Was the ICC Right to Indict President Bashir of Sudan?

By Charlie Sprague | March 27, 2009 at 10:58 pm | Opinion | 10 comments | |

 

Right now the most heated debate in international justice centers on the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to issue an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir, the leader of the Sudanese government. Human rights activists applauded the move on March 4th as long overdue, but the announcement has also generated serious outspoken criticism.

bashir-image1To begin, there have been many unfair criticisms of the ICC’s decision. The president of the U.N. General Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, recently said of Bashir’s indictment, “It helps to deepen the perception that international justice is racist because this is the third time that you have something from the ICC and for the third time it has to do with Africa.” Notice he is not directly accusing the ICC of being racist, but his comment was nonetheless highly irresponsible. Most of the victims of Bashir’s war crimes are Africans and refusing to prosecute Bashir out of a fear of being labeled racist would be a moral outrage. Indeed, responsible and compassionate African leaders such as Desmond Tutu have urged African leaders not to come to the defense of Bashir. Furthermore, Brockmann’s statement lends credibility to the self-serving accusations of authoritarian leaders who claim that the ICC is a tool of Western imperialism.

Yet there have also been more substantive challenges to the ICC’s indictment. Andrew Natsios, former U.S. special envoy for Sudan has expressed concern that issuing the arrest warrant will disrupt peace efforts, “This indictment may well shut off the last remaining hope for a peaceful settlement (for Darfur).” Before the announcement, the African Union and the Arab League had asked the Security Council to delay the warrant for a year to pursue peace efforts in Darfur. Additionally, Bashir has retaliated against the ICC’s move by announcing that he is forcing dozens of foreign aid groups out of the country. This will be a tragedy for the millions of Sudanese in Darfur and elsewhere who depend on the generosity of foreign aid organizations. inally, many scholars have protested the ICC indictment by arguing that the decision is completely unenforceable, especially given the opposition of both Russia and China.

Although framing the issue as a debate between peace versus justice seems to make the opponent’s position quite convincing, I am still not convinced that the ruling was a fool’s errand. An editorial in The Japan Times makes what I find to be the most convincing argument in favor of the court’s decision: the ICC is a court, not a political organization, and its job is to uphold laws of international justice. As the article states, “[Objections of political expediency are] irrelevant to the International Criminal Court, because it is not a political organization. It is a court, and courts operate by different rules. It may be politically inconvenient to indict al-Bashir right now, but as the prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, said recently, ‘I don’t have the luxury to look away. I have the evidence.’” The editorial also makes the valid point that the other leaders of the Sudanese government may very well be persuaded to turn over Bashir if doing so would lessen international pressure and allow them to keep power. At the very least, the ICC’s announcement should help corrode whatever shred of legitimacy Bashir had maintained to this point. Finally, even if the ICC is never able to enforce its’ arrest warrant, I still believe there may be some value to the symbolic expression that no leader is unaccountable to international justice. I am by no means completely sure of my position and I am quite interested in what other people have to say about this issue.

More posts by Charlie Sprague »
Charlie Sprague

I love to debate, but I hate it when people take arguments about their politics personally. I love to travel for free. It's one of the best things I've gotten from my CMC education. Sunday is often the most frustrating day of my week (I'm a 49ers fan).

 
 
 
 
  • http://claremontconservative.co Charles Johnson

    Why don’t we just kill him?

  • http://claremontconservative.co Charles Johnson

    Why don’t we just kill him?

  • http://claremontconservative.co Charles Johnson

    Why don’t we just kill him?

  • Charlie Sprague

    The idea has been put forward, but I believe it would be a terrible mistake.

    1) The US no longer has enough relative power to go around assassinating foreign heads of state. It would be extremely difficult to hide US involvement. Russia and China would emphatically object, all of Africa and much of the developing world would denounce us, and we would completely alienate most of our allies. Additionally, we need good relations with Africa for economic and security reasons. Most importantly, Africa has many important natural resources. Consider the example of coaltan, which is a vital component of cell phones. Some of the best reserves are in the Congo. This is the conservative realist speaking here, obviously we have other reasons for not killing foreign heads of state.
    2) I believe most people (myself included) have an interest in international justice, not liberal imperialism. Even though I am passionately committed to alleviating the suffering of people in Sudan, I do not believe we want to be in the business of assassinating foreign leaders. Maybe I’m being too Kantian here, but it seems like we need an agent-centered account of morality in international affairs.
    3) Even if one disputes 1 and 2, one must consider the destabilizing effects in the country itself. The assassination might trigger a power struggle within the government, spur the a reopening of the North-South war, or have any number of unintended disastrous consequences. In the end, assassinating Bashir might end up being a net harm for the people of Sudan.

