Women in South Darfur. Pic via.
Last week, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, charging him with "playing an 'essential role' in the murder, rape, torture, pillage and displacement of large numbers of civilians in Darfur." (One ex-soldier said his orders were to "Rape the women, kill the children. Leave nothing.") Many observers have hailed this as a good step toward accountability.
But the ICC has no way of actually enforcing the warrant -- for that, it will rely on other countries and, perhaps on the United Nations. And in the meantime, the Sudanese government has retaliated by ejecting NGOs and aid groups from Darfur.
The UN estimates that the expulsions would leave 1.1 million people without food, 1.5 million without health care and at least one million without drinking water.
As Mark Goldberg wrote recently, the NGO crackdown was expected.
This, however, is no reason to shy away from the court's intervention in Darfur. Rather, the arrest warrant provides critical leverage over the government of Sudan, which the Obama administration can use to coerce it into cooperating more fulsomely in a credible peace process. Under the ICC's statute, the Security Council has the authority to suspend proceedings should it decide that doing so is in the interest of peace. This is the carrot to the proverbial stick of an arrest warrant.
Problem is, the Obama administration hasn't yet really stepped up to use that leverage. And even if this plan manages to bring Bashir to the negotiating table, it's clear that holding Sudanese leaders accountable comes at a price for civilians who are already suffering.
Further reading... UN Dispatch has a round-up of reactions to the Bashir warrant. And check out Richard Just's thorough essay on "everything we know about Darfur" in The New Republic, which also has a roundtable on Obama and Darfur.
On a related note, Women's eNews calls for more women UN peacekeepers
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Justice in Sudan?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12404
I really think President Obama will step up and get involved in this issue, but I think he and his advisers are probably waiting until the end of his first 100 days. Though I have no doubt our president would like to immediately, it might send the wrong message to those who are more concerned about our domestic/financial problems to have him get involved so soon in his first term. As important as this issue is (and I know he and his administration know that), the reality of politics is he has to do what he believes is right AROUND the idea that he must be elected a second term in the near future. :/
That said, I hope we step in sooner rather than later. :/
When you stay "step up," "get involved," "step in," and "do," what do you have in mind?
Problem is, there's no leverage in an unenforceable arrest warrant. Who's going to shoot their way into Khartoum to serve it? The UK and we don't have the will or the way to invade another country, the Europeans might be able to muster the forces if they decided to but they won't and don't have the legal or command structure, and China supports the Bashir regime. What's Bashir supposed to be negotiating for in return for us tearing up a meaningless piece of paper?
Absolutely -- for the IIC to work it must be backed by force which means military capability. What it needs is a precedent where the breaches and impunity are so blatant that the world can't bear to stand back and will cross the line into doing something.
Alas, looks like this won't be it -- we've been used to doing nothing about Sudan for years now so pessimistically the expulsion of aid agencies will not be enough for the right people to care.
I'm a little confused why the International Criminal Court has no actual authority.
Authority comes from the barrel of a gun. The ICC lacks guns.