So, the Arab League have a plan, according to the BBC. According to the BBC it’s to “defuse the crisis between Sudan and the International Criminal Court (ICC)*” over its decision to indict President Omar al-Bashir.
And what does “defuse” mean: in fact, we learn, it means firstly a statement of outright opposition to the ICC decision and secondly a resolution through the UN with Russian and Chinese support suspending the ICC warrant for Sudan’s leader for 12 months. So contrary to the BBC headline that the Arab League agrees Sudan action- actually the Arab league agrees to oppose ICC/UN action. If I were PR agent for the Arab League I must say I’d be delighted that the BBC ran my press release without even editing.
Of course I would check whether the press release was the same as the BBC’s report, but the Arab League’s English site is under construction. Just can’t find enough English speakers in the world today, can you?
*would just like to add I don’t approve of organisations like the ICC, personally, but that’s not the question here.
I wonder how the BBC would write it up if it were George Bush that had been indicted?
Even the ‘Guardian’ (1 year ago) emphasises the crimes which the Sudan government ‘orchestrated’:
“Sudan government ‘orchestrated Darfur crimes'”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/12/sudan.jamessturcke
But the BBC, in its reports on Darfur, is not inclined to underline the crimes perpetrated, but to emphasise the possible reaction of Sudan’s Muslims and Arab League to the ICC accusations:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7515844.stm
The BBC are apologists for genocide, pure and simple.
Every time an Israeli settler puts up an outhouse in the West Bank the international community loses no time in speaking up for the “victims”, with the BBC and its sister outlets leading the chorus of outrage. However when confronted with an Arab government practicing mass slaughter out in the open, these same voices seem to go out of their way to find justifications for inaction.
The BBC is just as complicit in its own way as the Arab League and the UN and will be so judged by history.
‘The Indictment of Bashir, and the failure to Act’ (Douglas Farah):
[Introductory extract]:
“It is a tired mantra being trotted out by those who oppose the indictment by the International Criminal Court of Omar al Bashir, and that is, that the peace process will be put in danger.
“As if there were a viable peace process, and as if the government of Sudan (a radical Islamist state, claiming to act in the name of Islam responsible for genocide, without the slightest recrimination from other Muslim nations) were remotely interested in peace.
“It should be noted that Bashir and his sometimes ally and sometimes nemesis Hasan al Turabi, have jointly and separately presided over state-sponsored meetings of radical Islamist terrorist organizations from around the world, as well as sheltering and nurturing al Qaeda and protecting Osama bin Laden. Not a pretty picture.” (Douglas Farah).
http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/375/the-indictment-of-bashir-in-sudan-and-the-failure-to-act.com
Karadzic of Serbia, arrested and to stand trial in the Hague, but will Bashir of Sudan?
Are there double standards on this?
“One more down”
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/07/21/one-more-down/