CAIRO, Egypt, July 19, 2008

Arab League Slams Sudan Genocide Charges

22-Nation Group Backs Sudan President; Says Genocide Charges Unacceptable

  • Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir gestures to pro-government demonstrators gathered outside a cabinet meeting, where they were protesting against the possibility that he could be indicted for crimes against humanity and genocide by the International Criminal Court, in Khartoum, Sudan, July 13, 2008. Photo

    Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir gestures to pro-government demonstrators gathered outside a cabinet meeting, where they were protesting against the possibility that he could be indicted for crimes against humanity and genocide by the International Criminal Court, in Khartoum, Sudan, July 13, 2008.  (AP Photo/Abd Raouf)

  • Interactive Struggle In Sudan

    Five-year conflict in Darfur region has left hundreds of thousands dead and displaced millions.

  • Fast Facts Sudan

    Learn about the people, economy and history.

(AP)  The Arab League on Saturday said that the genocide charges brought against Sudan's president by the prosecutor of the International Court are not acceptable and undermine that country's sovereignty.

The 22-nation group also said after a one-day emergency council meeting on Saturday that only Sudanese courts have jurisdiction on such matters. The meeting focused on the charges brought against President Omar al-Bashir. The court is expected to decide within three months on whether to issue arrest warrants for any of the charges.

"The council decides solidarity with the Republic of Sudan in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal Criminal Court," the body said in a joint resolution.

It added that any charges or legal issues related to Darfur should be dealt with domestically and stressed "the competence of the Sudanese judiciary and it's independence and its jurisdiction in achieving justice."

The Arab League, however, did not name the charges against al-Bashir in the resolution, but instead warned about the possible ramifications they may have on the peace process in Darfur.

"The council warns against the dangerous ramifications on the current peace process in Sudan by the request made by the prosecutor general," it said.

Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo filed 10 charges of genocide and crimes against humanity against al-Bashir related to a campaign of extermination the U.N. says has claimed 300,000 lives and driven 2.5 million people from their homes.

The resolution, hammered out after a four-hour meeting, instead focused more on the political consequences of the charges and their consequences for the stability of Sudan and Darfur.

Although it openly sided with Sudan, the group tried to avoid publicly condemning the international court - either in the joint resolution or in the news conference that followed.

"There is no use for shouting or sloganeering. we have to deal with this in a legal and political framework," Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, an Egyptian, said at a news conference.

Moussa planned to travel to Sudan on Sunday with what he describes as a plan to resolve the crisis in Sudan, but did not provide any details.

Sudan's state minister for foreign affairs, Al Sammani Al Wasila, told The Associated Press after the meeting that "we reject all the charges old and new."

But he added that "the position expressed by our brothers is fair and balanced."

During meetings with al-Bashir, Moussa is expected to bring up the possibility that Sudan turn over two officials indicted last year by the court, Arab diplomats said.

In return the U.N. Security Council, which asked the court to investigate the Darfur conflict, will be asked to defer prosecution of al-Bashir for at least year, the Arab diplomats who attended the meeting said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The charges against al-Bashir came a year after the court indicted Sudan's humanitarian affairs minister, Ahmed Harun, who was formerly in charge of security in Darfur, and suspected militia leader Ali Kushayb on crimes against humanity.

The statutes signed in Rome that set up the court in 2002 state that an acting head of state or government is not exempt for criminal responsibility and that any official immunities do not bar the court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

Only three Arab league states recognize the court - Jordan, Djibouti and Comoros.



© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Video and Galleries from World

Add a Comment See all 26 Comments
by jmurrieta1 July 20, 2008 7:53 AM PDT
"The Arab League on Saturday said that the genocide charges brought against Sudan''s president by the prosecutor of the International Court are not acceptable and undermine that country''s sovereignty. "

Next, the collection of Arab Muslim tin-horn military dictators and self-designated "royalty" issued a statement condemning the state of Israel.

"Israel should learn to model itself on Sudan, a true Muslim state" one "king" commented.

