Charged

For the past six years the world has been crying out for justice for Darfur. Now the International Criminal Court has responded, indicting Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity and issuing a warrant for his arrest.

Bashir is the first sitting head of state to be charged by the ICC, and bringing him to justice will not be easy. He will have to pay a visit to a foreign country which takes international justice seriously enough to arrest him and extradite him to face trial The Hague. Or Sudan will have to replace its government with one which respects international law and human rights - a dificult task in a country which does not have free elections. But the charges are not going to go away, and so there is some hope that Bashir will be brought to justice - even if we have to wait twenty years to do it.

Double standards

For the past five years, the Sudanese regime has been waging a war against its own people in Darfur. Tactics have included the indiscriminate murder of civilians, collective punishment, burning of villages, rape, ethnic cleansing, and the use of starvation as a weapon. In response, Sudan has been isolated from the international community. It has been subjected to international sanctions, and its leaders have been indicted by the International Criminal Court.

For the past two years, the Ethiopian government has been waging a war against its own people in Ogaden. Tactics have included the indiscriminate murder of civilians, collective punishment, burning of villages, rape, ethnic cleansing, and the use of starvation as a weapon. In response, the international community has turned a blind eye and remained silent. The Ethiopian regime continues to receive almost US$2 billion of aid a year.

What's the difference here? A major one is that the Ethiopian government is a major ally in the US's war on terror, and acting as its proxy in Somalia. And for that, the US and its allies will forgive a lot. Even an ongoing crime against humanity.

"Not unduly harsh"

That's the opinion of Britain's Law Lords on the government's practice of deporting Darfuris back to face torture, harassment, and genocide in Sudan. Which makes you wonder: what would they consider "unduly harsh"? And if what is going on in Sudan doesn't constitute a valid fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention, what possibly could?

Israel and refugees

The Guardian today has a piece about Israel's appalling attitude to refugees. A country which was founded by people fleeing genocide is now rejecting others who are also fleeing genocide (in the form of Sudanese from Darfur). This is contrary to Israel's obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Under the Convention, Israel is required to assess whether refugee claimants have "a well-founded fear of persecution", and grant them asylum if they do. In doing so, they may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or country of origin, and they may not punish asylum-seekers for illegally entering the country. Israel is doing both, denying asylum to all people from "enemy states" (including Sudan) even when they are being persecuted by that state, and deporting anyone who enters illegally regardless of claims to asylum.

In light of the history of Jewish refugees fleeing to Palestine in the face of inhumane British restrictions on immigration, this can only be viewed as grossly hypocritical.

Some good news in Darfur

The Sudanese government has agreed to allow UN peacekeepers in Darfur. This will see the number of peacekeepers more than double, from 7,000 to at least 17,000. It's not enough, and too late the save the lives of the estimated 400,000 killed so far by the Sudanese authorities or their janjaweed proxies, but it's some small progress at least.

Darfur: the AU stays

The African Union has agreed to extend the mandate of its peacekeeping force in Darfur until the end of the year. The AU force will also be strengthened, and receive logistical support from the UN. This is good news, and it means that there will at least be someone on the ground to act as an independent witness and try and protect the civilian population. At the same time, we should remember that the AU aren't really up to this job, and we need a full UN peacekeeping force as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, despite enormous international pressure, the Sudanese government seem to be as far from accepting that as ever...

Day for Darfur

One year ago today, the governments of the world through the United Nations pledged [PDF] to

take collective action... [if] national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.

Since that pledge was made, more than 100,000 people have been killed by the Sudanese government's campaign of genocide in Darfur. The total death-toll of the three-year war has been estimated at up to 400,000. In addition, two million people have been displaced, and 3.5 million are dependent on humanitarian aid and face starvation if it is disrupted.

Hence the Global Day for Darfur: an attempt by the citizens of the world to demand their governments live up to their pledge and protect the citizens of Darfur from their own government which is trying to murder them.

The practicalities of the situation are daunting; military intervention probably cannot be logistically supported without the cooperation of the Sudanese government. And so the goals of the Day for Darfur are limited. We want to see the international community

• Strengthen the understaffed and overwhelmed African Union peacekeeping force now. We must offer extra help to the African peacekeepers already on the ground.
• Transition peacekeeping responsibilities to a stronger UN force as soon as possible. The UN must deploy peacekeepers with a strong mandate to protect civilians.
• Increase aid levels and ensure access for aid delivery. Shortfalls in aid continue to mean that people are at risk of starvation. Humanitarian organizations must have unfettered access to all who need help.
• Implement the Darfur Peace Agreement. For the violence to end, all parties to the agreement, in particular the Sudanese Government, must live up to their responsibilities.

