Personal tools

Debate: Prosecuting Sudan President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 08:10, 24 October 2009 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(code clean-up)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 08:22, 24 October 2009 (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(See also)
Next diff →
Line 102: Line 102:
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "Con" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
==See also== ==See also==
- +*[[Debate: International military intervention in Darfur]]
==External links and resources== ==External links and resources==

Revision as of 08:22, 24 October 2009

Should the international community prosecute the president of Sudan for war crimes?


Background and Context of Debate:

A GENOCIDE is going on in Darfur. So concludes Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), after three years of investigations into the atrocities in Sudan’s ravaged western province. The mastermind behind it all, he suggests, is Sudan’s own president, Omar al-Bashir. On Monday July 14th the prosecutor asked the court to indict Mr Bashir with ten counts of mass crimes, including three for genocide, and to issue a warrant for his arrest.

Many argue that Sudan has engaged in systematic genocide in the Sudanese region of Darfur. As a result, these individuals have argued that Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir should be charged and convicted of war crimes. Opponents argue it is a distraction and an impediment to resolving the conflict. What is the answer?

Write Subquestion here...


  • Violation of human rights should be stopped. Over the past five years of conflict between various rebel groups, Sudanese armed forces, and the government-backed militia known as the janjaweed, perhaps 300,000 Darfuris have died and millions have been forced from their homes. To stop genocide which is going on in Sudan and supported by it's president Omar al-Bashir, as Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) claims, ICC should prosecute him.


  • Prosecution of the president will not stop violation of human rights. Darfur covers an area of some 493,180 square kilometers (190,420 sq mi) approximately the size of Spain. To accuse President of Sudan to be able to personally in control of all the killing in such a large area and to be able to know what each warring factions is doing to the other is a bit of a fallacy. Therefore prosecution of one person, the president Omar al-Bashir will not stop the genocide.

Write Subquestion here...


  • The president is responsible for all governmental actions. Al-Bashir is the leader of his country, and as the leader he has a responsibility for the equal protection of all people in his country. Rather than step up to that responsibility, as difficult as it may be to do, he has apparently refused his responsibility in favor of some other goal, and by this he reached the total distruction of an entire people, either purposefully or accidentally.


  • Prosecute will cause much more violence. Sudan’s ruling party has described the case against Mr Bashir as “irresponsible cheap political blackmail” and has threatened more violence if he is indicted. As we already said the president can't commit such crime as genocide alone. This is the group of people, so by prosecuting the president of Sudan the genocide will not stop and may cause even more terrible violence against citizens of Drfur from the government side. Therefor by arresting Omar al-Bashir we are not stopping genocide, vice versa, we are causing more violence.

Write Subquestion here...


  • Inaction has terrible consequences. We must remember what happened in Rwanda in 1994. In Rwanda in 1994, the United Nations had peacekeeping troops on the ground at the very place and time where genocidal acts were being committed. Initially, the Security Council rejected the possibility of a military response to the crisis, and some Governments refused to allow UN documents to use the word "genocide" to describe the killings taking place in Rwanda. Governments who had contributed troops to UNIMIR called them home when they sustained casualties. Two weeks after the killings began, the Security Council voted to reduce UNIMIR from 2,000 to 270 soldiers. Though UN could prevent genocide, it didn't make anything to protect peace and life of people. It waited for the government request. This is the best evidence showing that inaction can cause death of people. By deferring the prosecution for at least 1 year by Security Council we will get things only worse, genocide will continue. Security Council mustn't make the same mistake as in Rwanda.


  • UN needs request from government to send peacekeepers to Sudan, Darfur. UN peacekeepers in Rwanda were on different mission, they had different goal. Security council needs a request from the government to send peacekeepers in Sudan, if UN sends it's troops to Sudan without request from the Sudan government, this action will be invasion in other country and violating the sovereignty of Sudan.

Pro/con resources



Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

See also

External links and resources

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits