N EXT WEEK the U.N. Security Council will consider whether to refer the genocide in the Sudanese region of Darfur to international prosecutors. Many U.N. members would like to bring in the International Criminal Court (ICC), a fledgling institution whose authority they are keen to bolster. The Bush administration would prefer to create a new, ad hoc court, believing that the ICC is an unaccountable posse of lawyers who may one day seek to indict American service members. Neither side should let the dispute over the choice of court get in the way of the objective that both profess to share: holding Sudan's war criminals accountable. But it's even more important that the prosecution of war crimes should not be mistaken for an adequate policy on Darfur.
The best way to resolve the court dispute is for the Bush administration to accept the European position. We share the administration's misgivings about the ICC's ability to bring indictments without first getting a green light from the U.N. Security Council or some other political authority. Unrestrained prosecutors may one day decide, as some human rights groups claimed after the Kosovo war in 1999, that a U.S. humanitarian intervention involves war crimes. But, in the case of Darfur, this worry is irrelevant. Because Sudan is not a signatory to the ICC and the crimes have taken place on Sudanese territory, a Security Council resolution is required before the ICC can get involved. The Bush administration can support such a resolution without thereby legitimizing the ICC prosecutions in cases in which there's no U.N. authorization.
_____Today's Post Editorials_____
|
| |
|
U.S. support for an ICC referral might not achieve much. China might well veto a referral, perhaps with the support of Russia. But even if the ICC was given the authority to get involved in Darfur, the effect on Sudanese behavior would be uncertain. Indictments might even weaken the incentive for Sudanese leaders to improve their behavior, if they believe there's no hope of leniency in any case. The main benefit in terms of deterring genocide would be realized only in the distant future. If the world establishes a track record of holding war criminals accountable, potential criminals in future conflicts may hesitate.
If prosecution isn't going to stop Sudan's genocide, the United States and its allies must pull other levers. The small African Union monitoring force must be expanded and its mandate strengthened; the force must be allowed to confront, rather than just monitor, killers. Anybody who doubts that this is necessary need only consider the recent outbreak of violence. Government troops and their allies in the Janjaweed militia have recently destroyed as many as 25 ethnic African villages, and Sudan's government has reportedly prevented African Union monitors from compiling reports on what happened. But according to news reports, more than 100 civilians were killed in an attack on the village of Hamada in mid-January, and most of the victims were women and children. On Wednesday, a similar number of civilians were murdered in the village of Rahad Kabolong.
As well as bolstering the African Union force, outsiders need to step up diplomatic pressure on Sudan's government. U.N. sanctions, threatened last summer but then quietly forgotten, need to be revived as a tool, and aid may also be a lever. The Dutch government recently promised $150 million as a reward for Sudan's recent peace deal with southern rebels but rightly added that none of that money would be forthcoming until peace came to Darfur. The European Union has also promised aid but waffles on the question of whether it might be suspended if attacks in Darfur continue.
During this week's United Nations ceremonies to commemorate the Holocaust, orators from all over the world declared that such horror must not again be tolerated. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan quoted Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Well, sometimes doing only a little can be just as deadly. The United States and its allies have sounded gruff and impatient about Darfur for months, and they have provided generous relief supplies. But they haven't done what's needed to alter the basic calculation of Sudan's regime: that it can get away with genocide.