This doesn't sound like much, but it will help, and be a remarkable improvement on what is going on at the moment.

Events and demonstrations are taking place all over the world on this, from Addis Ababa to Ulaanbaatar. Unfortunately, there aren't any in New Zealand, so I've added my name to the Day Against Darfur's petition (at the bottom of any of the pages linked above). And I'd encourage everyone who wants to see an end to genocide to do the same.

More inaction on Darfur?

Over the past three years, government-backed militias have been terrorising the Sudanese region of Darfur in a campaign which can only be described as genocide. More than 2 million people have been driven from their homes, and up to 400,000 have died from direct violence and starvation. The suffering is appalling - and the international community has not been able to do much about it. The logistics and geography effectively rule out military intervention (however justifiable it may be), which means that any solution - whether it be the admission of UN peacekeepers to replace the present AU force, or the Sudanese government accepting its responsibility to protect its own people and reining in the militias themselves - has to be slowly and painfully negotiated. To speed this process, the UN has agreed that such negotiations should be prodded along by the threat of personal travel bans and ICC prosecutions against Sudanese government officials and others who

impede the peace process, constitute a threat to stability in Darfur and the region, [or] commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities

But these threats so far hadn't borne fruit. So, last week, the US and the UK decided to sharpen some minds, naming four individuals targetted for such sanctions, and beginning a "silence process" which, if no-one objected, would lead to the sanctions becoming official in a matter of days.

Russia and China objected.

When I began thinking about this post, I was expecting to heap abuse on these two countries for protecting war criminals and putting their (substantial) trade interests with Sudan ahead of human rights and genocide. But their reason for objecting is that imposing sanctions now runs the risk of interfering with peace talks currently being conducted in Nigeria between Darfur rebels and the Sudanese government - and I have to admit they have a point. The purpose of these sorts of personal sanctions is to push negotiations along, not pre-empt them. The negotiations have a deadline of April 30th - a mere two weeks away - and it seems foolish to risk interfering. After all, we've waited three years for action - what difference does two more weeks make?

("About five thousand more dead people", says a small voice somewhere).

So, rather than heaping abuse on Russia and China, I think it is better to take them at their word - and call their bluff. The Security Council should refrain from imposing sanctions now in order to allow negotiations to proceed. But the flip side of this is that they should be meeting on May 1st to assess the progress of those negotiations - and be ready and willing to impose sanctions if that progress is unsatisfactory.

But while I'm happy to delay sanctions to allow negotiations to proceed, there's an obvious corollary: the Security Council should be meeting on May 1st to assess the progress of those negotiations, and be ready and willing to impose sanctions if they are dissatisfied with that progress. After all, the point is to help push negotiations along...

Supping with the devil

Over the past few weeks, the UN Security Council has been discussing the genocide in Darfur, and is expected to agree to a sanctions regime in the near future. The UK in particular has been arguing that sanctions should specifically target the Sudanese leadership and those responsible for the genocide. Which is obviously why Major-General Salah Abdullah Gosh, Sudan's intelligence chief and the man responsible for recruiting, organising, and directing the janjaweed militias who have raped and murdered and terrorised their way across Darfur, was allowed to visit the UK last week.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. This is a man the UK is arguing should be subjected to a global travel ban and asset freeze. He is number two on their list of targets for sanctions, and also features on the list of people targeted for prosecution for genocide by the International Criminal Court. And yet he is allowed to waltz in to the UK as if he has done nothing, in order to conduct secret negotiations with the British government.

This is not a man the UK should be welcoming. And the only thing they should be negotiating with him about is who he wants to act as his lawyer when he is facing trial in The Hague.

History repeats in Darfur

History is repeating in Darfur. Yesterday US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton blocked the UN Security Council from hearing the report of UN special advisor on preventing genocide Juan Mendez on atrocities in the Sudan. Mendez was going to report that the Sudanese had done nothing to prevent the killings in Darfur, and had allowed a "culture of impunity" to flourish - and recommend that the Security Council members (including the US) make good on their pledges to provide equipment to African Union peacekeepers. More importantly, he was going to recommend that pressure be stepped up to force the Sudan to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. Instead, Bolton allied with Algeria, China, and Russia - three countries who have consistently dragged their feet on Darfur - to block the briefing:

Bolton said he had objected to the briefing to make the point the council should be "talking more about the steps it can take to do something about the deteriorating security situation" in Darfur. He gave no new proposals.

