Brett Dickinson

Omar al-Bashir: the International Criminal Court and the future of Sudan

Omar al-Bashir ruled Sudan for 30 years. Coming to power in a 1989 coup in the midst of a brutal civil war, his leadership of the country has been brutal and oppressive. He is the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant on charges of war crimes, genocide and other atrocities in Darfur in the South of Sudan between 2003 and 2008. Before becoming leader of Sudan he was commander of an army carrying what was seen by many as a war of extinction against the South, and one of a number of armed forces press-ganging children into armed service in the late 1980s.

He has been mostly involved in the military side of government yet under his leadership Sudan has become increasingly Islamist, with Sharia law put in place in all provinces other than the South. It is thought during his time as President he has also amassed $9 billion in wealth. During his presidency, opposition figures have been intimidated and harassed, the media are prohibited from publishing stories on certain issues, journalists are regularly harassed, not to mention the lack of religious freedom, freedom of assembly or civil rights in general.

the next few months will determine how what course the country takes after so many years under one man’s fist

Despite winning elections in 2010 and 2015, these elections were marred by boycotts from leading opposition parties. It appeared that Bashir was an authoritarian leader who would rule until his death. Yet this has proved not to be the case, as Bashir has lost power much the same way as he gained it; in a military backed overthrow in April 2019, following nationwide protests which began in December 2018. The protests started over fuel and bread, escalating into opposition against Bashir’s rule in general. A state of emergency was declared in February and many army officers replaced governors on the provincial level. This was not enough to save Bashir, however, who was eventually toppled by the military on the 11^th April.

Military rule of Sudan is unlikely to change much; Bashir was close to the military and they tend to be one of the more authoritarian groups in the country. The military claim they will oversee a transitional two-year period as a military council before allowing elections. Protesters rejected this suggestion and have vowed to stay on the streets, with a sit-in outside army HQ demanding that the military cede control. Yet there have been positive signs: two interim military leaders have already been replaced following public protest after they were deemed too close to Bashir, and a military-imposed curfew has been lifted. Current interim leader Abdelfattah al-Burhan has been praised by protesters for saying all the right things thus far, though there is a long way to go.

The current future suggestion is a government of technocrats, rather than well-known politicians or military figures however the controversy comes from the suggestion of a supreme council above the government, replacing the president. It is unclear what powers this council would have or who would be on it, an initial suggestion was seven soldiers and three civilians, it is thought the military would insist on having at least half the seats on it. Such a proposal would be hard to oppose given the military have the power and resources to prevent challenges. The most recent development is of a council to discuss a joint civilian-military council to discuss how to transition. Institutional and economic challenges lie in Sudan’s immediate future, meaning the business of government cannot long be halted before serious challenges arise. The secession of South Sudan, hit Khartoum hard on an economic front, as the South held much of the oil, yet in previous decades Khartoum had managed to hold influence and reap economic benefit from it, thus ensuing financial difficulties have not been resolved.

International reaction has been mixed. The African Union has given three months for Sudan to organise elections on threat of removal from the group. The US has also called for the military to give way to a civilian led-government. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have all shown support for the new order in Sudan. Support from these states normally averse to grassroots movements is surprising and may be indicative of attempts by these nations to maintain their influence in Sudanese affairs as the new order emerges.

Meanwhile Bashir remains in a high-security prison in Khartoum and Sudan’s prosecutor is expected to question him on charges of money-laundering and financing terrorism. The International Criminal Court would also like him in their custody to charge him with their long list of crimes. Uganda is allegedly consider offering him asylum- a surprising move given Bashir’s history involves supporting the rebel LRA- yet he is known to have patched his relationship with Uganda’s president Museveni (another African leader since the 1980s) in more recent times. Yet for Bashir, his time in Sudan has taken a turn for the worse, the next few months will determine how what course the country takes after so many years under one man’s fist.

US Election Profile: Best of the Rest

Unusually for an election against a sitting Republican president, there could be a wide number of Democratic candidates who make a run for the presidency. Indeed, some of the more promising candidates may be the lesser known ones. Among the more interesting potential candidates are Cory Booker, the Junior Senator from New Jersey, a younger African American candidate who has an unconventional campaign style and outsider presentation. He is seen as a candidate who could mobilise all sides of the party as broadly progressive but financially centrist and willing to work across the aisle.

Another intriguing name is Amy Klobuchar, the senator from Minnesota – not a big name yet, but known as a politician who gets things done, often through bipartisan cooperation. Klobuchar is seen as a safe pair of hands, calm and reasonable, and her Midwest appeal could help her, but she may not be seen as bold or flashy enough to attract the crowds.

Another Democrat who has been highly successful in a swing state would be Governor Steve Bullock of Montana, with a very strong policy record and experience working with a Republican legislature, though maybe lacking the name recognition or stand-out quality. The other trend to watch is the potential for mayors to run; no sitting mayor has ever been elected President, but there are two who might just try.

some of the more promising candidates may be the lesser known ones

The first is Eric Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles, a city larger than 22 states, and a city he won with 81% of the vote, which is certainly significant. He is young, has a successful record, an appealing backstory, and an ability to work with people. He would also bring California’s backing to the table (depending on Kamala Harris).