"Only under Islam can a nation be just--because we say so".
Reply to this comment
by tootall10142 July 20, 2008 8:42 AM PDT
I HAVENT SEEN A HONEST MOVE FROM FROM ANY OF THE RAG WEARING DESERT HIPPIES.IF ANY ONE CAN RECALL ONE IN HISTORY BESIDES THE TURKISH WARRIORS THAT HELP US IN THE KOREAN conflict PLEASE DIRECT ME TO THE PAGE IN THE ANNALS OF HISTORY.
Reply to this comment
by jmurrieta1 July 20, 2008 9:45 AM PDT
" HAVENT SEEN A HONEST MOVE FROM FROM ANY OF THE RAG WEARING DESERT HIPPIES.IF ANY ONE CAN RECALL ONE IN HISTORY "--Posted by tootall10142



Kindly do not slander hippies in this manner.

Hippies do not kill women and children for sport.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
Every country that commits acts of genocide will not admit to it, be it Sudan, or the US.

I fully support the charges of genocide in Sudan, and would also call for similar charges to be made against the Bush administration, if we are to be at all fair and balanced about the recognition if this crime against humanity.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 10:55 AM PDT
Posted by jmcgilvray

The tendencies illustrated in Golding''s book are not unique to Arabs, indeed the book itself dealt with degeneration of a group of English children. The lack of accountability and responsibility will turn most humans into uncivilized beings, our own administrations, in the face of a lack of accountability, has equaled any nation''s history of inhumanity, in fact ranks near the top.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 10:58 AM PDT
Posted by davidjones11
Posted by tootall10142

Pot and kettle children, pot and kettle.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 11:01 AM PDT
"Only under Islam can a nation be just--because we say so". Posted by jmurrieta1

And how is the neocon doctrine of "spreading democracy" (as long as our puppets are elected) any different?
Reply to this comment
by TommyCraig July 20, 2008 11:02 AM PDT
"Every country that commits acts of genocide will not admit to it, be it Sudan, or the US."
Posted by brianbwb at 10:51 AM : Jul 20, 2008

Explain the "genocide" that America has caused.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 11:13 AM PDT
"Explain the "genocide" that America has caused."
Posted by tcandrews62

Well, you could start with the "Native Americans", (and count each different "tribe" as an act of genocide) continue through to the Vietnamese, and go on to the Iraqis, between just those three examples I could make a very strong case.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 11:28 AM PDT
Posted by jmcgilvray

There is no way I can disagree with you on that one, but my position is we need to clean our own yard before we complain about the neighbors.

I believe that if America lived up to the promise for its'' own citizens as enshrined in the constitution, held to the rule of law, and treated our poorest with some sense of humanity, we wouldn''t have to force "democracy" on anyone, they would happily emulate us.
Reply to this comment
by TommyCraig July 20, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
"Well, you could start with the "Native Americans""
Posted by brianbwb at 11:13 AM : Jul 20, 2008
I agree with the native Americans. They were singled out as a people for elimination. However, I disagree with the vietnamese and iraqi''s. In a genocide, a group is deliberately targeted for elimination. Such as that with the native Americans, the jew''s, and the people of Darfur. Each were targeted for who they were. It didn''t matter whether they were a combatant soldier or a child. They were targeted because of their religious identity or ethnicity.
This is not the case in iraq. Those who carry weapons are targeted. The iraqi people whether sunni or shia are not targeted as a group for elimination by the US troops. Only those who are attacking the troops. This has been the case all along.
In vietnam, same thing.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 11:33 AM PDT
Btw Jim, You tube "Elfa''s Jazz and Pop, to see examples of a pan religious choir baking harmonies that have achieved world champion status.

I am trying to find a way to have our kids perform in the US, after the Olympics.

Any help vis a vis contacts is appreciated
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 11:35 AM PDT
" Only those who are attacking the troops. This has been the case all along. In vietnam, same thing."
Posted by tcandrews62

So your position is that the Iraqis, as the Vietnamese, had no right to defend themselves from a hostile invading military force that invaded on the basis of lies (in both cases)?
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 July 20, 2008 11:40 AM PDT
To all

While I would like to read tcandrews62''s answer, I have to go. Last train in Singapore.

