Opinion
March 4
When the International Criminal Court (ICC) ordered the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir yesterday, Sudanese officials responded by quickly demanding that Western aid groups cease their operations in the country.
Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 bloodless coup and ultimately assumed the presidency in 1993, had been the source of much international juridical scrutiny, but it wasn't until February that the ICC judges approved a warrant for his arrest.
Still, despite Bashir's close association with a conflict that has displaced millions of Darfurians and resulted in the violent deaths of countless others, the court stopped short of charging Bashir with genocide, like the prosecutor had requested. Instead, the ICC charged Bashir with war crimes, crimes against humanity and for playing an "essential role" in the murder, rape, torture, pillage and displacement of a number of residents of Darfur.
Although this decision has received opposition from both sides — for being too weak or, more specifically, for not charging Bashir with genocide, and for alternatively being so strong as to incite a backlash from Sudanese officials intent on sending a message to the West — that single order will ultimately prove significant. It attaches a price tag to crimes against humanity. It creates a deterrent for slaughtering civilians. And it sends a message that the international community is paying attention — however peripherally — and will not continue to sit by idly.
Bashir has clearly been wary of the ICC's ruling, which has manifested itself in his attempt to counter it — in this case, by harming aid organizations. In the short term, the ruling seems a poor tradeoff. In addition to cutting off these aid groups, a move that will affect millions of people, some Sudanese government officials have threatened violence in reaction.
On the other hand, the ICC has little leverage with which to actually carry out the ruling. It has no police force of its own, and additionally, the United Nations peacekeepers in the country do not have a mandate to detain war crimes violators.
Nonetheless, the ruling will not only have an ideological and symbolic impact, but on a more practical level, it may also yield a tension in the country that will ultimately result in the type of justice the ICC originally hoped for. It is likely that, eventually, other Sudanese leaders, unhappy with the country's international image, will turn Bashir over to international authorities.
In any case, yesterday's ICC decision may have resulted in short-term problems in the country, but in the long term, it will hopefully destabilize Bashir's power while at the same time deterring future human rights violators.
