Where Peace and Justice Meet

By: Collin | Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Proponents of international justice for atrocities had something to cheer about this week. The International Criminal Court has finally issued its first arrest warrants in the Darfur genocide, perhaps the most meaningful action the court has taken since the case was referred from the United Nations Security Council in March 2005. Among the wanted are Sudan's Minister for Humanitarian Affairs, Ahmad Harun, and a janjaweed militia leader named Ali Kushayb. The ICC's prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has emphasized Sudan's obligation to arrest and extradite the men to the court, as the government has been reluctant to work with the court in the past.

This is the kind of news human rights and justice advocates have been waiting for. The genocidal janjaweed militia has been killing, raping and leaving a trail of scorched villages and displaced persons that number in the hundreds of thousands. The support it receives from Khartoum ensures they will continue to act with complete impunity. That is, unless something can be done. The UNSC on Monday extended the peacekeeping mission in Southern Sudan for six additional months, but could only call for an end to atrocities in Darfur, which is in the West (the U.S. agreed to water down the resolution that would have otherwise called for a large force in Darfur itself).

So, it looks like it's up to the ICC.

But will that do much good? Even as the court is making headway in Sudan, politics is threatening its progress in another war-torn country that is suffering comparable devastation. The case in Uganda has been troubled with (expected) defiance from the merciless Lord’s Resistance Army, the group it had been sent there to prosecute. Despite resuming peace talks last summer, “a new controversy flared in October when Vincent Otti, second-in-command of the Lord's Resistance Army, announced that there could be no overall agreement unless the international court dropped the prosecutions.”(link)

Because of this announcement, the already-flimsy pillar of popular support for the ICC in Uganda suffered another blow. Some Northern Ugandans, the people most affected by the LRA’s assaults and abductions and those who have bore the brunt of the government’s brutal response, want the court to drop the case in the name of peace. When Jan Egeland, UN under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs, visited Uganda last September, he held this conversation:

"We don't want the International Criminal Court. We want peace," the head of a camp of 25,000 displaced people told him.
"But you want justice to be done?" Egeland asked.
"Of course," replied the camp's leader, "but how will the trial of five people bring us back those we have lost? Will the court really bring peace, or fuel the war again?" (link)

Some have suggested that “justice” be carried out according to local tradition, which dictates a murderer confront the family members of his victim and admit to his crime before they share a bitter drink of tree root and sheep’s blood. (link)

Human rights groups fervently oppose any amnesty option for Joseph Kony and his LRA cohorts. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both come out strongly against judicial immunity for these atrocities. And this week Amnesty released a similar statement regarding Sudan, reinforcing the urgency for these arrests.

The controversy opens up a well of questions and concern. If the court does not pardon Kony, Otti and their ilk, is there a prospect for peace in Uganda? If the court does pardon the LRA leaders, will it appear weak and easily manipulated? And will that set precedent for future suspects to use to their benefit? Furthermore, could this precedent be a good thing if the LRA stays true to its word, and a dropped indictment leads to a lasting peace in Uganda?

The ICC acts in the interest of the victims and with international peace and security in mind. It was established as a means to bring justice to those who commit the most heinous of crimes: war crimes; crimes against humanity; and genocide. But can it be used as a tool for peace as well as justice?

No one can ever know the “correct” way to deal with atrocities after they’ve happened, and an even more daunting task is using peaceful means to end horrendous abuses even as they’re occurring. International courts aren’t always an effective means to the desired end, but other peaceful tactics have proved successful elsewhere, like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, for example.

The pardons that are on the table in Uganda--can we expect to hear similar propositions from janjaweed leaders in the future?--will hinder peace. As Erwin van der Borght, the director of Amnesty's Africa Programme, suggests in the above-referenced press release published this week on Sudan, "Seeking justice for the people of Darfur now will not hinder the continuing search for a political solution -- it will only serve to make that solution, when it is found, more durable."

The same goes for Uganda. Allowing genocidal, murderous and vicious thugs to undermine the court’s legitimacy and efficacy will be the beginning of the end of the most promising mechanism this world has to achieve international justice. Instead, let the court work as a conduit to justice and a deterrent to those would-be abusers--government or no--who may think twice before committing atrocities if this court is shown to be strong, independent and, perhaps most importantly of all, effective.

Peace and justice can be achieved in Africa. And the ICC is there to help.

Labels: Africa, Collin, crimes against humanity, genocide, International Criminal Court, justice, peace, Sudan, Uganda