See you all tomorrow.
Reply to this comment
by TommyCraig July 20, 2008 11:55 AM PDT
Irregardles to whether they have the right to defend or not, the term "genocide" was used. What has occurred in iraq is not genocide.
Reply to this comment
by kemetorigin July 20, 2008 12:54 PM PDT
"irregardless" is not a word.
Reply to this comment
by edintex July 20, 2008 2:50 PM PDT
If you believe what the highly intelligent arab raghead league says about their "confidence the competence of the Sudanese judiciary and it''s independence and its jurisdiction in achieving justice", then you would indeed have to be BRAINLESS. I guess these same arabs would have allowed hitlers government to "achieve justice" too back in the 30''s & 40''s.
Since most of the arab countries are let by a bunch of murderous thugs, its undestandable that they would not want the world getting into another Arab countries affairs and setting a precedence. The world SHOULD just leave them alone. Let them kill eachother. The fewer of them around, the better off the rest of the world will be.
Reply to this comment
by roadracer9x July 20, 2008 3:04 PM PDT
I guess the Arab League considers the wholesale slaughter of Darfur Christians by Muslims as legitimate, but the killing of a few Palestinians by accident because they happened to be near a Hamas rocket launching team is labeled "genocide".

What a warped sense of values!
Reply to this comment
by TommyCraig July 20, 2008 6:23 PM PDT
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that %u201Cthere is no such word.%u201D There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance.
Merriam-Webster
Reply to this comment
by toolmangler-2009 July 20, 2008 11:03 PM PDT


"irregardless" is not a word.
Posted by kemetorigin at 12:54 PM : Jul 20, 2008




irregardless
Main Entry: ir7re7gard7less
Pronunciation: %u02CCir-i-%u02C8gdrd-l%u0259s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that %u201Cthere is no such word.%u201D There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.



Isn''t Google wonderful :)
Reply to this comment
by tootall10142 July 21, 2008 10:07 AM PDT
I hope the guilty are punished. however is this the business of the U.S.? i dont think so.how ever i wouldnt let the people starve to death.I would rather be shot than starved.THE LAST DESEPERATE ACT OF A ENEMY IS TO SEND THIER CHILDREN TO COMBAT.YES THEY MUST BE SHOT AND KILLED ALSO.WE NEVER DEFEATED THE KAMIKAZE ONLY THE GOVT. THEY DIED FOR.
Reply to this comment
by libsluv2spit July 21, 2008 9:39 PM PDT
there you go american liberals..that is what your brethren thinks of your ''international courts''

soon enough they would be condeming liberals and thier lifestyles (which i am sure they are already) and would want you heads on a stick..
Reply to this comment
by rhs648 July 22, 2008 12:59 AM PDT
guess the Arab League considers the wholesale slaughter of Darfur Christians by Muslims as legitimate, but the killing of a few Palestinians by accident because they happened to be near a Hamas rocket launching team is labeled "genocide".

What a warped sense of values!

Posted by roadracer9x

Great point. Remember, some of the most brutal and corrupt leaders can be found in the Middle East and Africa. Of course they cringe at the prospect of being held accountable by international courts. Being held accountable is not in their interests. Perhaps, this is an example of honor among theives.
Reply to this comment
by samsel3 July 22, 2008 7:47 AM PDT
Darfur is about OIL nothing more, nothing less.

The Saudi''s have invested heavily in Sudan. The people of Darfur will never see any benefit from their countries wealth. US strategy is to let them all die for Big Oil & Saudi investors.

Sudan is one of seven countries on the administrations HIT LIST........

Amy Goodman''s interview with General Wesley Clark. Clark stated he viewed a defense department memo that described how the U.S. was going to take out seven countries in five years....

"starting with Iraq,then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya,then Somalia and Sudan, and back to Iran."


And the extermination continues............
Reply to this comment
by libsluv2spit July 22, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
And the extermination continues............



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by samsel3 at 07:47 AM : Jul 22, 2008
+ report abuse

***********

are you not a big oil customer??.....

gotta keep you well stocked and happy..
Reply to this comment
by libsluv2spit July 22, 2008 7:22 PM PDT
And the extermination continues............



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by samsel3 at 07:47 AM : Jul 22, 2008
+ report abuse


****************

funny while i was riding my bike home i was almost hit by a 9 mile per gallon range rover with a "not in my watch..save durfur'' bumper sticker..

you and bono should start a live9 concert to save them..lots of singing..lots of poliical rantings..lots of cars driven..lots of lost meanings..LOTS OF MONEY TO BE MADE from the blood of these people..

SPARE ME!
Reply to this comment
See all 26 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs