Indictment is ill-advised

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has decided to indict Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in Darfur. It is the first time that a sitting president has been indicted. Al Bashir immediately retaliated by ordering international NGOs to leave Sudan, saying that local organisations will assume their responsibilities. Many observers fear that the situation in Darfur will go from bad to worse as a result.

The court's decision raises questions about the delicate relationship between strategic efficiency and international justice. On the one hand, we should be satisfied with the progress made in international justice. It represents a promise to punish and therefore to deter massive humans rights violations, crimes against humanity, war crimes and even genocide. It is therefore pleasing that the international court has been recognised by 108 countries. Supporting justice and the rule of law is always better than the alternative: the rule of might.

If international law becomes more effective on the international stage, we have reason to hope for a better and more peaceful world. But international justice is still a work in progress and there is still a lot to accomplish. For the time being, international justice is selective and applies different standards according to the status of the culprits.

Sudan is not a member of the court. While it appears that crimes have been committed in its territory, the court has been able to act only because it has been asked to do so by the United Nations Security Council. This represents a contradiction, because the United States, China and Russia, who do not recognise the authority of the court, have, in the guise of the Security Council, asked it to act against another country. This immediately raises the suspicion of double standards. Regardless of whether Al Bashir is guilty or innocent, he can accuse his prosecutors of being biased. If Al Bashir has committed war crimes, he is not the only one and many people are wondering why similar charges haven't been levelled at George W. Bush in connection with Iraq or against Ehud Olmert in connection with Gaza.

Is partial justice better than none at all or must justice be universal in order to be acceptable? Those who believe the former will say that international justice is a work in progress that will gradually improve, while others who believe the latter will say that justice in its present form is only a means of being tough with the weak and weak with the strong. Therefore, let's forget about justice and speak only of traditional realpolitik.

Al Bashir's case raises another difficult question: Will indicting him bring peace, or will it reignite a conflict that seemed to have been losing intensity? Al Bashir has responded by ousting international NGOs. As a result, refugees will lose their lifeline. Al Bashir has been condemned on the international stage, but this has only reinforced his position domestically as he can fall back on the anti-colonial argument. The Darfur rebels, meanwhile, will be emboldened by the court's decision and could be tempted to resume full-scale war in the hope that the government will be disrupted.

There is also a practical problem in that although Al Bashir has been indicted by an international court, there is no international police force that will seize him and take him to trial. He is unlikely to go of his own accord and it is unlikely that an international force will be created to unseat him. Even the permanent members of the Security Council will be reluctant to send troops into Sudan, where they would surely become embroiled in conflict.

For all these reasons, the decision to indict Al Bashir is not likely to achieve any positive result.

Dr Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of the Institut de Relations Internationales et Strategiques.