Responsibility for Darfur: In Whose Bloodstained Hands?

by Michelle

Published February 08, 2009 @ 07:29PM PT

The indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court is likely only days away. Given the clashes between Darfur rebels and Sudanese forces in recent weeks, and in particular the Sudanese military's tightening stranglehold on the town of Muhajiriya in South Darfur, anxiety over Khartoum's response to the indictment is, no doubt, at its peak.

In a post last night, my co-blogger Michael Kleinman once again turned his critical eye in the --- mistaken, in my opinion --- direction of the anti-genocide advocacy movement:

"Maybe, in the balance of things, the ICC process is still worthwhile,  Maybe justice is more important than the immediate fate of 20,000 people huddled around the UN base in Muhajariya.  Maybe the Sudanese military won't press the attack, maybe things will return to the status quo.

Or maybe not.

The least we can do is admit that our actions - our advocacy - have very real consequences.  Sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse."

He concludes:

"As we decry the recent violence, let's not forget that we, too, bear some responsibility."

I could write an opus on why I think this statement is entirely misplaced, but instead will sum up my thoughts with three main points:

First, this statement lays the blame at the wrong feet. By focusing on the advocacy community, it nearly absolves Bashir and his violent authoritarian regime in Khartoum of responsibility for their crimes --- or at the very least, diverts the spotlight while falling in line with Bashir's own hateful and obfuscatory rhetoric. Let us not forget who holds the guns, who orders the air attacks, who controls the Janjaweed.

Second, Michael writes that "tens of thousands of civilians left to the tender mercies of the Sudanese military" --- but how is this any different than before the indictment? Accusations that the ICC and the advocacy movement have made the situation in Darfur worse can neither be proven, nor disproved --- we do not know what the situation would be like if Darfur had never garnered international attention, and Bashir had been allowed to carry on without international interference.

Third, Michael (and many others) are forgetting a critical point: Bashir threatened a violent response if an indictment is handed down, but he never promised peace if the investigation is suspended. And even if he did, would you believe him?

Bashir could have used the past six months, since the indictment application was submitted to the Court, to make substantive moves towards peace. Instead, he put on a half-assed masquerade for the international media and key allies, all the while continuing his offensive in Darfur.

Impunity will only further embolden Bashir and his regime; it's what got us into this mess in the first place. Pointing the finger of blame at advocates is more than misguided --- it treats Bashir's reaction as inevitable and unchangeable, and in doing so, absolves him of the responsibility that ultimately rests in his own bloodstained hands.

[Photo shamelessly grabbed from Michael's post.]