But there's more to it than just opposition to the ICC. This briefing could have led to a determination that the atrocities in Darfur amounted to genocide - something which under international law would demand action from the UN and the international community. But US policy is to oppose any action by the UN unless it is meets stringent financial requirements and is directly relevant to US interests. And for all its chest-beating, the US has no interests in Darfur, and thus opposes any UN action there - whether it requires US assistance or not.

If this seems familiar, it is exactly what the Clinton administration did over Rwanda. History is repeating, and once again its the people of Africa who are suffering from US selfishness.

Baby steps in Darfur

The Sudanese government has announced that it will no longer fly aircraft over Darfur. It's a small step, but a positive one. The Sudanese airforce has been providing air support and intelligence to the Janjaweed; now they'll have to do without it.

In the long term, the only solution to Darfur is going to come from negotiation backed by sanctions. The sheer size of Darfur as well as poor transport links make putting peacekeepers on the ground practically impossible without the consent of the Sudanese regime. Even with the cooperation of Sudan's neighbours, it would be extremely difficult to keep anything more than a token military force supplied. And while bombing may make people feel better, it won't significantly impede Janjaweed operations, because of the simple fact that they have nothing to bomb. In other words, while military force may be justified, it isn't really a workable option.

What can work is convincing Sudan to either rein in the militas itself, and to allow AU peacekeepers to monitor the situation and protect those in need. Absent military force, this has to be done essentially through economic and political force, dangling carrots such as trade deals and being able to sell oil while threatening sticks such as sanctions and embargos. ICC indictements against members of the Sudanese regime are an important example of the latter. While the Sudanese regime refuses to extradite anyone to face justice, for the 51 accused of participating or condoning crimes against humanity, leaving the country now incurs the risk of prosecution - just like Henry Kissinger or Donald Rumsfeld.

Unfortunately, this method takes time, during which many more people will die. But it's the only one we've got.

More liberal internationalism

The Sock Thief replies to JustLeft's post on Dichotomies, accusing him of conflating two points when he characterises the underlying dispute as a question of whether the western way of life should be imposed by force. He begins by pointing out that

there probably are those that want the West to "dominate" but they are a very small minority

They may well be, but unfortunately they include some of the world's most powerful people - such as the current President of the United States and his closest advisors. The chief exhibit of this is the US National Security Council's September, 2002 National Security Strategy, which opened with the bold statement that there was

a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy and free enterprise.

It goes on to advocate for the imposition of this model around the world - for the US to use its "position of unparalleled military strength and great economic and political influence" to

extend the benefits of freedom across the globe.We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world.

In other words, an explicitly Rousseauean project of "forcing people to be free", with a peculiarly American definition of "freedom". That isn't democratic by any stretch of the imagination, and it sure as hell isn't liberal.

The problem is that these people have been able to wrap their undemocratic and illiberal goals in the cloak of humanitarianism, democracy and liberalism - at least with regards to Iraq. As for real humanitarian crises, like Darfur, they don't give a shit.

Sock Thief's second point is to make a lot of noise about humanitarian intervention, but this is missing the point. There is widespread agreement on the left as to the desirability of democracy and freedom, and that military intervention can sometimes be justified in pursuit of these goods. What's in dispute is whether it was justified in the case of Iraq, and what else comes along for the ride. Intervening to help people is unquestionably a Good Thing; intervening to help people and totally remake their society without any pretence of their consent is another question entirely.

Finally, as a way of moving things forward (and in response to a Nick Cohen article in the Observer), JustLeft suggests that:

[i]n the current situation, the left should be engaged in a debate about when and how intervention should be done, to protect people's human rights from totalitarian governments. Once a clear position is worked out, it should apply that analysis wherever it is relevant.

I think that Human Rights Watch have given us exactly the sort of clear analysis that is needed, and I've been using it as the basis for my thinking on the matter.

Liberal internationalism

JustLeft has an excellent post on the growing ideological rigidity surrounding the war in Iraq, in which he identifies the "unspoken core of the debate" as two dichotomous worldviews:

Should the West dominate the world, and seek to make it over in its own image? Or are other ways of life - economic, social, political, religious - allowed to coexist with capitalist liberal democracy?

Like Jordan, I am in the second camp - there's more than one way to run an acceptable society. While I generally approve of "the western model" (give or take a few questions about distributive justice) as generally delivering a high level of freedom and wellbeing to (most of) its inhabitants, there are other ways to pursue those goods, and how a society is run should be decided by its members and not by faraway people motivated by profit or ideology.

