On Wednesday, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Jerry Fowler, president of the Save Darfur Coalition called the international community to action in his statement regarding the ICC’s decision. “First and foremost, the United States, other Security Council members, and regional world leaders must address the Khartoum regime’s recent threats of retaliatory violence as well as reports of possible military escalation by other parties to the conflict. World leaders must condemn these threats and make clear that such actions will be met with swift and severe consequences.”
The Enough Project also called President Obama to action with John Norris, Enough’s executive director stating; “There are now millions of activists around the United States that expect the Obama Administration to make both peace and justice a priority in Sudan.” John specified several key steps that President Obama should take when addressing this issue.
Ariela Blatter at Amnesty International asked president al-Bashir to stop running and to have his day in court.
Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, states: “Not even presidents are guaranteed a free pass for horrific crimes. By ruling there is a case for President al-Bashir to answer for the horrors of Darfur, the warrant breaks through Khartoum’s repeated denials of his responsibility.”
The Genocide Intervention Network discussed the response from The Hague, the Sudanese government and the international community and highlighted responses from Darfuris, including a letter from a group of Darfuri women survivors that stated: “we know that we cannot return to peace without accounting for what has been done.”
Yesterday, the co-director of the New York City Coalition for Darfur, Dr. Sharon Sibler, gave a speech regarding the ICC’s decision. She remarked that she “worked for a long time on Bosnia/Kosovo. So I remember very well when Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia, and Radocan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, jeered at the charges against them…Well now, none of these men are in power, Milosevic…faced charges, and Radovan Karadzic is in prison awaiting trial. One day Omar al-Bashir, and the other architects of the genocides in Sudan, will face justice too.” Sharon also reminded us of the mass atrocities in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and how their leaders also assumed they wouldn’t have to answer for their crimes. But today they have, and irresponsible leaders will continue to answer for their crimes as long as they feel this world can be taken advantage of. Sharon cited the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stating: “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
The ICC’s decision is a “game-changer”, and Jerry Fowler expresses this in the closing of his statement regarding the ICC’s decision: “There is no panacea to the challenge of stopping violence in Darfur and promoting peace in Sudan, but the ICC arrest warrant opens a dramatic window of opportunity to disrupt the status quo and move toward peace.”
This post was compiled by Ashley Spitz.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
camila navarro says:
Darfur is the Rwanda of our time, and yet, despite the insurmountable shame of the world bearing witness without taking the necessary action, it seems we have learned very little from it. The UN Security Council has been faced with an existential crisis between its core missions and the political will of its member states. It seems to me that with China being such a crucial player, and so shamefully siding with Khartoum in claims of sovereignty and non-interference, the Security Council will be hard pressed to issue a statement demanding and supporting the necessary action. The ICC’s decision is indeed a “game changer” as you and Fowler suggest. But, is it enough? Many are looking to Obama to also throw the American muscle behind the Court’s decision; previous administrations, however, have worked diligently to challenge the creation of the ICC and thwart its jurisdiction. Though Obama’s policy shows signs of turning in a different direction: away from American Exceptionalism and towards international justice and cooperation. Many critics do not want the ICC to hold sway over American troops, who would then be subject to prosecution should they violate the Geneva Convention and other Human Rights statutes. Even if Obama looks away from impending economic doom to voice support for the Court and its indictment of Bashir and the UN Security Council do the same and offer the corresponding support, what effect will this have on the ground when there is no will to enforce and no capacity to send the necessary manpower? The Sudanese government has already issued threats of killing and maiming any and all who support the court and undermine the government. As Fowler suggests, these threats must be countered with international assurances that “such actions will be met with swift and severe consequences”. While this is undoubtedly a worthy call, I wonder how realistic these expectations are. Who is going to intervene?
The ICC’s indictment has caused the government to protest by expelling critical humanitarian aid agencies and organizations working in severely troubled regions. The IRC reports that in the Kalma Camp of southern Darfur alone, “this will leave 91,000 people without essential medical services” while “100,000 will be without clean drinking water”. So while it is imperative that justice be dealt to the chief orchestrator of mass rape, murder and displacement, what effect will this have on the very people Bashir has persecuted? Khartoum’s genocidal policies cannot be the work of this one man alone, so if he is removed, does the abuse end? If the ICC fails to apprehend him and the matter goes no further, where does that leave the people of Darfur? This crisis will not be resolved by Bashir’s apprehension, though it is no doubt a positive step, but rather, requires massive and radical support from the UN and regional organizations; which essentially amounts to a multilateral invasion that unseats those currently in office and oversees the stabilization of effective institutions and practices. This is unsavory to everyone who would need to be involved. With Bashir indicted, fears that the peace process will stall and the fragile truce between north and south will collapse once more into civil war – all of which are consequences the structures of agency and enforcement capacity in the international community is simply not prepared to deal with. So, is it worth it?