Daily Darfur: Calling Whose Bluff?

African and Arab government ministers finally met in Doha today to discuss the peace process in Darfur, after the meeting was postponed several times on account of the situation in Gaza, and I find it more than a tad concerning that the focus of the meeting was how to thwart international justice efforts against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir:

"Issuing an international arrest warrant against President (Omar al-) Beshir will have a very negative impact on the peace process in Darfur," African Union Peace and Security Commissioner Ramtane Lamamra told AFP in a phone interview from Doha, where ministers from 15 African and Arab states are meeting to discuss the war-torn Sudanese region.

"Our meeting aims to study what's happened in terms of contacts with the Sudanese government and armed groups and see what we can do to suspend international justice efforts to bring proceedings against President Beshir," he said.

The issue, of course, is Bashir's many threats of violent reprisals when/if the indictment against him is handed down.

Jirair Ratevosian and Karen Hirschfeld write in the Huffington post that  "we cannot afford to call [Bashir's] bluff" on his threats for increased violence, stating, "History shows us while we cannot trust Sudan's genocidal leader Omar al-Bashir to make good on his promises of peace, we can believe his threats of future violence."

Let's parse this sentence:

1. Bashir will not "made good on his promises of peace": Violence continues.

2. Bashir will likely make good on "his threats of future violence": Violence continues.

The thing is, there is no bluff to call here. While Bashir has gone on a international media blitz to convince us of his commitment to peace, he's continued to pound Darfur from all sides---from bombings, to Janjaweed attacks, to severe interference with the humanitarian aid efforts---with no indication that any of this will change if the indictment is suspended. Even more,as Sudanese human rights activist Monim Elgak writes after his recent abduction and torture at the hands of state security forces, the government is even using the ICC as a tool to in its increasing efforts to crack down on Sudanese civil society.

If anything, Bashir is trying to call our bluff.

My co-blogger Michael Kleinman wrote last night on Khartoum's threats to humanitarian aid workers and those they serve, and references our debate on the justice/peace issue from November. (See Michael's post, and mine.) Because I never back down from a chance to argue with my good friend, here are my counterpoints:

An ICC indictment against Bashir is not just "good for justice," as Michael writes, but represents a real point of leverage against Khartoum. As Sudanese human rights activist Monim Elgak writes, Khartoum is terrified of The Hague, and statements made by opposition politicians in Sudan reveal that the investigation and impending decision are serving to further marginalize and isolate Bashir's regime. Darfur is in a state of humanitarian disaster, and while this may be far from a worse-case scenario, what else is there that shows any potential to actually end this crisis?

The suspension of the indictment would mark such a huge moral victory for Khartoum that it would only serve to embolden their stance on Darfur, which has been fueled, to date, by decades of impunity.  The suffering of the people of Darfur continues unabated, and peace processes languish as "Two-Faced Bashir" superficially toes the line of cooperation while continuing to tighten his stranglehold on the millions of civilians in the region. Reports of new bombings surfaced just last week, and I, for one, have absolutely no doubt that this will continue unabated if the indictment is suspended, at the least---at the worst, Khartoum will view the suspension as a resounding mandate to amp up its offensive against Darfur.

So, let's weigh the options:

1. The indictment is suspended, and the violence and humanitarian disaster either continue as usual, or Khartoum is emboldened and increases the attacks.
2. The indictment is issued, and the violence and humanitarian disaster either continue as usual, or Khartoum takes out its revenge and increases the attacks.

The critical difference, of course, is that with the second option comes an unprecedented tool to pressure and marginalize one of the world's most atrocious regimes, potentially paving the way to push them out of power and finally secure peace.

This isn't justice for justice's sake. This is justice to pave the way for peace.

[Photo from AP: Sudanese refugee children from Darfur peer from a hole in their shelter at the Farchana refugee camp that has more than 20,000 Darfur refugees on June 26, 2008.]