The other is Michael Bloomberg, billionaire media mogul and former mayor of New York, who has the money and the name recognition, but may struggle to prove his progressive credentials or engage voters if the election turns into a competition between two billionaire white men in their seventies.

Whilst writing this, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced her candidacy. A reasonably big name in the Democratic party and a loud voice against the Trump administration she seems worthy of mention. In some races she would be a serious candidate but if the full field runs, she may be trapped in between Harris, Warren and Klobuchar without, unable to cast herself either as the progressive candidate or the pragmatic one. A number of ideological shifts such as gun legislation may also undermine her.

Losing a Senate race seems a strange way to becoming a potential presidential candidate but if Beto O’Rourke runs in 2020, that would be his story. A former punk-rock guitarist, the 46 year old three-term Texas congressman rose to national attention in a failed bid to win hugely controversial, Tea Party darling Ted Cruz’s senate seat. In March 2017, when he announced he was running for the Senate, he was largely written off as a joke, having lost by only 223,000 votes as a Democrat in Texas, O’Rourke has been catapulted to the big leagues.

As a fresh option, he’s young, affable and seen by some in the party as a natural successor to Obama. His campaign was energetic and social media focussed featuring videos of him skateboarding and breaking with conventional wisdom “on how a Democrat wins Texas” and trying to come across as one of the people. He’s now a Democratic political celebrity and a decent bet to be able to fill stadiums and get out voters. The questions come over his positions and his record. He could be seen as quite a political lightweight; his campaign was notably vague around specifics. His only serious campaign opponent has been Ted Cruz, a man so unpopular that fellow Republican Senator Lindsay Graham once said ‘If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you.’

A primary against big-name party candidates would raise questions over his achievements in Congress and his liberal bona fides, despite positioning himself as a figure on the left, his voting record tells a different story. He has frequently voted against his own party in deregulating Wall Street, supporting fossil fuels, and very in favour of law-enforcement. Such positions will give potential candidates to the left of O’Rourke such as Kamala Harris and Cory Booker plenty of mud to throw at him, as will his lack of clear ideology and legislative success. O’Rourke clearly has the style to stand out in what could be a crowded Democratic field, but does he have the substance to win over the party?

Gun Control in the US: How Long Until Change?

Orlando June 12^th2016, Las Vegas 1^stOctober 2017, Sutherland Springs November 5^th2017, Parkland 20^thFebruary 2018, Santa Fe May 10^th2018, Pittsburgh October 27^th2018 and Thousand Oaks November 7^th2018. All of these dates and places represent a US shooting where 10 or more people have been killed since the start of 2016. Since the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, where 20 children and 6 adults were killed, there have been another 1,897 mass shootings. These have killed at least 2,123 people and left more than three times that injured. It looked like change was coming following Sandy Hook; it seemed as if the country was ready to engage with the problem of guns. What has changed since Sandy Hook? In reality, all that has changed has been a handful of modest executive actions but broadly speaking, nothing at all.

It looked like change was coming following Sandy Hook

The problem is not improving on its own either, of the 10 highest casualty gun shootings of the past 25 years, 5 of them have happened since Sandy Hook. Worryingly, mass shootings only account for around 2% of all gun deaths in the USA per year. Roughly 15,550 people were killed by guns in the USA in 2017 (this number does not include suicides, which increases the number by around 22,000 per year). This is not just a large number due to a large population either, the USA has about 5% of the world’s population and about 31% of global mass shootings.

A closer correlation, unsurprisingly, is found between the number of shooting deaths and the number of guns. Americans are believed to own 48% of the global civilian-owned guns. Even more scary is that when the number of guns is calculated per 100 residents, it works out at 88 guns per 100, which is easily enough for each adult to have a gun. A bout a quarter of Americans actually own a gun, which means those who do, have more firepower than could ever be needed for personal safety or hunting. So, how after all the shootings, are there still so many guns in America?

The answer to that question is on one level very simple, yet on another very complicated. The simple answer is that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The right to bear arms is therefore enshrined as a constitutional right, which makes it harder than the average law to change and also imbues it with a historic tradition. Whilst it can be argued that the amendment does not guarantee individual rights to bear arms, rather the rights of a militia, the Supreme Court held up the individual interpretation in 2008. This has also meant any attempt to control what guns can be bought or by who is a highly controversial topic, particular areas of controversy being banning military grade guns and implementing background checks on gun pruchases.

The right to bear arms is therefore enshrined as a constitutional right

Implementation of both has been partially successful – machine guns are mostly banned, though how well enforced the ban is would be more questionable; other military grade guns, such as assault rifles and .50 calibre guns, are currently far less regulated. In terms of background checks, anyone who buys a gun from a store has to undergo a very basic check, however, buying from a private individual or from a gun show provides easy ways for those that wish to circumvent background checks to do so. To further complicate matters, different states have different laws as well, the Giffords Law Center (named after Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Congresswoman shot in 2011) rates each state for the tightness of their gun control laws with 25 of the 50 states earning an F (the worst available ranking).

