The term genocide entered into international political vocabulary in the aftermath of the horrific events that took place during the Second World War with the promise of "never again". While international conventions on genocide and war crimes were welcomed by states in principle, many failed to take action in practice, mostly because of failed peace operations and intense political rivalry in the Cold War period. The end of the Cold War brought renewed hope for the application of the conventions and prevention of future atrocities; but was instantly shattered by the events in Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Azerbaijan. The world was a by-stander to atrocities in the post-Cold era, and justice and peace seldom arrived on time, if at all. Interestingly enough, during this period, conventions on genocide and war crimes became a political tool to either justify military interventions, such as the United States occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; or as a means to exert political pressure on nations, such as Armenian attempts to gain political ground in their own domestic affairs with claims of an "Armenian Genocide". These in turn made the conventions on genocide hollow. Furthermore, public opinion began to lose faith in the conventions and international institutions that claimed to uphold these humanitarian principles.
On the other hand, some hope was revived with the establishment of the independent International Criminal Court, which created expectation that irrespective of its political power, when a state-whether it is the U.S. or Uganda-commits a crime, those who are responsible will be brought to justice. Or at least, the ICC would create a moral precedence through its decisions. Such a moral precedence has been set with the ICC's decision to issue an arrest warrant for Sudan's President Omar Al Bashir. The ICC 's decision to uphold the indictment for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Sudanese government forces in the country's Darfur region was a bold one. That the ICC would issue an arrest warrant against the sitting president had long been demanded by many experts and NGOs. The ICC had previously filed cases against other responsible parties of the atrocities in Darfur. Among these were Ahmad Harun, former Minister of State for the Interior of the Government of Sudan and current Minister for Humanitarian Affairs. The argument has been that the mastermind behind the atrocities should not be left outside the search for justice, although the ICC's warrant fell short of what the Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo had hoped for. President Al Bashir is accused of five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of war crimes, rather than genocide explicitly.
The arrest warrant on President Al Bashir has initiated a new period for the ICC and international politics, as well as the conflict in Darfur. The ICC's decision gave the signal that no one who is responsible for crimes against humanity is safe, even if they are acting presidents. On the other hand, the recent decision heightened expectation that the ICC will focus on other regional trouble spots as well. The ICC's credibility has become dependent on its success on the Darfur case. Furthermore, the decision initiated a heated debate on the future of conflict in Darfur and how a stable peace can be reached in Sudan.
The future of Darfur
While Western states and the public welcomed the ICC's decision, Russia, China, Sudan and various analysts and Arab commentators voiced their concerns over the possible negative implications of the decision for the security of Sudan and the peace process. Upon declaration of the ICC's decision, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) walked out of negotiations with the Sudanese government, which were expected to have led to peace talks. JEM declared that they will abide by the ICC's decision and try to capture President Al Bashir, by military force, if necessary. Hence, clashes between JEM and the government have heated up. Furthermore, the arrest warrant could also impact the coming elections in Southern Sudan, which has been the scene of civil war that ended with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005. If Al Bashir becomes isolated, elections scheduled for 2009 have little chance to go ahead as planned, with even less likelihood that they will produce fair results.
Furthermore, the Sudanese government reacted violently and quickly to the ICC's decision by punishing already suffering civilians in Darfur. International NGOs, which supply critical food and medicine to refugees in Darfur, were expelled on grounds that they are responsible for the negative image of the Sudanese government reported in the international media and "fabrication" of evidence against the government. As a result, 2 million displaced people in camps in Darfur may now lose the life-support provided by international aid. The Sudanese government has been wary of international NGOs and press members present in Darfur since the initiation of the conflict, and put severe obstacles in front of efforts to reach aid to millions of civilians. Furthermore, NGOs and foreign journalists had warned about atrocities committed in Darfur and helped at-risk civilians to escape from the region-further irritating the government. The ICC warrant created a pretext for the Sudanese government to seek a moral high ground by presenting itself as pro-peace while the ICC and rebel forces are shown to be responsible for the continued conflict.
To put the blame for hostilities and the expulsion of international NGOs on the ICC's warrant is to dismiss the reality that the peace negotiations were already fragile. Severe mistrust between the parties was already hindering genuine progress. The international community, and neighboring African nations in particular, have to understand that a stable peace cannot be arrived at when perpetuators of the atrocities are nestled in the government and are receiving its protection. Even before the ICC issued an arrest warrant on Al Bashir, the Sudanese government failed to cooperate with the ICC's similar decision on Ahmad Harun and Ali Kusayb, the alleged leader of the Janjaweed militias. Furthermore, despite the peace agreement with the main Darfur rebel fraction, the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) in May 2006, other rebels were divided on whether to accept the agreement, in a clear sign of the level of mistrust towards Khartoum.
