The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Sudan’s President, Omar al-Bashir. It is the first ruling of its kind to be issued against a sitting national leader.
The charges against al-Bashir include war crimes and crimes against humanity, though outright accusations of genocide were not included, which I find troubling. If the ICC believes al-Bashir’s government culpable in the organization of premeditated operations against civilians in Darfur, including extermination, murder, rape, torture, the forcible transfer of land and pillaging, then how exactly is that not tantamount to the implementation of genocidal practices? And that’s not even including the fact that they refuse to surrender Humanitarian Affairs Minister Ahmed Haroun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Abdul Rahman, both of whom also have warrants out against them.
I do not believe that by choosing to go after al-Bashir on lesser charges, severe as they might be, will produce better results. After learning of the ruling, the Sudanese government said the Hague could “eat the arrest warrant” and that it was “toothless”. Some legal experts agree, stating that the ICC does not have a police force with which to implement the warrant. Further complicating the matter has been the international response, with the Egyptian government claiming it was “deeply disturbed” by the ruling and calling for the UN Security Council to defer implementing the warrant. The Russians simply claimed it “a dangerous precedent”.
The Obama Administration, on the other hand, welcomed the decision, which is somewhat hypocritical given that the US opted out of the ICC to protect US soldiers from prosecution. If anything, the precedent set by the Bush Administration with regards to dismissing the ICC’s authority has only helped embolden the likes of al-Bashir. One hopes President Obama will amend that decision, though that would then open the door for the ICC to issue charges against members of the Bush Administration for war crimes if enough actionable evidence was attained – a precedent that even the Obama Administration would be hesitant to set.
So what does the warrant mean in the end? Not much, unfortunately. Symbolically it’s a step in the right direction, but unless al-Bashir is detained by another country while visiting it there is little chance that he will be handed over. One of the only realistic options at this point is that a future political rival might use the warrant to gain an upper hand in the Sudanese political arena were al-Bashir to fall out of favour.

March 4, 2009