The ICC Seeks Regime Change in Sudan
I appreciate Kevin’s thoughtful and evenhanded assessment of the ICC Prosecutor’s complex decision to seek the arrest of Sudan’s president. There are indeed good arguments both for and against the ICC Prosecutor’s move.
I’m torn myself. I have articulated many times before my skepticism of the ICC’s effectiveness in helping to end the violence or even to bring justice for Darfur. I stand by my view that the ICC referral is basically the Security Council’s effort to deflect further action, and the fact that the ICC investigation cannot in any way help the peace process (at least in the short term). But I can understand the argument Kevin cites below from "Enough": How could things get any worse?
Still, by indicting a sitting Head of State, the ICC is essentially seeking regime change. There will be no peace in Darfur, it is saying, unless Bashir is out of office, and turned over the ICC custody. Perhaps this is true. I am sympathetic to arguments that no negotiated settlement is possible. But think about what is at stake here. The ICC is now saying that there can be no peace deal in Darfur without Bashir’s (metaphorical) head. This means we are going to need a bit more than a random peacekeeping force to end this war. Unless the ICC knows something we don’t about the willingness of the Security Council to go get Bashir’s head e.g. unless the French Foreign Legion or the U.S. Marine Corps are ready to go into Sudan to arrest Bashir, I cannot see how this action by the Prosecutor can help the cause of peace in Darfur.