Furthermore, the international community should not expect a lasting peace agreement between Darfur rebel forces and the Sudanese government while the perpetrators of the atrocities in Darfur are still granted protection by the Sudanese government. Reaching a peace deal under such conditions would only delay the eruption of renewed conflict, as was the case in Rwanda, not end it. To what extent the Sudanese government, which armed and helped Janjaweed militias, will abide by the peace agreement is questionable. In previous agreements, although the Sudanese government promised to disarm Janjaweed militias, disarmament efforts were only superficial. Weapons that were collected from the Janjaweed were given back the day after. Consequently, why do some analysts and world leaders believe that this time around, if the ICC had not issued the arrest warrant, the Sudanese government was ready to respect the conditions of the agreement? More importantly, how can we expect people in Darfur to live peacefully when perpetuators of the atrocities go unpunished?
The question of ICC's credibility
The arrest warrant out on Al Bashir has put ICC's credibility at risk. Both the Sudanese government and Arab analysts perceive the arrest warrant as a violation of Sudan's sovereignty and a threat to other Arab regimes which the West is not happy with. However, the Sudanese government, until today, has not showed any willingness to punish those responsible for the atrocities committed in Darfur. Moreover, the Sudanese government itself became a perpetrator of the atrocities by arming and supporting Janjaweed militias and withdrawing all police forces from the region. Besides, the Darfur crisis has become an international problem because of the massive extent of the atrocities and the Sudanese government's inability, or unwillingness, to resolve the conflict. We cannot talk about the sovereignty of a state when it fails to not only prevent massacres but goes as far as to become an agent of the violence. Unless moderate leaders who oppose Al Bashir's polices in Darfur come to power in Sudan and initiate legal proceedings against the perpetuators of the crimes, an intervention by an international organization is necessary for realizing justice in Sudan.
Although accusations that call the ICC a tool of Western imperialism are nothing but senseless conspiracy theories, they are nonetheless there. Damage to how the ICC is perceived could have dire consequences on its credibility. Currently, all the cases filed by the ICC are related to African states and there are no investigations into other regions. Although, such accusations directed against the ICC do not minimize the broader validity of the arrest warrant, in the long-run they may affect the moral weight of ICC's future decisions. The ICC should move quickly to counter attempts to undermine its credibility for the sake of success in Darfur.
The international community's responsibility
Although the Sudanese government is under pressure to resolve the conflict peacefully and punish perpetuators, it is encouraged to employ delay tactics by tacit Russian and Chinese support. Without the full backing of these two pivotal states for a sustainable peace agreement, resolution in Darfur is out of reach. Economic reasons are the main drivers behind their support. Russia fears that Sudan will default on its debts to Moscow if it supports the international embargo on Sudan, and China is afraid of losing an important energy source and trading partner for military hardware. In the midst of the global financial crisis, Western pressure to dissuade Russia and China's support for Al Bashir is unlikely to produce results. However, Russia could lend its support to the international embargo against Sudan if it was given assurances for Sudan's debt. Changing China's attitude is more difficult, as it is one of Sudan's main suppliers.
However, China should realize that its encouragement of the Sudanese government to continue to undermine international law could back fire. Chinese economic growth is mainly dependent on foreign direct investment mostly from the West, and the Western market is the main target for Chinese products. What China does not realize is that a boycott of Chinese goods, initiated by pro-peace NGOs as a global movement for Darfur, could bring Chinese economic growth to a halt. In the past, such movements proved to be effective, as seen the case of Nike, when a popular boycott resulted in the closure of Nike sweatshops in Southeast Asia.
Conclusion
ICC's arrest warrant is critical for both the people of Darfur and in terms of precedent-setting by the international political system. The ICC decision may pave the way for a more just peace agreement in Darfur, if the international community resolutely backs the arrest warrant. Only after those responsible for the atrocities in Darfur are brought to justice can a stable and lasting peace be realized in Sudan. At this juncture, both the ICC and the international community have enormous responsibilities ahead. The ICC should start investigating other cases in order to prove its impartiality and its commitment to uphold humanitarian values, everywhere. The international community should stand by the ICC's decision and seek ways to engage the African Union in strengthening regional political will to end the genocide in Darfur. If Russia and China throw their weight behind the ICC's landmark decision on Al Bashir, the Sudanese government would yield to the ICC's demands. Otherwise, Darfur would remain a ticking bomb ready to explode over even a minor dispute-even if a shaky peace deal is brokered.