  • Sebastian Arcus

    “Russia and China would emphatically object, all of Africa and much of the developing world would denounce us, and we would completely alienate most of our allies.”

    Since when are Russia, China, and Africa the moral authorities from whom we must seek validation for all of our activities? Ah, but of course, how could I have lacked the lucidity to see the light! I must admit the superiority of your viewpoint: who would not trust the freedom-loving Putin, the fair and just Communist Party of China, the clear-headed and rational Robert Mugabe?

    Why should we not be in the business of assassinating foreign leaders? If we were to have had the means to murder Hitler prior to World War II, we would have saved millions of lives. So yes, your overindulgence in Kantian philosophy is unwarranted.

    We have a moral obligation to assassinate President Bashir. If we are worried about destabilization, let us commit troops to protect civilians and restore law and order and democratic government to this failure Bashir calls Sudan. If there exist the potential for regional violent conflict, let us partition the nation and dispose of the antiquated European-drawn national boundaries.

    A general point addressed to all Claremont McKenna students: I walk around this campus and see countless “Save Darfur” t-shirts. If you really care, please commit to saving lives, assassinating Bashir, and bringing liberty and freedom to Sudan. If you do not agree with military intervention, then take off the shirt and send it to Sudan so that you can at least help clothe the Sudanese in the absence of meaningful action.

  • Sebastian Arcus

    “Russia and China would emphatically object, all of Africa and much of the developing world would denounce us, and we would completely alienate most of our allies.”

    Since when are Russia, China, and Africa the moral authorities from whom we must seek validation for all of our activities? Ah, but of course, how could I have lacked the lucidity to see the light! I must admit the superiority of your viewpoint: who would not trust the freedom-loving Putin, the fair and just Communist Party of China, the clear-headed and rational Robert Mugabe?

    Why should we not be in the business of assassinating foreign leaders? If we were to have had the means to murder Hitler prior to World War II, we would have saved millions of lives. So yes, your overindulgence in Kantian philosophy is unwarranted.

    We have a moral obligation to assassinate President Bashir. If we are worried about destabilization, let us commit troops to protect civilians and restore law and order and democratic government to this failure Bashir calls Sudan. If there exist the potential for regional violent conflict, let us partition the nation and dispose of the antiquated European-drawn national boundaries.

    A general point addressed to all Claremont McKenna students: I walk around this campus and see countless “Save Darfur” t-shirts. If you really care, please commit to saving lives, assassinating Bashir, and bringing liberty and freedom to Sudan. If you do not agree with military intervention, then take off the shirt and send it to Sudan so that you can at least help clothe the Sudanese in the absence of meaningful action.

  • Sebastian Arcus

    “Russia and China would emphatically object, all of Africa and much of the developing world would denounce us, and we would completely alienate most of our allies.”

    Since when are Russia, China, and Africa the moral authorities from whom we must seek validation for all of our activities? Ah, but of course, how could I have lacked the lucidity to see the light! I must admit the superiority of your viewpoint: who would not trust the freedom-loving Putin, the fair and just Communist Party of China, the clear-headed and rational Robert Mugabe?

    Why should we not be in the business of assassinating foreign leaders? If we were to have had the means to murder Hitler prior to World War II, we would have saved millions of lives. So yes, your overindulgence in Kantian philosophy is unwarranted.

    We have a moral obligation to assassinate President Bashir. If we are worried about destabilization, let us commit troops to protect civilians and restore law and order and democratic government to this failure Bashir calls Sudan. If there exist the potential for regional violent conflict, let us partition the nation and dispose of the antiquated European-drawn national boundaries.

    A general point addressed to all Claremont McKenna students: I walk around this campus and see countless “Save Darfur” t-shirts. If you really care, please commit to saving lives, assassinating Bashir, and bringing liberty and freedom to Sudan. If you do not agree with military intervention, then take off the shirt and send it to Sudan so that you can at least help clothe the Sudanese in the absence of meaningful action.

  • Too late to do any good

    While I am all for targeted assassinations of high ranking leaders (see Alexander the Great and Israel’s success) and while I am in principle against the ICC, I don’t think it is prudent to convict Mr. Bashir at this point. If they are convicting him for moral reasons, then they are way too late to the party and due to any instability arising from his immediate removal from the Sudan, many more would suffer in the short term. If they are convicting him to help stabilize the country, then their action is wrong as the last thing the Sudan needs is an executive less government. As bad as things are in the Sudan, anarchy would be worse.

