Obama, Darfur, and ICC justice
By Eric Reeves, The Christian Science Monitor
November 24, 2008 — Northampton, Mass. – Of all the issues President-elect Barack Obama
faces before he takes office, none is of greater moral urgency than
changing the tenor of the US response to what he has repeatedly
described as “genocide in Darfur.”
That’s because, before Inauguration Day, the International Criminal
Court (ICC) is very likely to issue a warrant for the arrest of Sudan’s
president, Omar al-Bashir, charging him with crimes against humanity and
genocide in Darfur.
These charges are amply justified by the evidence. Mr. Obama’s clear
and effective response is needed, because the Khartoum regime has
threatened aggressive violence in a calculated campaign to fend off the
arrest.
Indeed, its threats are as shocking as they are underreported.
In August, the UN head of mission in Sudan declared to the Security
Council: “The government has conveyed to me that the issuance of an
arrest warrant against President Bashir could have serious consequences
for UN staff and infrastructure in Sudan.” Translation: Seek to arrest
our president and we’ll unleash further hell on the aid personnel who
protect Darfur’s vulnerable civilian populations.
Also in August, Bashir declared, “We are ready to go through war with
the great power” to forestall ICC actions. Such threats against UN
personnel and operations are unprecedented – and they must be fully
registered by the Security Council, both for Darfur and for future
peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.
As if to make clear just how high the stakes have become, Assistant
Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Edmond Mulet recently stressed that a
warrant for Bashir could “derail the [north/south] Comprehensive Peace
Agreement,” which in January 2005 ended more than 20 years of
catastrophic civil war.
Sudan’s unambiguous threat – which also poses grave regional dangers
– means the international community has no excuse not to act
forcefully now. And yet, to date, Khartoum’s threats stand unrebuked.
The UN Secretariat has acquiesced: Despite Secretary-General Moon’s
tepid and abstract support for the ICC, he refuses to challenge Khartoum
directly over its recent dangerous pronouncements.
Compounding the diplomatic problem, several regional organizations and
international groups are pushing for deferral of any indictment of
al-Bashir – not because of doubts about his guilt, but in service of a
putative “Darfur Peace Process.”
But no such process exists or lies in prospect, primarily because no
adequate pressure exists on Khartoum to engage meaningfully.
Perversely, present efforts on Bashir’s behalf by the Arab League, the
African Union, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference work to
sustain Khartoum’s sense of impunity rather than create the necessary
pressures for radical changes in regime behavior on the ground
throughout Darfur – the key to any meaningful peace agreement.
That’s why the “peace versus justice” trope often invoked by Westerners
is the wrong way to think about Darfur. It’s not a choice between peace
and justice, not if we are serious about meaningful peace: for it is
precisely the relentless absence of justice and accountability
(impunity) that has sustained violence in Darfur and will continue to do
so if unaddressed.
What will follow if an Obama administration, its Western and democratic
allies, and a divided Security Council allow Khartoum to make good on
its ominous threats?
After more than five years of genocidal counterinsurgency war, hundreds
of thousands have died. Around 4.7 million civilians in Darfur remain
affected by the conflict and in need of humanitarian assistance; nearly
3 million have been displaced from their homes, and approximate
ly the
same number need food aid.
The fragile lifeline of assistance simply cannot continue without
greater protection of the sort promised by the UN-authorized
peacekeeping force known as UNAMID. Yet now Khartoum is threatening
UNAMID militarily and the tenuous security it provides to the world’s
largest and most endangered aid operation.
The Obama administration can take a key leadership role right now,
beginning with unambiguous support for the international legitimacy of
the ICC. The administration in waiting should also commit to the
provision of critical helicopter and ground transport, the lack of which
has so far crippled UNAMID.
The European Union must be pressed vigorously to impose monetary
sanctions. Heavy diplomatic pressure must be exerted on China, Sudan’s
most powerful ally, to condemn all threats against the UN.
And the US must be sharply mindful of Khartoum’s evasive penchant for
engaging multiple diplomatic interlocutors: With its regional and global
allies, the US must work to compel the regime to engage with a single,
credible peace forum that recognizes not only Darfuri combatants and
civil society leadership, but the obligations of international law.
To do less is to acquiesce to the threats of a brutal regime whose
responsibility for atrocity crimes throughout Darfur is beyond dispute.
* Eric Reeves is author of A Long Day’s Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide. He can be reached at [email protected]. www.sudanreeves.org