In case you missed it:

Judges at the International Criminal Court ordered the arrest on Wednesday of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, charging him with war crimes and crimes against humanity for a concerted government campaign against civilians in the Darfur region. They did not charge him with genocide, denying the request by the prosecutor.

n issuing the order, the three judges brushed aside diplomatic requests for more time for peace talks and fears that the warrant would incite a violent backlash in the country, where 2.5 million people have been chased from their homes and 300,000 have died in a five-year-old conflict pitting non-Arab rebel groups against the Arab-dominated government and militias. It is the first time the court, which opened in 2002 and is seated in The Hague, has sought the arrest of a sitting head of state. Other international war crimes courts have issued warrants for sitting presidents, including Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia and Charles Taylor of Liberia. . . .

Reaction from Sudan, which has vowed to defy the court, was swift. “We strongly condemn this criminal move,” said Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem, the Sudanese ambassador to the United Nations. “It amounts to an attempt at regime change. We are not going to be bound by it, we are not going to respect it.”

Needless to say, this is a very big deal, one that will test the capacity of the international community to advance its stated support for international justice and the rule of law.

Back in 1998, I was a member of the U.S. delegation to the Rome Conference that created the International Criminal Court.  I served as the delegation spokesperson, meeting with the media and NGOs to explain the USG position.  At the time, thanks in large part to pressure from DOD, the U.S. voted against the final treaty, despite the fact that the U.S. delegation had worked hard to help craft an effective institution that would go after the worst of the worst human rights offenders.

In the last days of his Administration, President Clinton changed his mind and signed the treaty.  Sadly, the Bush Administration aggressively opposed it, forcing allies to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements that provided immunity to Americans and officially “unsigning” the treaty.  The good news is that the Obama Administration has signaled its willingness to reverse Bush’s actions.  It’s unlikely that the U.S. will ratify the treaty anytime soon, but we are going to get out of the court’s way and support it when we can.

Here’s the offical response from State, issued under the name of the Acting Deputy Spokesman:

The United States is strongly committed to the pursuit of peace in Sudan and believes those who have committed atrocities should be held accountable for their crimes.

We urge the Government of Sudan, armed rebel groups, and all other concerned parties to exercise restraint in responding to this development and to ensure the safety and security of vulnerable Sudanese populations, international civilians, and peacekeepers on the ground.

The United States will continue to support efforts to ease the suffering of the Sudanese people and to promote a just and durable peace. We remain committed to full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that brought an end to the conflict between North and South Sudan. We will also continue to support UN/AU Mediator Bassole’s efforts to achieve a permanent cessation of hostilities and a political settlement that will end the humanitarian crisis and bring lasting peace to Darfur.

If that sounds like careful parsing, it is.  It is not in the interest of the Court, of the U.S., or of those suffering in Sudan for the United States to appear to applaud the indictment — an indictment, after all, is very different from a conviction.  In addition, the U.S. needs to maintain the appearance of a neutral party in the conflict in order to support the current United Nations-African Union efforts to negotiate a settlement.

Back when I was serving as the spokesman for the delegation, we argued that the Court risked becoming politicized, that it would provide an opportunity to bog down the U.S. and its allies (meaning Israel, primarily) with politicized prosecutions.  So when I respond to criticisms of the Court, I like to say that I not only know the other side’s arguments, I helped write them during my government service.  So I know they’re wrong.

The reality is that the ICC has instead done exactly what it is supposed to do:  indict and prosecute those alleged to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.  To date, the Court has pursued cases concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, and Sudan, and it is investigating reported crimes in the Central African Republic.  It has rejected efforts to add political cases to its docket.

The Bashir indictment represents an important step forward.  It does not mean that U.N Marshals will swoop in to grab him.  Chances are, it will be years if not a decade or more before he is brought to justice.  But even the indictment represents a strong signal that world leaders cannot act with impunity.  And no matter what he may think, Omar al-Bashir is now a wanted man.

Related posts

• Neocons, A.Q. Khan, the ICC and Red Herrings
• The Panic over Political Appointments
• The Human Rights Secretary of State?
• The Bush Administration’s Harry Mudd Moment
• Politicizing Relief: Blaming (Those Helping) the Victims