No justice, no peace in Darfur
One of the many tragedies of Darfur is that some of the international community's best-intentioned efforts to stop the slaughter of innocents end up doing more harm than good. A case in point was Tuesday's move by the International Criminal Court to target two suspected ringleaders in Sudan's campaign of ethnic cleansing for prosecution.
The ICC is simply doing its job, and it's an important one. But in the end, its attempts to bring interior minister Ahmed Haroun and militia leader Ali Kushayb to justice might just strengthen the resolve of Sudan's ruling regime to dig in and reject all attempts to resolve the ongoing crisis in Darfur.
The genocidal campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions won't end until United Nations peacekeepers enter the country and start protecting innocent civilians from the soldiers and government-backed militias who are destroying their villages. But the U.N. can't move without permission from the Sudanese government, which isn't forthcoming. This isn't all that surprising: If you were a mass murderer, would you invite the police into your house? There isn't much doubt that many of Sudan's leaders, from President Omar al-Bashir down, should at least be investigated for their involvement in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Bashir and his fellow goons have reason to fear that if they open the door to international troops, they're opening the door to international lawyers, too. The ICC has just stoked those fears.
Though the U.N. is wrangling over the appropriate sanctions against the Sudanese government, it's hard to imagine it could come up with a stick big enough to prompt Bashir to risk sharing the fate of Saddam Hussein. Which means unless we want to consider some kind of immunity deal for Sudan's leaders -- which would set a horrible precedent -- the diplomatic options for solving this crisis are fast shrinking to the vanishing point.
It is just amazing that there are Hitler like governments still around.
Well, maybe not.
Saddam was such a person.
The U.N. should step in and stop this.
Don't wait for the Sudanese government to "finish" their job, and then have them say, OK, you can come in now.
We start wars for the wrong reasons, but do nothing when we have the right reasons.
Too bad.
That has to change, and fast!
I am,
George Vreeland Hill
Posted by: George Vreeland Hill | February 28, 2007 at 09:34 PM
Within a week the ICC showed its ugly hypocritical face, yet again. Charging Genocide on Sudan & liberating Serbia from Genocide!
Posted by: Shakeel Syed | March 01, 2007 at 08:38 AM
I completely share the frustration and outrage over the international community’s response to Darfur and genocide in general, but I wanted to provide a few clarifications. I had the benefit to travel to the refugee camps of Darfur with mtvU and create a documentary of the lives of the victims of this horrible tragedy. I consider it a benefit because the people of Darfur are unbelievably inspiring. And your solidarity in their frustration gives them hope for a future.
I also agree that the conflict in Darfur deserves a U.N. peacekeeping force with the mandate to protect civilians. The people of Darfur have said they will not return home until the U.N. or U.S. has peacekeeping troops in Darfur. A U.N. peacekeeping force should be the primary focus of the international community in ending this tragedy.
I disagree that the U.N. cannot move without the permission of the government of Sudan. While the rhetoric surrounding Security Council Resolution 1706 certainly reflects this, the text of the resolution does not. The Resolution actually reads that the consent of the Sudanese government is invited, not required. While it may be considered a subtle distinction given the lack of will to move without it, I think it is important to note that this problem is as much a result of a deficiency of desire on the part of world leaders as it is a product of an imperfect international framework to respond.
I think it also important to note that the underlying solution called for in this and other resolutions is not that of regime change. Rather it is the implementation of a peace agreement modeled off of the power-sharing agreement between North and South Sudan, where Darfur would have greater political representation and resources. For good or bad, Bashir would likely remain in power. International tribunals and future elections could prove his biggest obstacles.
Will the fear of prosecution protract the peace process or the entrance of international forces? The Sudanese Government and Janjaweed militia leaders have gone to great lengths to disguise their guilt and avoid prosecution. Throughout the conflict they have shown that they understand that they will likely face international prosecution in the aftermath of the conflict. This announcement, if it is sufficiently supported by the international community, might send a message that individuals will stand trial for war crimes even before the conflict ends. Could the announcement cause the conflict to continue as officials hope its continuance will buy them time from prosecution? Yes. But it could also provide a deterrent for future attacks by revealing that there is no haven for injustice in the prolonging of suffering.
I would also like to point out that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a different international judicial body than the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICC was created as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICJ is the UN’s highest court and its role is to settle disputes between nations. Bosnia had originally request the ICJ to rule on whether or not Serbia was guilty of genocide.
Posted by: Nate Wright | March 01, 2007 at 10:21 PM