The powerful gun lobby in America further complicates the issue. Many Americans genuinely believe that they need guns to protect themselves and their liberty. Thus there is a very powerful group called the NRA (National Rifle Association) who are seen as one of the most important lobby groups in Washington D.C. They rate politicians on their support for gun rights and spend a lot of money on supporting their preferred candidates in elections, as well as lobbying on legislation. They suggest that the reason for gun violence is the “evil” people (the word of NRA VP Wayne LaPierre) who ends up with them, and thus have a solution, more guns, for example adding armed security guards to schools to prevent school shootings.

With America as polarized as it is, a pro-NRA livewire President, a conservative Supreme Court, and an organisation in favour of guns that literally ensures their desired candidates are elected, wholesale change is unlikely. There seemed a time and impetus for change in the aftermath of Sandy Hook in 2012, yet the overwhelming majority of attempts to tighten gun control, from the minor to the serious attempts, were rejected. A constitutional change would require two-thirds of both houses, in a Congress which seems determine to divide on party lines on pretty much everything as America get more divided. Minor changes, particularly at state level, are possible, but it must be asked how many more will suffer before the country finds some way of addressing its gun violence problem.

Bolsonaro & Brazil’s Election

Two candidates remain in the Brazilian elections. One is a centre-left moderate, and former Mayor of Sao Paulo. The other is a former army captain, who has been a congressman for 28 years in nine different parties, has been quoted saying a female politician wasn’t worth raping, and dedicated his 2016 impeachment vote against Dilma Rousseff to the man who oversaw her torture.

If this was not enough he went on the record on how to change Brazil in 1999 and said: “Voting won’t change anything in this country. Nothing! Things will only change, unfortunately, after starting a civil war here, and doing the work the dictatorship didn’t do. Killing some 30,000 people, and starting with FHC [referring to then-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso of the Brazilian Social-Democratic Party]. If some innocents die, that’s just fine.”

This latter man is Jair Bolsonaro, an ardent apologist of the former military dictatorship and in the first round of voting, he won 46% of the vote, the opponent in the run-off, Fernando Haddad, won only 29%. It would be easy to characterise Bolsonaro’s supporters as a blinkered minority who agree with his outdated denunciations and provocative rhetoric, but the sheer proportion of Brazilians who support him means he has managed to appeal to ordinary citizens as well. The question therefore is why would so many Brazilians support such a controversial, provocative figure.

The parallels to Donald Trump are easy to draw

In order to understand the reasons which led to the rise of Jair Bolsonaro, we need to go back to 2014’with the onset of Operation Car Wash, the biggest anti-corruption investigation in the history of Latin America, over structural economic and political corruption, which has led to the impeachment of one president, the imprisonment of another and over half the Brazilian Congress being investigated for corruption. It is easy to understand why 70% of Brazilians have lost confidence in their politicians and political parties right now, (all the candidates boast very high disapproval ratings).

The parallels to Donald Trump are easy to draw but in this case, may be erroneous. Bolsonaro has been in politics for 28 years and represents a small party, rather than having the machinery the Republican party had available. However, the most relevant comparison is that both have presented themselves as anti-establishment figures to countries sick of the political establishment.

Bolsonaro may have been aided in the start of his campaign by the attempted run of Lula, the former President and hero of the left who is currently in prison for corruption and thus was not allowed to run. His replacement Haddad (both representing the Workers party), has also been charged with corruption linked to Operation Car Wash, giving Balsonero easy targets to rail against corruption.

However, Bolsonaro is not just the non-corrupt candidate, he has been in politics a long time and maintained (in one area at least) a consistent message. As a former army captain, it should come as little surprise that he emphasises law and order. For a country facing a crime epidemic, with a murder rate having hit record levels two years running (63,880 deaths per year, which makes 175 a day, as disclosed by the New York Times) a strongman promising iron fist law and order measures hold an appeal, one made even more relevant after he was stabbed on the campaign trail, which has only served to raise his profile and allow the “them and us” rhetoric to grow even more noticeable.

60% of his supporters are under 34

The economy has been another of Brazil’s woes in the past few years. Under the stewardship of Workers Party Presidents (to which Haddad belongs), Brazil has had an economic recession ongoing costing roughly 3 million jobs and reducing some people back to poverty. Bolsonaro has taken a free-market approach which distinguishes him from his opponents and endears him to financial elites. As a right-wing candidate, his social conservatism also makes him the “least bad option” to some groups who feel their interests align more with him than Haddad, even if they are not wild about him.

Also, Bolsonaro has managed to appeal to the youth; 60% of his supporters are under 34, not old enough to remember the brutal dictatorship he reminisces so fondly about, but are able to clearly see the corruption of the current regime.

However, it is worth noting whilst Bolsonaro had 46% of the vote in the first round, he has alienated so many people, particularly those on the left and minority groups that think Haddad may have a chance as the least worse option. A number of his policies are vague, unknown or unworkable, but the real question for the people of Brazil seems clear: just how fed up with the ruling Workers Party are they? Is their situation really dire enough to risk electing such a man as Balsonero, just to ensure a change?