A crisis is unfolding in Sudan, and it is getting worse. Almost two years ago, the Sudanese government began responding to a rebellion in the western Darfur region by attacking the civilian population of the region on a massive scale. They created and armed militias known as the “janjaweed,” who have pursued a campaign of rape, murder and ethnic cleansing, enjoying air support from government warplanes.

More than 1.6 million people have been forced to flee their homes, while estimates of the death toll range from 180,000 to over 300,000. Reports by Human Rights Watch and other organizations show that the attacks have not abated. A UN commission of inquiry reported on Jan. 25 that massive crimes against humanity are taking place and recommended that the UN Security Council refer the situation to the recently established International Criminal Court (ICC). On Wednesday, in closed session, France called on the Council to do exactly that. Though President Bush has opposed the court with every means available to him since taking office, he must not cast his veto if he is in any way concerned about the welfare of the people of Darfur.

The ICC was established by the Rome Statute in 1998, and entered into force on July 1, 2002. Currently, 98 countries have signed and ratified the Rome Statute; notable exceptions include the United States, Japan, China and Russia. The court was established as a “court of last resort.” Its mandate is to ensure that “the gravest international crimes do not go unpunished” when national courts are unable or unwilling to prosecute. In addition, it only has jurisdiction if the crime is committed in a country which is a party to the treaty or by a national of one. The Security Council may also refer cases to the court. It is intended to replace ad hoc war crimes tribunals, such s those created to prosecute crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, with a permanent and consistent system of justice. It has already begun investigating crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and the Central African Republic.

Under President Clinton, the United States signed but did not ratify the Rome Statute. However, President Bush rescinded that signature and has made every possible effort to sabotage the court. Threatened with a veto of all peacekeeping missions by the U.S., the Security Council twice passed a resolution exempting U.S. troops serving on peacekeeping missions from prosecution by the ICC. The U.S. has also negotiated bilateral immunity treaties with several countries, often under the threat of withholding financial aid. Congress has even passed legislation (dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act”) authorizing the use of military force to free any Americans or citizens of allied countries held by the court. These measures are all unnecessary: the court cannot prosecute Americans since the U.S. is not a party to it and holds a veto on the Security Council.

Prosecuting the perpetrators of massive crimes against humanity has always been an elusive, yet vital, goal. Following in the footsteps of Nuremburg, the ICC provides a permanent venue for such cases, offering hope that the first step in ending impunity has been taken. No case is more pressing today than that of Darfur, where rape, murder and destruction occur daily. Prosecuting these crimes in a timely and consistent manner is an important step in preventing future occurrences.

If President Bush is sincere in deploring the crimes of Saddam Hussein and calling for justice, he must not now abandon the people of Darfur for political purposes. If he wishes to help them and prevent similar catastrophes in the future, one of the most important (and easiest) steps is to allow these crimes to be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court.

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.