The International Criminal Court Takes a Brave Stand

By Collette Kaplan

On July 14th, the International Criminal Court bravely charged Sudanese President Omar Bashir with crimes against humanity for his role as the leader of the ongoing Genocide in Darfur.

These charges are significant against a regime with a long track record of violence against non-Arab groups in Sudan, but they are not the first. Last year the ICC issued warrants for Bashir's top officials; Humanitarian Affairs Minister, Ahmad Harun, and Janjaweed Militia leader Ali Kushayb. The Sudanese government has not cooperated in handing them over. It is generally accepted that Bashir will not go quietly.

Why then are we to believe the ICC's action will make any difference to a people who have been begging for justice for more than 5 years?

I suspect one reason is that the US has put little diplomatic effort into pressuring Sudan's biggest diplomatic protector, China, into using it's influence. 

China purchases the majority of the regions oil and could have influenced Bashir's reluctance to participate in a meaningful peace agreement long ago. Considering Mondays charges, China may now want to distance itself from a President facing arrest for Genocide on the eve of their hosting the International Olympics. China might also reconsider supplying arms to a government the ICC has formally charged with Crimes Against Humanity. Failing to with hold arms shipments could result in their being charged with violating the Genocide Convention.

This week the Arab League held an emergency meeting to discuss the indictment of Bashir.

The league recommended that Sudan turn over Harun and Kashayb as a bargaining chip to thwart or delay the ICC's taking additional action against Bashir. Sudanese presidential advisor Mustafa Osman Ismail said Sudan would not cooperate with the ICC because they do not recognise them, according to the state-run Egyptian news agency.

A leading Saudi columnist for the Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper said on Monday, "We must remember that the Arab League did not care about the extermination of 300,000 Darfuris. It even refused to stand a moment of silence to the killings, displacements and burning."

It would appear to some that Bashir is looking for reinforcement instead of re-assessing the path to the peace. 

It will take the ICC many months to issue an actual arrest warrant for Bashir. Meanwhile, the Sudanese government will predictably use it's outrage to explain renewed violence against African Union and UN peacekeepers. It has already posed the threat of renewed violence against aid workers in press statements. There is no doubt this may scare the ICC into backing down or delaying further actions until there are certain assurances. But promises made by Khartoum are generally empty ones.

Peace it would appear, will now hang in the scales of Justice. Or will it?

Luis Moreno-Ocampo has delivered the evidence. Now he must have the support of the Judges and he must also have the support of the UN Security Council. 

Perhaps the first best step now would be the immediate and long overdue deployment of the additional AU and UN Forces with a mandate to protect? Most experts agree that protection provides a baseline front against additional aggression. Reducing the regimes ability to kill with impunity effectively reduces the regimes grip on their mission. Now, while the government of Sudan is mired in debate over the ICC's charges, and reeling from the recent penetration of rebel forces in Khartoum, would be the time. 

It is illogical for the UN to wait for Khartoum to give the thumbs up sign and allow these forces in. 

The ICC's  brave stand means nothing if the very bodies required to support it do nothing. 

Protection, peace, and prosecution has always been the accepted order and approach at resolving this conflict. 

In his most recent live press conference, President Bush said he is waiting for the UN. 

Conspicuous in its absence is any comment from China. 

There are current reports that Sudan is showing signs of increased cooperation with aid shipments and visas for aid workers; actions that most certainly would not have come with out the ICC charges.

For now, we can only wait, watch, and hope that the threat of prosecution brings peace and protection to the people of Darfur. 

"The Silent Guest of the Genocide Olympics"

By Collette Kaplan

On the eve of the July 4^th holiday, President Bush announced through his press secretary that he would attend the August 8^th opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics in Beijing. He stated that he does not view the Olympics as a political event; he views it as a sporting event.  Embarrassing a government for the loss of 23 lives in Tibet, he noted, is not in our diplomatic best interests.

Conspicuous in its absence from the President’s explanation is the ongoing genocide in Darfur.  That is a shame because President Bush is on record as recognizing the situation in Darfur for what it is, a genocide.  The inconvenient fact is that the genocide in Darfur is ongoing because China gives the regime in Khartoum diplomatic cover.  To date, more than 400,000 have been killed and 2.5 million have been displaced and are living in refugee camps with no protection, little food or water and worse, little hope of returning to their homes.

China’s record on Darfur is shameful.  Since 2003, Darfuris have been begging for someone to send a peacekeeping force with the size, equipment and mandate to protect them.  In a breakthrough in August 2006, the U.N. passed Resolution 1706 authorizing just such a peacekeeping force. The government of Sudan balked and with the support of the Chinese, the U.N. backed down and passed a watered-down resolution in July 2007. A year later, there is still no effective peacekeeping force on the ground and the pace of the violence is increasing.

The International Criminal Court has indicted and issued an arrest warrant for the mastermind of the Darfur genocide, Ahmed Haroun. Haroun is Sudan’s “Minister of Humanitarian Affairs,” a position given to him to signal Khartoum’s defiance of the international community.

Instead of supporting Haroun’s arrest, China invited him to visit last month and gave him the “kings tour” of their provinces.  Perhaps the Chinese were simply warming up to roll out the red carpet for the “A” list guests in August?  But is this really a guest list that we want our President to join?

Where is the outrage?

Genocide is a serious international matter and any government that backs it should be called out for it. Any country that remains silent is a bystander and should be labeled as such. Both are worthy of criticism and shame.

I fail to see how tiptoeing around China’s offenses does us any good in the long run.  It only makes us look weak. Our willingness to look the other way on China’s reprehensible support of the Khartoum regime only emboldens both Sudan and China in their defiance of world norms. 

Americans are good people; we care about what is right and just. And certainly, this is not an easy issue.  We understandably feel stretched in our capacity to stand up for another victimized people across the world.  Nor is China likely to walk away from Khartoum willingly.  No doubt, the rising price of oil and the significant supply that Sudan provides to China will strengthen China’s resolve to back its partner unless the pressure on China increases significantly.  But tough issues are what define our moral character.

Perhaps we need a reminder that in 1936 Hitler hosted the Olympics in Nazi Berlin.  It was a propaganda fest for the Fuhrer.  While President Roosevelt did not attend, other world leaders did.  Three years later, Hitler was rolling tanks through Eastern Europe and the death camps were soon to follow.  For my money, President Roosevelt was right to decline the trip to Berlin.

These are different times.  China is a different host and President Bush decided to attend on the rationale that constructive engagement is the wiser course.  The dilemma now for the President is how to be a gracious guest without being a silent guest.  President Bush was right to call Darfur a genocide.  He knows that the Chinese are the difference-maker for a diplomatic solution in Darfur.  Now is the time to insist that the visit is a two-way street.  The Chinese need to deliver material concessions or President Bush should use the forum to call out China’s complicity in genocide.  My guess is that President Bush hopes that he gets a pass.  We should not let that happen.

Perhaps President Bush has not been given the message that genocide matters to us?

Last time I checked, the White House and the United Nations phone lines were open and taking our calls.

 

Submitted to the LA Times July 3, 2008