Back to Gideon RachmanSo - 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.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.
