difficult for him to openly admit the obvious.
Another  lesson  learn  is  that  knowledge  is  independent of any single
individual  regardless of their race, region, class or what have you—there
is  no one in charge of monopolizing knowledge—no matter how many times he or  she  is called “expert.” The search for truth, which is independent of
any individual human being or a race, is left to all. The good thing about
the truth is that it will always prevail in the end and set one free. With
that, this must be the lesson of today.

Omar Al Bashir: To Travel or Not to Travel

Sunday 22 March 2009 05:00.

March 21, 2009 (KHARTOUM) — The highest Islamic authority in Sudan issued an opinion today saying that president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir should not travel to attend the annual Arab summit in Qatar this month.

The move came as senior Sudanese officials today left the door open for Bashir to cancel his scheduled appearance at the summit despite earlier assertions that he will attend.

On March 4th the judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber I at the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which include murder, rape and torture.

Yesterday Reuters reported that the ICC’s prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo was in New York to urge countries to act on the ICC arrest warrant against Bashir.

“As soon as he travels through the international airspace he could be arrested. Slobodan Milosevic and Charles Taylor show that the destiny of Mr. Bashir is to face justice” he said.

“Two months or two years will depend on the state and how they act. But his destiny is to face justice” Ocampo asserted.

The pro-government Sudanese media center website published the findings of the board which has the power to issue Fatwas [religious opinions] and make the final say on any disputed topics from an Islamic perspective.

“This is an appeal and fatwa from the Islamic scholars board presided by its council and its general secretariat on the forbidding the president of the republic to attend the Arab summit in Qatar in light of the current circumstances where enemies of Allah and the nation are surrounding him” the statement read.

“Fearing for the sake to prevent danger is following orders of god and the prophet and forfeiting chances of the enemies of Allah by staying inside Sudan with your people and angering the infidels”.

The Sudanese president said in an interview with Egypt’s independent Al-Isboa weekly published Saturday that he will fly to Doha to attend the Arab summit for which he received an official invitation a week ago.

But today the presidential press secretary Mahjoub Badri told the pro-government Al-Rayaam that no final decision has been made on Bashir’s trip.

Government sources told the London based Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper that there is division within the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) on the issue.

The newspaper quoted the sources as saying that some officials say the trip as necessary to prove that Bashir is not affected by the ICC ruling while others believe it is not worth the risk.

The Sudanese defense minister Abdel-Rahim Mohamed Hussein said that discussions are still ongoing on Bashir’s travel and if agreed on will be surrounded by “security and military precautions”.

Sudan had previously announced that it is making special security arrangements for the travel of Bashir to Doha which reportedly includes fighter jets guarding the presidential plane.

Khartoum is particularly worried by prospects of foreign fighters intercepting Bashir’s plane and forcing to land in a country where he can be apprehended.

Sudan summoned the French ambassador this week over statements attributed to Eric Chevallier, spokesman of the French foreign ministry in which he suggested that his government will support any operation aimed at arresting the Sudanese president through intercepting the plane.

The French government said Chevallier’s was misquoted by the London based Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper which interviewed him.

This week the Sudanese former president Siwar Al-Dahab urged Bashir to exercise “patience and wisdom” and not risk travelling to Doha “for his safety and the safety of Sudanese people”.

Also Sudanese newspapers reported that a one day sit in is scheduled on Sunday by pro-Bashir supporters to ask for cancellation of appearance at Doha summit.