No Justice, No Peace?

The International Criminal Court is expected to issue an arrest warrant tomorrow for Omar Al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, in connection with his involvement in the ongoing violence in Darfur. This would be the first arrest warrant ever issued by the ICC for a sitting head of state, and this precedent has been accompanied by a maelstrom of controversy. The issue is not, as is often the case in the justice system, one of guilt versus innocence. The debate over the arrest warrant has taken the shape of justice versus peace.

These two positions are argued eloquently in two editorials in today's New York Times. Archbishop Desmond Tutu takes the side of justice, while Franklin Graham, a champion of evangelical charity work in Sudan, takes the side of peace. It is no easy task arguing against Archbishop Tutu, but Mr. Graham makes some compelling arguments. To summarize briefly, he argues that because President Al-Bashir is a key figure in ongoing peace talks, removing or antagonising him would be detrimental to those peace talks. It is a utilitarian argument, that more lives will be saved and improved by the success of those peace talks than will be helped by Mr. Al-Bashir being brought to justice -- not to mention that any real judicial punishment is highly unlikely, at least until after Al-Bashir is no longer in power in Sudan (the ICC has no power to physically extradite defendants and relies instead on the state in which that defendant resides to hand them over voluntarily).

Archbishop Tutu argues that Africa must call Al-Bashir to account for his crimes because to not do so would be setting a terrible precedent for justice worldwide. There cannot be real peace without justice, he says. The Erratum Terrium editorial board endorses Archbishop Tutu on this issue, and not solely to curry favor with the Nobel Committee.

At this point we will unleash the analogy of all analogies. Please take two steps back and cover the eyes and ears of any children in the vicinity.

Imagine if the ICC had been functioning in 1943. In this alternate history Hitler has ceased aggression because the Allied military has shown massive superiority while his own armed forces are weakened and demoralized. Hitler is negotiating limited autonomy for the conquered territories as part of a cease fire with Britain and America. Meanwhile the Nazi regime continues to murderously and mechanically purge millions of Jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled, and any political opponents -- all with the full knowledge of the outside world. Should the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Adolf Hitler and other responsible members of the Nazi regime? Or should we be satisfied with a world at peace, an olive wreath resting on a pile of burnt corpses?

This example is not meant to be a dramatization. Mr. Graham can argue until the coming of the Rapture about setting priorities, but to not pursue justice against Mr. Al-Bashir is to avert our eyes from the genocide in Darfur. If there is such a thing as common humanity, let it be heard now. Genocide will continue as long as its perpetrators do not fear justice. Peace and justice in Sudan are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we must have both. The people of Sudan, the victims of genocide, past, present, and future, deserve no less than our full efforts and our loudest voices.