Daily Darfur: Bush Warms Up to the ICC, and Exercises in Peace Process Delusion

The Bush Administration has become an unexpected ally in the effort to bring Sudanese genocidaires--namely, President Omar al-Bashir--to justice at the International Criminal Court. As the Washington Post noted on Sunday,

Few issues have symbolized the perceived unilateralism of the Bush administration more than the president's hostility toward the ICC. But as the court weighs a formal arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes, the administration is emerging as an unlikely defender of the court in the face of efforts by Sudan and others to derail the prosecution.

The U.S. has firmly defended the ICC indictment proceedings, despite threats from the Sudanese government and moves by the African Union and Arab League to suspend the process. Opponents say an indictment will thwart peace negotiations, but as BlogCritics Magazine writer Savo Heleta points out, "this campaign...would make sense if there were any peace and security to protect in Darfur. Darfurians have had none for many years now."

The Bush Administration seems to agree--much to the chagrin of perpetual party hardliners. John Bolton, Bush's former Ambassador to the U.N, told the Washington Post that he is "disturbed" by support of the ICC, commenting, "If you allow this to happen, you legitimize the ICC. My preferred policy is to isolate it and hope it will eventually wither." (Not one to beat around the bush, is he?)

Unlike Mr. Bolton, I welcome the administration's even tacit support for the ICC case against Bashir. If you agree, take action now to express your support to the president.

In other news this morning:

The founder of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), a Darfur rebel group, said that Sudan-Chad relations should not factor into the Darfur peace process. His argument? The process should focus on the "root cause of the conflict," and "Chad is definitely is not one of the causes of this conflict.” If only that were true. Even if one argues that Chad isn't a "root" cause, the country is now deeply tied to the conflict. I'm no trained conflict mediator, but my sense is that peace requires addressing the many factors contributing to the violence.

A Sudanese presidential advisor told reporters that there should be "regional international cooperation to curb the insurgency in Darfur." I'm thinking that a cessation of government-directed violence against Darfuri civilians might actually be the best place to start. Or how about this: Perhaps the international community should stop asking the Sudanese government--so politely--what it will take to convince them to end a genocide, and start demanding that they cooperate or else face serious and severe consequences. Just a thought.