Justice and peace in Sudan
2:00 a.m. March 3, 2009
For the first time in a quarter-century, Sudan has a chance for peace throughout the entire country. On the face of it, this assertion seems counterintuitive – even preposterous. Darfur is burning, and the historic 2005 agreement that brought peace between northern and southern Sudan is at risk of collapse. Sudan scholars throughout the world busy their days penning academic dirges, and diplomats despair. We've seen that many of California's anti-genocide activists are losing hope as well.
We beg to differ. The expected International Criminal Court arrest warrant tomorrow for President Omer al-Bashir and shifting international sands provide an unprecedented opening, making Sudan's prospects for peace riper than they have been in memory.
According to the arm-chair academics and Chicken Littles, the move by the ICC – its first charges against a sitting president in that institution's young history – will make peace impossible. Beyond the basic ridiculousness of the argument that we should not act against war criminals for fear of upsetting them, this line of reasoning is painfully detached from the reality on the ground.
During our eight trips to Darfur since the genocide began in 2003, we have found that displaced and war-affected Darfuris don't see a tension between justice and peace, and rightly note that one will be very hard without the other. The refugees and displaced put the problem in the clearest of terms: How can you have peace when the president of Sudan has tried to exterminate us, stealing our land, killing our men and raping our women? How can you have peace without justice?
The new Obama administration has sobered the Bashir regime, but made it no less dangerous. The leaders in Sudan's capital now understand that their abuses will not simply be swept under the rug if they offer token counterterrorism cooperation.
Bashir's troubles are mounting. His staunchest supporters are backing away, slowly. China is deeply concerned that its oil investments will be put at risk by Bashir's continued warmongering. Arab states have similar concerns about their huge investments in Sudan's oil-fueled economic boom. Egypt in particular sees Bashir as a liability. His regime supported the assassination attempt against President Hosni Mubarak in 1995, backed Saddam Hussein in the two Gulf wars, and now is fully behind Hamas in Gaza.
Tensions are boiling within Bashir's government in response to these challenges, and particularly the ICC. Some key regime insiders want to find an exit strategy for Bashir, whether that involves a comfortable retirement, standing him down in advance of upcoming elections, or removal. This group would then shift toward a greater accommodation with the international community, opening the door for better peace prospects. Others, however, are much more hard-line, wanting to impose martial law, withdraw from the north-south peace deal, and push U.N. peacekeeping forces out of Darfur and the south.
It is not an exaggeration to say that millions of Sudanese lives may depend on which group emerges victorious. How the Obama administration handles this immediate foreign policy challenge will have a major impact on the outcome. It is crucial for the new president's team to clarify to Arab states, China and others that the U.S. policy objective is a just and durable peace for Sudan.
Even more important will be Obama's ability to lay out a clear diplomatic strategy for achieving peace in Sudan, and sell that road map to other influential international actors. Remember the mantra of Darfur's displaced: no peace without justice. The administration ideally should pursue a two-track approach that seeks intensified peace efforts for Darfur and the south on the one hand, and the sidelining of the indicted war criminal Bashir on the other. On the peace track, the United States should be out front publicly, working closely with U.N., Arab League and African Union diplomats to establish a more credible and accelerated negotiations process. But on the latter track dealing with accountability for Bashir's crimes, President Obama's quiet diplomacy with China and key Arab states will be instrumental.
If Bashir and his cronies publicly laugh at this arrest warrant, it will be nervous laughter at best. The list of war criminals such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic, Théoneste Bagosora and others who have been held to account for their atrocities is growing pleasingly longer by the day.
Prendergast is cofounder of Enough, the project to end genocide and crimes against humanity at the Center for American Progress. He also was a visiting professor at the University of San Diego. Ismail, an adviser to Enough, founded the Darfur Peace and Development organization.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the eve of the increasingly probable issuance of an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, two opinion pieces discussing the issue appear in the New York Times. South African clergyman and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu has an incredible opinion piece in support of ICC action that rebuts arguments, such as the one put forth in an editorial by Franklin Graham, that “The removal of Mr. Bashir will make it harder to negotiate an end to the crisis in Sudan.”
The International Criminal Court will announce this Wednesday, March 4th at 8:00am EST (2:00 PM in The Hague) whether it will issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
Take Action! - Call the White House tomorrow morning
Visit www.savedarfur.org/justice for a sample script and other action items.
No comments:
Post a Comment