When in July 14, 2008 prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo charged Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, few people would have argued against.
Only a month before, Moreno-Ocampo stood in front of the United Nations Security Council and said Khartoum had slaughtered some 300,000 people. The evidence is there buried and burned with all the bodies and villages.
But then last month, Khartoum expelled NGOs hours after a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest was issued. Oxfam said the decision would have a devastating impact on hundreds of thousands of people. Alone, Oxfam provides clean water and sanitation for 400,000.
13 international aid agencies, along with their assets, are no longer operational in Sudan. 108 countries who ratified the Rome Treaty are now obliged to bring al-Bashir to justice. Note – the United States has not ratified the ICC treaty.
Al-Bashir’s indictment by the ICC has a generated a lot of controversy. Not least because it sets a precedent and a message that world leaders are not immune (unless you belong to the club of rich nations), but also because there are fears that Khartoum will only increase the devastation against its own people.
Against this backdrop, numerous people are arguing against the ICC. No well informed individual is disputing that the people of Sudan have suffered and continue to suffer under al-Bashir.
But like so many conflicts that involves a mesh of history, culture, geo-politics, climate, economics, politics…well, just about everything…it’s important to get a perspective that falls outside the typical Hollywood activism and media frame. Let’s take a look at a couple.
1.Alex de Waal is a fellow at the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard University and has written numerous books and articles on Sudan. De Waal argues that the ICC decision will further destabilize Sudan at the expense of its people. In his article at openDemocracy, de Waal quotes a Sudanese civil-society activist. “”All of us want justice but justice cannot be achieved in a social vacuum. We should choose the time for justice. Today it is the lives of people that count.”
2.Mahmood Mamdani is the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government Columbia University. Mamdani argues in his article at the UK Mail & Gaurdian that the prosecution’s case charging al-Bashir ignores and/or is ignorant of the roots of the conflict. The ICC, says Mamdani, has politicized justice and that the greater concern for Africa is the contentious relationship between law and politics.
3.Julie Flint is co-author with Alex de Waal of Darfur: A New History of a Long War. She argues that in her article at the Gaurdian that the ICC indictment will spread the suffering of numerous people who depend on the aid of international organizations. She says that while the pursuit of justice is noble in deed, there are certain realities that escape this Utopian ideal. She believes justice is a condition of peace. Without peace, there is no justice.
For more on this debate, check out the Social Science Research Council’s ‘Making Sene of Darfur’ here.
