 |
Justice in Sudan? |
 |
Today the New York Times is reporting (free registration required) that two people will face international war crimes trials at The Hague for their role in the continuing genocide in Darfur. Is this progress? The two charged, Ahmad Harun and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-al-Rahman, are described in the article as follows:
Mr. Harun, currently Sudan’s deputy minister for humanitarian affairs, was a senior government official in charge of the military and police and intelligence forces in Darfur as civilians were killed, raped and chased from their homes in the region, the prosecutors said.
His “unlimited†budget, the prosecutors said, allowed him to arm and finance Mr. Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb, the militia leader who led fighters in a brutal campaign of violence against civilians. “We have focused on some of the most serious incidents,†Mr. Moreno-Ocampo [the prosecutor] said.
Of course, the main actors in this genocide have yet to be brought to justice, and of course the people accused would not be handed over by Sudan because it does not recognize the court's jurisdiction.
The court itself, though endorsed by 104 countries (but not the US!), has no real enforcement arm, so arrests and summons cannot be served without the cooperation of the governments it is investigating. This of course makes The Hague generally toothless, and it has been often ridiculed for providing no real justice, just symbolic accusations and trials.
I happen to agree with this notion. Though the idea of a world-wide justice system is great on paper, a court without means to bring people physically to justice is doomed to an ineffectual existence. Stopping the genocide in Darfur will take a lot more than symbolic accusations aimed at low level officials. If the high court was connected to the UN peacekeeping forces, then justice might be able to be served if the UN ever decides to do anything about Sudan. However, corrupt governments participating in genocide will never obey the court's demands no matter how just.
Still, some say that the symbolic accusations and trials in absentia serve an important symbolic purpose. These trials elevate the crimes in question to international levels, and bring about public statements of right and wrong. They say certainly there is something to be gained from a public condemnation by an international body.
Personally, I say no. I'm not interested in the righting of historical wrongs in a symbolic way. For me, the issue in Sudan is about genocide and massive loss of life. If the high court can stop that, then I'm all for it. And if after things calm down the high court can hold those who committed war crimes responsible, in person, and impose meaningful sentences, that's good too. But for the court to hold trials without defendants present just to hand down an unenforceable sentence seems to me a huge waste of resources and ineffectual at best, meaningless at worst.
What do you think?
Although the idea of an international court seems appealing only those coutries without economic power truely need such a system. The harsh reality is that the US will never recognize the Hague or even give the UN much weight because in order to further advance our own perogative, we cannot have a international judicial body curb any such "progress." Similar arguements where made against the Supreme Court in it's very beginning and if you add an ounce of racism and and tad bit of nationalism to the mix… you get the point. Many would also argue that the US ends up propping up such international bodies and therefore, the load is not shared fairly. When we are talking about Genocide in Darfur though, this opinionated individual hopes that another country steps forward in order to give the Hague teeth. Unfortunatly, I am not optomistic, isolationist politics may have been reborn with Iraq (at least in other countries).
well said KTB. I don't suspect it'll be anytime soon that a U.S. citizen is brought before an international court. It is still a step in the right direction, however, as those who would abuse their power in countries without economic strength no doubt take notice.