I read with interest his commentary regarding the ICC and AU. I agree with most of what he said but only in principle. But when it comes to practicalities, the AU could not have done anything else. Omar El Bashir-and God knows how much I hate what he’s been up to in his country-is not the first and nor is he the last of ruthless dictators who engaged, engage or will engage in criminal deeds against their own people. The only difference is that Bashir is an African. Put it this way, the ICC wouldn’t walk on any other continent and unilaterally charge an acting president. I suspect the ICC an institution which has been plagued by failure since its inception, an institution to which the most powerful nation(the USA)on this planet does not adhere to let alone believe in, wanted a publicity coup; and most likely the prosecutors wanted to test the effectiveness of their institution. Dare I add that the ICC chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is an egomaniac guy who thinks he can march wherever he wants and arrest anyone he chooses. And where else to do that than Africa, the epitome of weakness on this planet. In short, I respect the decision of the AU to no longer cooperate with the ICC. If the ICC let Pinochet walk away when he was not even an active leader, why jump on Bashir today? Wouldn’t it have been wise to wait until he leaves office-which maybe never, or at least seek AU help? christian42002@yahoo.fr
