Sudan and the International Criminal Court
Editorial, The Globe and Mail
Why is the United States against prosecuting Sudanese killers at the International Criminal Court?
Feb 19, 2005 — Louise Arbour, the former Supreme Court of Canada judge who is now the United Nations’ High Commissioner for Human Rights, told the Security Council this week that there is no hope for sustainable peace in Sudan’s Darfur region without immediate access to justice. The continuing slaughter in Darfur is a case where the swift arrest, indictment and prosecution of suspected mass murderers could actually deter others from committing further crimes, save lives and protect victims, she said. “The imperative is to act very quickly because crimes continue to be perpetrated as we speak.”
Ms. Arbour was briefing the 15-member Security Council on a report by an investigatory commission – established in large part by pressure from the United States – which found the killings and forced displacement of villagers constitute crimes against humanity. The commission has a list of 51 suspects (including members of the Sudanese government, anti-government rebels and Arab janjaweed militiamen) and evidence against them.
Ms. Arbour thinks that the best place to prosecute the suspects is in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the world’s first permanent criminal court to try individuals for the gravest international crimes. Its rules and procedures are well established and, according to Ms. Arbour, “ready to go.”
All but three members of the Security Council appear to agree. China and Algeria, which have less than envious human-rights records themselves, side with Sudan, which insists that if any trials are held they should be in Sudan. As far as Washington is concerned, that’s quite rightly not on; Khartoum is unlikely to prosecute crimes in which it is involved. But Washington so mistrusts the ICC that it is proposing instead that the African Union and the UN create a new tribunal at the war-crimes court based in Tanzania that is dealing with Rwandan cases.
A new ad hoc court would not only be costly but also take many months, possibly much longer, to set up. Staff and judges would need to be recruited. In the meantime, as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned, Darfur would continue to be a “hell on Earth” and crimes against humanity would go unpunished.
The Bush administration’s calls for tough action against Khartoum in the form of sanctions are laudable. Its stubborn and misguided refusal to accept the legitimacy of the ICC on the grounds that, despite safeguards, Americans could be hauled before the court remains perplexing. But Washington’s ICC allergy does not mean it should block ICC prosecutions of Darfur cases.
The United States has never held that the court may not be a proper venue for others. It has maintained that ICC prosecutions of non-treaty parties would be legitimate if they received Security Council referral. And Security Council approval for the ICC to deal with Darfur cases is necessary because Sudan, like the United States, has not ratified the treaty.
At the very least, then, the United States should stop blocking the fastest and best way to bring to justice the perpetrators of Darfur’s human-rights abuses. As Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, says, “The ICC could start tomorrow saving lives.”