    The Japanese times editorial makes a good point which I support 100%. However I disagree that the ICC is a legitimate court. By any and all means, the ICC should have at least considered charging Bush and Cheney with war crimes. Perhaps a conviction was not called for but any legitimate court should have addresses the possible geneva convention violations the Bush/Cheney doctrine skirted around. There were other potential violations such as defining torture, defining whether Gitmo was or was not under US command, and whether countries can extradite prisoners to other countries or areas to be tortured. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the POW vs. enemy combatant terminology and in the other potential violations but this is a gray area the ICC should have ruled on it. Since the ICC feels it should only rule on cases involving smaller and weaker countries and less influential leaders, I do not feel it is a legitimate organization. In fact, I think of it like the old boys club and I feel it does more harm than good as it delegitimizes the prospect of a real ICC. The ICC in relation to Sudan is like msnbc in relation to the financial crisis. A talking head that should have helped prevent something but later decided to be too soft and ignore the evidence until it was too late.

    If the ICC can reform and truly and objectively prosecute all parties regardless of affiliation, then I believe the ICC should have prosecuted Mr. Bashir. But if they continue to be a biased organization, then I think we should invade the Hague. ‘Nuff said.

  • Too late to do any good

    While I am all for targeted assassinations of high ranking leaders (see Alexander the Great and Israel’s success) and while I am in principle against the ICC, I don’t think it is prudent to convict Mr. Bashir at this point. If they are convicting him for moral reasons, then they are way too late to the party and due to any instability arising from his immediate removal from the Sudan, many more would suffer in the short term. If they are convicting him to help stabilize the country, then their action is wrong as the last thing the Sudan needs is an executive less government. As bad as things are in the Sudan, anarchy would be worse.

    The Japanese times editorial makes a good point which I support 100%. However I disagree that the ICC is a legitimate court. By any and all means, the ICC should have at least considered charging Bush and Cheney with war crimes. Perhaps a conviction was not called for but any legitimate court should have addresses the possible geneva convention violations the Bush/Cheney doctrine skirted around. There were other potential violations such as defining torture, defining whether Gitmo was or was not under US command, and whether countries can extradite prisoners to other countries or areas to be tortured. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the POW vs. enemy combatant terminology and in the other potential violations but this is a gray area the ICC should have ruled on it. Since the ICC feels it should only rule on cases involving smaller and weaker countries and less influential leaders, I do not feel it is a legitimate organization. In fact, I think of it like the old boys club and I feel it does more harm than good as it delegitimizes the prospect of a real ICC. The ICC in relation to Sudan is like msnbc in relation to the financial crisis. A talking head that should have helped prevent something but later decided to be too soft and ignore the evidence until it was too late.

    If the ICC can reform and truly and objectively prosecute all parties regardless of affiliation, then I believe the ICC should have prosecuted Mr. Bashir. But if they continue to be a biased organization, then I think we should invade the Hague. ‘Nuff said.

  • Too late to do any good

    While I am all for targeted assassinations of high ranking leaders (see Alexander the Great and Israel’s success) and while I am in principle against the ICC, I don’t think it is prudent to convict Mr. Bashir at this point. If they are convicting him for moral reasons, then they are way too late to the party and due to any instability arising from his immediate removal from the Sudan, many more would suffer in the short term. If they are convicting him to help stabilize the country, then their action is wrong as the last thing the Sudan needs is an executive less government. As bad as things are in the Sudan, anarchy would be worse.

    The Japanese times editorial makes a good point which I support 100%. However I disagree that the ICC is a legitimate court. By any and all means, the ICC should have at least considered charging Bush and Cheney with war crimes. Perhaps a conviction was not called for but any legitimate court should have addresses the possible geneva convention violations the Bush/Cheney doctrine skirted around. There were other potential violations such as defining torture, defining whether Gitmo was or was not under US command, and whether countries can extradite prisoners to other countries or areas to be tortured. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the POW vs. enemy combatant terminology and in the other potential violations but this is a gray area the ICC should have ruled on it. Since the ICC feels it should only rule on cases involving smaller and weaker countries and less influential leaders, I do not feel it is a legitimate organization. In fact, I think of it like the old boys club and I feel it does more harm than good as it delegitimizes the prospect of a real ICC. The ICC in relation to Sudan is like msnbc in relation to the financial crisis. A talking head that should have helped prevent something but later decided to be too soft and ignore the evidence until it was too late.

    If the ICC can reform and truly and objectively prosecute all parties regardless of affiliation, then I believe the ICC should have prosecuted Mr. Bashir. But if they continue to be a biased organization, then I think we should invade the Hague. ‘Nuff said.