Earlier this month, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Sudan’s president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes connected with Darfur. The warrant raises again the timeless question of peace versus justice. (See articles by Marquette visiting professor Lisa Laplante on outlawing amnesty and me on balancing peace versus justice in negotiating peace.) Is it more important to have peace on the ground (or at least hope for it) or to attain justice (in the manner of prosecutions)? Darfur presents this issue in a quite pressing manner.
Last summer, among much hand-wringing that the indictment would only make it more difficult for peace to be negotiated, Judge Richard Goldstone wrote a top-notch op-ed for the New York Times explaining the fallacy of that concern. Goldstone, as the former prosecutor for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, understands this balance between peace and justice quite well. As Goldstone notes, the peace process in Darfur is hardly working as it is.
In the meantime, the indictments may delegitimize the government in the eyes of the Sudanese people, especially the elites in Khartoum. In 1999, after the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslovia issued its arrest warrant for President Milosevic, an opposition group called Otpor turned it into a political weapon with the slogan, “He is finished.” Mr. Milosevic lost the elections in 2000. Although other factors contributed to his fall, including lost wars and corruption, the indictments played their part by demonstrating his isolation.
In Sudan’s 2009 elections, some citizens may rally behind their president. Others may not. In the story of the emperor’s new clothes, a little boy is the only one who has the innocence to point out that the emperor is naked. The arrest warrants for President Bashir reveal to the world what type of regime holds power in Khartoum. They should also push the Security Council to apply real pressure on the Sudanese government. The council and its member states should make President Bashir’s government an international pariah, imposing sanctions against its leaders and, most important, Sudan’s oil exports, which have so effectively insulated the regime. The prosecutor’s message might make some people uncomfortable, but that does not mean we should shoot the messenger. This crisis should galvanize the Security Council to take serious action.
The Security Council heeded Judge Goldstone’s call and supported the ICC. Last week the viewpoints of two religious figures opened the debate again about peace versus justice. Franklin Graham, in his NYT op-ed entitled Put Peace Before Justice that arresting Bashire would just create more chaos. As he says, “justice without peace would be a hollow victory.” On the other hand, and on the same page, Desmond Tutu argued that African leaders should support the International Criminal Court in its work. I, for one, find it hard to aruge with one of the greatest living symbols of peace and justice.
Darfur presents such a hard choice because we can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Will the indictment actually help the people of Darfur? Could the situation get much worse? Is this just to make us (the West) feel better? It will be much easier to write the lessons of Darfur and this indictment twenty years from now. Right now, we cross our fingers and hope.
