16 March 2009

The indictment of Sudan president Omar El-Bashir by the Hague-based International Criminal Court has been received with mixed feelings by Africans, who fell victim of European colonial rule for almost one century (1860s -1960s).

While the sentiment of neocolonialism which had reached its climax in the 1970-80s when Europeans opted to support the Apartheid system in South Africa was subsiding, the indictment of a seating president will inevitably reopen this old wound in the hearts of many Africans.

With all the trials and tribulations which Ugandans have gone through since it attained independence, I have heard of one lone voice, that of one Bazira, which called for reinstating British colonialism in Uganda against independence. The Somalis perhaps have suffered the worst in terms of civil wars and famine, but I am sure they would still prefer to be independent rather than return to Italian or British colonial rule.

Many in Somalia view the presence of Ugandan and Burundian troops under African Union cover as agents of former colonial rulers. The point is that Africans would rather suffer under the yoke of dictatorship or wars and famine than go back to colonial rule or neo colonial control.

After direct colonialism was dismantled in South Africa, the Europeans and other developed countries had to resort to other means to control Africa. These include; diplomacy, development aid, and humanitarian relief. This is not of course to say that all development aid and humanitarian relief is intended for neo-colonial control, for we do realise that there are also some well intentioned benign donations.

Although Africans cherished to be independent, they never the less badly needed donor support. In Uganda, until recently, the donors used to support more than 50% of the national budget. Such level of assistance is indispensable. Despite being a revolutionary leader in Muammar Gadhafi's and Fidel Castro's club, President Museveni had to forego his revolutionary zeal to get donor aid from Western countries. When Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe decided to repossess the land which the White settlers in Zimbabwe had acquired, the West withdrew donor support, and the Zimbabwean economy collapsed. So development aid has been indispensable to the African governments while it also served some of the Western donors as an effective instrument of continued control.

However, the future use of development support as an instrument to control Africa is becoming more and more uncertain. In Uganda, for example, there is some fear among some donors that if President Museveni's government starts extracting oil, and achieve self sufficiency in funding the government budget, Museveni could cease to be "a good boy".

Sudan itself, repudiated aid and no longer succumbs to Western control even before the oil wells started generating revenue. The belief among some Africans is that the warrant of arrest for President Bashir is in retaliation for his not accepting to be controlled by the West through aid, rather than the Darfur issue.

The other threat to economic aid is the current economic recession. The recession is like an economic tsunami, which will shake economies. Its impact is unpredictable. Rich countries today may wake up tomorrow when they are poor and vice versa.

The timing could not have been more ripe for the indictment of President Bashir. With control of Africa through development aid threatened, the neo-colonialist needed a more sustainable instrument through which they could continue to call the shots. It is now emerging that this is how the ICC was conceived to be established with UN backing.

The main instrument for neo-control in the ICC is selective justice. It decides whom to indict and whom not to indict. Those who fail to succumb to Western neo-colonial control will be targeted for indictment. Those who play the role of "good boys" will be spared. They have the capacity to fan violence in any country and cause bloodshed. Once they get one group to take up arms and fight the government in power, the Western-based humanitarian organisations come in with relief for the war victims. Being at the grassroots in the war zone, the politically oriented humanitarian organisations will accuse which ever side they don't like of involvement in violence and crimes against humanity. At the end of the day, if you don't succumb to Western neo-colonial control, they will get a way of hooking you and stage-managing you as a war criminal. They will then get the ICC to issue a warrant of arrest.

The message from the Bashir warrant of arrest is that any president in power who doesn't succumb to neo- colonial control will be brought down through the ICC one way or another. Indeed if the Bashir warrant of arrest succeeds, leaders from developing countries will be forced to surrender allegiance to neo-colonialists at the opportunity cost of accountability to their people. The African people will therefore be the real losers.

It is very difficult to view the warrant of arrest for a seating African president from the West, which forced Africa under colonial rule, in a more positive way given the lingering neo-colonial threat to Africa. The ICC is, therefore, going down as the latest instrument for neo colonial control.

Muhammad K. Mayanja, The author is President of the Justice Forum