Omar al-Bashir: the new Mugabe

Posted By Elizabeth Dickinson Thursday, March 5, 2009 - 4:15 PM Share

As I wrote yesterday, there were a couple paths that Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir could have chosen after being indicted by the International Criminal Court for his role in atrocities in Darfur. Let's just say he chose the more confrontational of the two: Immediately after the decision, the president expelled 13 NGOs from the country, condemned the ruling as neocolonialism, and looked set to ratchet up his reign. Rebel groups in Darfur announced that they would back out of peace talks, claiming that Bashir is no longer a legitimate negotiator. Fear about what comes next is palpable. 

But what is most disturbing of all is how similar the Sudan situation has just become to that of another African conundrum -- Zimbabwe. Bashir is taking a page straight from Robert Mugabe's book, framing himself as a hero of sovereignty, victim of persecution by the West.

The Sudanese president immediately denounced the court as a new tool of neocolonialists meant to keep Sudan from ever achieving peace. He has organized street protests to demonstrate popular support. Like Mugabe has so often done, Bashir uses the real threat against his regime to justify removing aid groups and flushing out political opponents. 

Unfortunately, Sudan is becoming another Zimbabwe for the African continent as well. A delegation from the African Union is set to ask the United Nations' Security Council to suspend the indictment. They support Khartoum because they fear the precedent of presidential prosecution, they fear for the stability or the region, or simply because they agree that Bashir is coming under undue pressure from abroad. Solidarity with "anticolonial" leaders -- however repressive -- is becoming far too fashionable. 

But unlike Zimbabwe, there are no Morgan Tsvangirais in Sudan, no credible opponent figures, and no real hope that whatever government comes after Bashir's will be much better. The vice president from another party in the south of the country, Salva Kir, tread lightly on the indictment, probably aware that he is on unsteady ground. Indeed, today much of Sudan is shaking. 

MARCO LONGARI/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:AFRICA
 

BEN

4:40 PM ET

March 6, 2009

No opposition?

Elizabeth, your analysis leaves out one very crucial detail in discussing the differences between Zimbabwe and Sudan: Sudan might have no MDC, but Zimbabwe has no SPLA. Certainly an opposition political party is preferable to an armed rebellion, at least in a stable country, but every time I read news coming out from Zimbabwe it seems as if Mugabe has tightened his fist over the MDC a little more. Bashir already tried and failed to crush the SPLA.

What does this mean re the indictment? If sanctions are ratcheted up on Bashir, then it could tip the balance of power in favor of the SPLA and its allies like the Blue Nile rebels. They have a vote on secession coming up, and I think the SPLA will probably insure that the result is 'yes' (though I doubt they'd need to. A weakened Bashir might be unable to stop them from doing it, too.

Is a weakened North Sudan and Bashir worth the price of further chaos and divisions in the region? Hard to say. But I certainly would not claim that Bashir is unopposed in Sudan.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More