Personal tools

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

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 21:26, 16 July 2008; Marrika 91 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Write debate main question here...


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. ==

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.



Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

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.


Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here


Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits