The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Wolraich's picture

    At What Cost Justice?

    By Michael Wolraich on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 2:41pm | Social Justice, World Affairs

    No, I am not referring to bankers. I'm speaking of the International Criminal Court's indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on war crimes charges. Bashir is a force of evil in the world. His leadership has directly contributed to the suffering, murder, and genocide of millions. He deserves the most severe penalties we can in good conscience apply.

    But this indictment will not bring Bashir to justice. It will not remove him from office. It will not help those suffering in Darfur. Quite the contrary. Since the indictment, Bashir has closed or expelled 16 local and foreign agencies in retaliation, agencies which provided about half of all aid to the suffering refugees of Darfur. The expulsions have worsened an already catastrophic situation. With less access to food and medicine and with the abrupt ending of a meningitis immunization campaign, many Darfurians will likely starve and die from disease. This suffering is not the Criminal Court's fault--Bashir bears all the blame--but it is a consequence of the court's action, and it is a shocking example of prioritizing principle over pragmatism, of valuing justice for one man over the suffering of millions.

    In a display of callous and unconscionable naivety, the the court's chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, declared,

    "The Sudan has to find the way to arrest Bashir and stop the crimes; that is the best way."

    But without any mechanism to enforce the indictment, the court's action offers no incentive to the Sudanese to rid themselves of their tyrant. Rather, it will encourage Bashir and his deputies to hold on to power at all costs, for now Bashir cannot relinquish power without risk of prison or death, and he no longer has anything to lose by initiating even more repressive action.

    One might argue that Bashir must be prosecuted to deter him and other tyrants from more heinous crimes in the future, but there is no evidence that the threat of criminal charges offers a deterrent against war crimes. Despots like Bashir plan to hold onto power for life, so they do not expect to ever have to appear before the International Court. Penalty without enforcement does not stop crime.

    If the court should ever gain the power to enforce indictments of sitting leaders, then criminal prosecution will serve a worthy purpose. If Bashir someday relinquishes power, and the court has the opportunity to try him, then it should do so. But until then, the court's indictment is only a symbolic gesture that contributes little to the world and causes innocent people much suffering. For that reason, we are obliged to condemn it.

    Topics: 
    Social Justice
    World Affairs

    Comments

    great post. given our discussion on the AIG bonuses and the Congressional reaction, this provides another example of whether symbolic measures are important, even if they ultimately undermine or distort the aims we are trying to achieve.

    Do you think the indictment really has an impact on whether Bashir decides to cede power or turn himself in? Or are you just arguing that his reaction to the indictment - closing some international aid offices and circling the wagons - is reason enough to condemn the action? I think I can buy that, because in this case the stakes are so much higher than in the AIG example (i.e. genocide, continued terror) and the symbolism so much less important (i.e. is an indictment really necessary to express the international community's condemnation of his behavior?)


    by Deadman on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 4:28pm

    Closing of aid offices is reason enough. The point about about Bashir's relinquishing of power was a response to the idea that the indictment would somehow help push him from power, which is what the chief prosecutor has suggested. Bashir is nowhere near relinquishing power, regardless of what the court does. But if he were ever to consider it sometime in the future, the indictment could serve as disincentive.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 03/21/2009 - 4:35pm

    I'm going to get all sophomoric-philosophy-undergrad on Sudan for a second :)

    Lucretius: Can there be justice where there is such scarcity.

    Marcus Aurelius:  But without scarcity, would justice even exist.

    Rumi:  If there were a thousand men and a single glass of water, would it be justice to divide the water into 1,000 sips?  Or should no one drink.  Or should one drink.  Or should the few drink.  Or should the young drink.  The only true justice is in the search for more water.


    by littleblackprop... on Sun, 03/22/2009 - 6:46pm

    Genghis: [Drinks all the water. Belches loudly.]


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 6:12pm

    There's not much America can do in this instance nor the EU or UN either. Such edicts coming down to a country like this inflames millions, however justified it may be. Bringing "civilization" to the world has meaning in the West. But not everywhere else. 


    by jock maccrea (not verified) on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 2:27pm

    Agreed. Worse, such edicts can even enhance a "rebel" leader's popularity. A perfect example was the Bush administration's repeated boneheaded declarations of support for Chavez's opponents. How can the ambassador of Venezuela not understand that US support is a political kiss of death in that country? Sadly, I'm not sure that Obama gets it either.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 2:54pm

    I hadn't read those remarks. How do you think Obama is doing on foreign policies in general? I can't get a handle on it. One moment he seems sensible then another he seems to be following some old play book. I can't put my finger on the details, but the ground seems a bit shaky. Also, do you have any idea about which of his advisors have the most say on these matters? And do Obama and Clinton seem always on the same track?


    by jock maccrea (not verified) on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 6:07pm

    Obama-Clinton haven't done anything that can be called a foreign policy. The only departure I've seen from the last administration's practices has been the projection of more conciliatory messages, like Obama's Iran video and Clinton's "reset" button. The soft touch approach may be part of but is not in itself a foreign policy.

    It's early yet. Obama's primary tests have been domestic, not international, and I expect to see something develop. But as of now, there is no foreign policy.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 7:06pm

    So Chavez is reacting angily, at the end of March, to remarks Obama made back in January? There's a certain amount of theatre going on here. Perhaps Chavez is setting a baseline of anger from which he can walk back a bit at next month's Summit of the Americas. Or not, depending on how he sizes up Obama.

    Just like Iran's Khamenei, Chavez senses there's an opportunity here for a game-changing breakthrough in relations. They're both talking tough because that's the safe default position for now. I'm pretty sure Obama will abandon Bush's tactic of backing ill-conceived coups and insurrections.

    Slightly off topic. Now back to our regular programming.


    by acanuck on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 6:40pm

    Insightful observation.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 7:07pm