The World

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.