President Omar al-Bashir
Tomorrow, Wednesday March 4 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) will issue a decision concerning the arrest warrant for Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir. Sudan - and indeed, the world - is waiting. Some are waiting curiously, some eagerly, some angrily, and some hopefully. Most hope that an arrest warrant would improve the situation on the ground in Darfur, but there are also fears that such a move could exacerbate the violence. Overall, the situation is uncertain and the future is hazy.
Al-Bashir is accused of genocide aiming to wipe out certain tribes in Darfur, a sad story most of us know all too well by this point due to incredible media attention. Private militias allegedly funded by the government killed 35,000 people; up to 300,000 have died from the conflict so far, according to the UN.
However, although most agree that justice is necessary and a culture of impunity is never a good thing, many are hesitant to trust the ICC as the ultimate solution. The ICC thinks that justice cannot be catered towards the political climate; after all the political situation changes daily, but justice must be rendered absolutely and indiscriminately. But in the recent movement towards “globalization of justice” - as everything else in our world is being globalized - is it a huge flaw of the ICC to ignore local peace processes and political situations?
“I dream about getting rid of the government, but it should come through internal movement, not from the ICC,” human rights activist Azhari Alhaj said. “Having the ICC come in at this sensitive time could have a negative impact, because we are going to be seen as working for the ICC. We are the ones who are going to suffer, and no one in the international community is going to protect us.”– LATimes
The ICC warrant could potentially destabilize the country further, by causing the collapse of the government or a return to civil war. The warrant could anger the ruling regime and cause them to become even more isolationist and unwilling to cooperate in peace talks and agreements.
On the flip side, the regime could also become more cooperative and less antagonistic. But regarding recent developments, this just doesn’t seem as likely. Already, Bashir is receiving the backing of other African leaders - the African Union asked the UN Security Council to halt the ICC’s proceedings, and the Group of 77 endorsed Sudan’s chairmanship despite the alleged charges against Bashir. African leaders are coming to Bashir’s side despite his involvement in genocide, and argue that the court’s actions will impede peace in Darfur. At the same time, Al-Bashir himself is trying to mobilize the Sudanese people in his favor - by stirring up anti-Western and populist sentiment. He tells his people that Sudan is being targeted by the West for its support to Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan and identifies himself with the Islamic movement. Huge propagandist posters have appeared on the streets of Khartoum to urge the people to rally behind their “virtuous” president against the “evil” ICC. The Sudanese government itself has stated that it doesn’t recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction and will ignore any arrest warrant.
Now does this look like a man ready to give up? I didn’t think so.
So is the ICC the right mechanism through which justice should be administered, especially during times of conflict? Does it increase conflict and violence, or can it actually help the cause of peace? Only time will tell, and soon we’ll see the results - for better or for worse - of the ICC’s latest experiment. If it works and helps foster peace, the ICC will be touted as the next great invention in international criminal justice, and it’s potential will be viewed as immense, endless.
If it fails and violence exacerbates in Darfur, the world will continue to debate about justice and peace - and the Court’s existence will only continue to become more controversial.