This raises the obvious question of what we should do when a society fails to meet minimum standards of acceptability; when it starves, tortures, murders or just generally oppresses its members. What should liberal internationalists do about the Iraqs, the Zimbabwes, the Uzbekistans and the Sudans? Or about the shitty, undemocratic, and oppressive, but perhaps not quite so terrible regimes like Saudi Arabia, China, Belarus or Iran?

The answer is that of course we should help - we should try and give people the four freedoms Roosevelt identified as necessary for human flourishing, as well as the freedom to determine the structure of their own society. But we should generally avoid trying to deliver those freedoms at the barrel of a gun. Timothy Garton Ash summed it up well in his article Beyond the West:

both in principle and in practice, it's better that people find their own path to freedom, in their own countries, in their own time and, wherever possible, peacefully. But should we help these people as they fight freedom's battle? Most emphatically we should, by every non-violent means at our disposal.

(My emphasis). This means linking trade and investment to respect for human rights, it means applying sanctions and international pressure to abusive regimes, and it means providing support and the benefit of our experience to those countries which are working towards freedom. But what it does not mean is using force. Military intervention can sometimes be justified, but only in the most extreme cases (e.g. ongoing genocide). Iraq failed to meet that standard. A much stronger case can be made for intervention in Darfur, but the more I read about it, the more I despair that it would actually do any good. So when we do consider force, it must be with a sense of realism about our chances of success, with humility, and in the knowledge that often the "cure" is worse than the disease - rather than swaggering arrogance and a belief that bombing children will make things better.

Military intervention in Darfur?

I've been vaguely following the atrocities in Darfur for the past few months, watching the reports of ethnic cleansing, deliberate starvation and mass rapes trickle in, but haven't blogged about it, in part out of a sense of total helplessness. None of the major powers really gives a shit about what goes on in Africa (too much trouble for too little oil), and so the best that could be done was for the UN to nicely ask the Sudanese government to rein in its puppet militia and end the killing. Which, given the nature of the Sudanese government, is about as effective as pissing in the wind. Given the aforementioned disinterest by the international community, the usual means of arm-twisting a poorly behaving regime into line - trade sanctions - were simply not on the agenda, and so there was nothing that could really be done.

Fortunately, I was wrong about that. In the past month both the US and the EU have taken an interest, and Colin Powell has personally visited the area and applied pressure to the Sudanese government. The African Union has got involved, sending a small monitoring group and protection force. And today, the Guardian reports that Tony Blair has asked his advisors to draw up plans for military intervention.

Would such intervention be justified? Looking at the plans, the first two options - transporting aid and providing equipment and support to the African union force - are certainly justifiable. The third option - using military force to create safe zones and protect refugees - would require the consent and co-operation of the Sudanese government to be effective. But if there is consent from the relevant authorities, then there isn't really an issue - it's the question of what happens if that consent is not given which poses a moral quandary.

Earlier in the year, Human Rights Watch produced a report on the humanitarian argument for the war in Iraq, in which they concluded that said war was not justifiable on humanitarian grounds. The same ethical framework can be applied to Darfur. According to HRW, military intervention

...can be justified only in the face of ongoing or imminent genocide, or comparable mass slaughter or loss of life

This is a high threshold because of the inherently messy and uncertain nature of war, and its ability to completely disrupt society and make things far worse. And it may be questionable whether the Darfur crisis reaches it - while the atrocities are terrible, they may not actually be killing enough people. It is starvation and aid delivery which are the chief threats, and these may be able to be met by co-operating with Chad, where many of the camps are located.

But assuming Darfur does reach the threshold - if for example the Sudanese government or the militias continue to interfere with the delivery of food aid, and thereby endanger the lives of the million or so refugees currently in camps along the border - then there are other criteria which must be met. In order to be morally justifiable, any military intervention must:

• be a last resort;
• be "guided primarily by a humanitarian purpose" (this does not preclude other motives, but they must be subsidiary);
• comply with international human rights standards (the means must be concordant with the ends);
• be reasonably likely to actually make things better; and
• ideally should be endorsed by the UN or other appropriate multilateral institutions, except in extremis.

I don't think there's any problem with meeting these criteria. If the situation in Darfur deteriorates and the Sudanese government deliberately attempts to starve a million of its citizens to death, it would be entirely justifiable to use military force to prevent it.

It remains to be seen whether force will be necessary. I hope that it will not be, and that the Sudanese government will bow to international pressure, deal to the Janjaweed and allow the free flow of aid to those who need it. But if they do not, then the international community should act. We stood by and watched while a million died in Rwanda; we cannot let that happen again.