July 14, 2008
The Darfur indictment
So - as predicted - the International Criminal Court has charged Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, with genocide.
But is this a good idea, or a bad idea? There is a very good debate taking place on the Making Sense of Darfur blog. I would particularly recommend reading the first three entries by Phil Clark, Andrew Natsios and Alex de Waal.
Clark, an academic at Oxford University, disagrees with those people (me included) who think that the ICC is rashly threatening the prospects of peace in Sudan. He writes that - “This represents precisely the sort of case for which the ICC was created, holding accountable a head of state for committing grave crimes against his own people.”
By contrast, Andrew Natsios - the former US special envoy for Sudan - is furious. He believes that - “The indictment may well shut off the last remaining hope for a peaceful settlement for the country.” Natsios’s views are particularly interesting, given that it is the US that pushed to have Darfur labelled as a genocide. I might note that an e-mail I recieved a couple of days ago from a senior UN official inside Sudan took the same line as Natsios - and directed me towards his comments.
For an overview of the whole debate, however, proceed to the essay by Alex de Waal - the third entry on the Making Sense of Darfur blog. De Waal is clearly closer to the Natsios than the Clark camp. But he is scrupulously fair in giving space to both sides in the debate - and in examining their arguments.
I was particularly interested by the essay by Stephen Ellis on African attitudes to the ICC. Ellis argues that the ICC’s focus on African prosecutions is more a reflection of the weakness of African states than of neo-colonialism. Nonetheless, as he points out, the African Union - having initially backed the ICC - is now much less supportive.
Either way, this case may either be the making or the breaking of the ICC - and, more importantly, of Sudan itself.
Accommodating the génocidaires, just like accommodating terrorists, might be beneficial in the short run, but we will dearly pay for these benefits with more and more brutalities in the longue durée.
The situation is actually riskier now that the ICC exists: previously, overlooking some murderous infractions could be explained in terms of the lack of any institutional framework to deal with the problem. That is no longer possible: ignoring these crimes will now signal weakness, a lack of will on the part of the international community to follow through with the commitments it made. It is a simple case of game theory. We must act. We have purposefully put ourselves in a straightjacket; now we have no choice.
Posted by: RCS | July 14th, 2008 at 6:29 pm | Report this commentRCS is right. If mass murderers know that they will never face punishment, the only result will be more mass murders.
Posted by: algasema | July 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm | Report this commentHow will the arrest be enforced?
Posted by: jin | July 14th, 2008 at 9:24 pm | Report this commentThe International Criminal Court is definitely the most appropriate place for such decisions. Who else? The punishment for the crime should be inevitable and valid in years to come like it happened to Augusto Pinochet.
Another question is that the Court should rule under the same criteria and be free from political pressure and bias. I mean the goal is not to immediately overthrow the accused leader or party at any cost (and create chaos) or legitimate the new leadership, but to prevent more crimes. Usually those military criminals emerge on both sides of the conflict and this is where the court independence is the most important. Ruling on former Yugoslavia was generally an international institute for punishing the Serbs.
Posted by: Andrei, Russia | July 15th, 2008 at 4:19 am | Report this commentAndrei,
You should always ask , on any given issue, the clsssic roman question: Cui bono (who gains).
Sudan has had, since the eighties two long rebellions; one in the south and one in the west.
Both of these wars took place on two vast oil fields. The first one in the south was finaced by
american oil companies against the central government of sudan.
Currently the main actors for the oil in Sudan are the Chinese National Oil Company and the Indian National Oil Company.
The Darfur oil pool continues under the border into Chad. The main player there is the US (Thu’
Mobil with 3.5B$ investment.
The main financiers of the Darfur rebels now are the french and the yanks.
This, is in fact a fight for oil: Yanks against Chinese and Indians. The ICC indictment is part of a plan to break up Sudan and make Darfur a protectorate so that Mobil can get its hands on the oil.
Posted by: Cassandra | July 15th, 2008 at 4:44 am | Report this commentBachground:
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics__Eurasia/Oil_in_Africa/oil_in_africa.html
The question of whether the indictment is good or bad is only relevant to whether the ICC should exist at all. If the world is to have such a court it should pursue justice and be blind to the consequences of its decisions. If this is too scary a proportion then abolish the court.
Posted by: James | July 15th, 2008 at 5:47 am | Report this commentJames,
King Philip of Macedonia is reputed to have paid off the oracle of Delphi to pass favourable judgements for himself.
So institutions and individuals therin can be corrupted.
The violent death of 1.3m Iraqis owing to the American Invasion does not seem to excite the moral (and international law) sensitivities of these fellows. Need i go further?
Posted by: Cassandra | July 15th, 2008 at 5:58 am | Report this commentWithout an indictment against George W. Bush for the invasion and occupation of two nations of over 25 million people the Darfur indictment from the International Criminal Court doesn´t have any credibility.
What George W. Bush has done, breaking the World Order, is by far worse and more dangerous than Omar al-Bashir or Robert Mugabe, far more dangerous…in fact, since Adolf Hitler nobody had done something like that.
Posted by: Enrique | July 15th, 2008 at 12:08 pm | Report this commentI don’t see the ICC rushing after Mugabe.
Posted by: Shevvers | July 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm | Report this commentWhile the ICC’s timing may prove diplomatically short-sighted, the law is supposed to be blind. That’s why we trust it. If politicians, diplomats, or even bloggers are allowed to interfere with its process, that trust will be lost, as also will democracy and fair play.
Posted by: Shane Norman | July 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm | Report this commentTHE DARFUR INDICTMENT IS LONG OVERDUE! And we can ask ourselves WHY IT TOOK SO LONG?
The fact is the international community has been more obsessed with Mugabe and Zimbabwe for reasons clear to some but still deliberately elusive to others.
It seems to have been out of guilt instead of out of real concern and commitment to ending the genocide in Darfur that the ICC is finally stepping up! The international community has for year made alot of noise BUT FAILED TO END THE GENOCIDE as their obsession with Zimbabwe has overtaken everything else.
Let’s hope the ICC prosecutor will not back down to the pressure from dictatorial Arab governments who were accessories to these crimes through their silence and failed to advise their fellow Arab dictator and are now coming out in defense him after the indictment has been issued!! Let’s all hope that the African Union will try to become an accessory to these cronies by trying to save Bashir and his cronies from facing up to their crimes!
Posted by: jules | July 21st, 2008 at 5:31 pm | Report this commentLet’s also hope the international community will look at all crimes against humanity around the world instead of focusing on Zimbabwe alone.