I Bravely Agree With Nicholas Kristof (on Sudan)

by Julian Ku

NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof has been a tireless supporter of international efforts to intervene in the Sudan-Darfur crisis. Today, he has an column (subscription req’d) agreeing with something I said last week about the only plausible “solution” to the Darfur crisis:

[T]he top priority for Darfur is something that few people talk about — a negotiated peace agreement. Peacekeepers are desperately needed, but the only real hope for lasting security is a negotiated peace among all the tribes of Darfur. And that is conceivable: an attempt last April came close, but ultimately a flawed deal was reached that made the conflict worse.

Kristof does not mention as a possible solution the recent ICC actions seeking an indictment of certain Sudan government figures. And he is right to leave them out. As I noted in my debate with Kevin (and Angelina Jolie) last week, the ICC intervention is unlikely to help facilitate this peace process and, if anything, the ICC is likely to become an increasingly serious obstacle.


One Response

  1. There is some force in the “negotiated settlement” argument, but it does not answer the question raised by the Yugoslavia conflict; i.e. what should be done about those individuals whom purport to attend negotiations in good faith, while imposing a de facto illegal solution on the ground (via militia or regular armed forces)?

    The ICC indictments act as a deterrent to those seeking to enact potentially unlawful policy by reminding them that not only are the gains achieved by the irregular armed groups vulnerable in any negotiated settlement, but also the political post they occupy and their liberty is also at stake as a result of their actions.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks

  1. There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.