South Africa will escape with little more than a slap on the wrist for allowing international fugitive and war crimes accused Omar al-Bashir to escape justice. The Sudanese president, who escaped via Air Force Base Waterkloof in Pretoria, is wanted for war crimes and genocide in his country, where nearly 300 000 people have been killed and more than 2million people displaced during years of conflict.The departure of al-Bashir, who attended the African Union summit in Sandton at the weekend, flouted a Pretoria High Court order on Monday that he be arrested by South African authorities and handed over to the International Criminal Court, which originally issued the warrants for his arrest.There have been claims that the real reason he was allowed to leave was because nearly 1000 South African peacekeepers operating in the Darfur region were being held hostage at their base by Sudanese government forces.The under-equipped troops, who are part of the joint UN and AU peacekeeping mission, were allegedly surrounded at bases in Kutum, Mellit and Malha. They were reported to have been used as pawns, with their safety allegedly in jeopardy, should al-Bashir have been arrested - a claim both South African and UN authorities deny.Defence Ministry spokesman Siphiwe Dlamini said: "There is no truth in these allegations. The SA National Defence Force did not come under any threat during this period . The troops continued with normal operational duties in the area of responsibility."No extraordinary operational preparedness was done by the SANDF. No additional instructions, with regard to higher alert levels, were issued." He said the security situation in Darfur "is calm"."The SANDF commander in the Kutum region conducts regular meetings with government of Sudan commanders, with the last meeting held on Monday. Good working relationships are the order of the day."A spokesman for the UN-AU mission in Darfur, Owies Elfaki, said it was aware of the reports but "no such incident took place".News reports and Twitter posts described how SANDF troops had been surrounded by heavily armed forces in "battle posture". South African commanders in Sudan reportedly ordered the distribution of extra ammunition to their soldiers, who were said to have been placed on high alert in full combat gear, in a situation some commentators on Twitter described as an "act of war".Defence analyst Helmoed Heitman said there appeared not to have been a hostage situation per se but rather a show of force."It was to make a point and get that point across, which they did."It is precisely for these reasons that our troops need to be properly armed. Of all the peacekeepers in Sudan, our troops are the only ones not allowed to have properly armoured vehicles with heavy machine guns and weapons such as 50mm cannons. The reason for this is that the Sudanese government knows if we had the right vehicles and weapons we would not hesitate to intervene and stop the atrocities that are occurring in that country."Heitman said South Africa should be screaming at the UN and the AU, demanding that our troops be properly armed and equipped.Pikkie Greeff, secretary-general of the SA National Defence Union, said one would hope the government would be honest and reveal the true situation troops were in."Even though it is ultimately a UN decision, one hopes the government would seriously consider withdrawing its troops from Sudan if there were genuine threats against them."Legal and human rights advocacy groups said nothing would happen to South Africa for allowing al-Bashir to return to Sudan.Bonita Meyersfeld, director of the Centre for Applied Legal Studies at Wits University, said: "The international community does not have any real mechanism to do anything other than rap South Africa over the knuckles. In my view, there will be an ideological conflict at an international level . on the one hand, there will be the AU position, which is that the ICC is unfairly targeting Africa, while on the other hand the ICC's position is that South Africa is in contravention of its treaty obligations."In the absence of investigations of countries from the "global north" (Europe and the US) it became very clear that the ICC focused on Africa, Meyersfeld said.Though it was not wrong to investigate African countries, "there does seem to be immunity for other states, which is a problem".Jacob van Garderen of the Lawyers for Human Rights said it was unlikely that there would be any formal repercussions for South Africa. "It is more an embarrassment on a diplomatic level."Archbishop Desmond Tutu said some of the most powerful nations' refusal to comply with the ICC had created an environment for South Africa to allow al-Bashir into, and out of, the country, reports AFP.He said allowing Bashir in spoke volumes about South Africa's moral fabric, as it had on three occasions denied entry to the Dalai Lama...