Over the last 18 months, the Government of Sudan and the Arab militias it backs have mounted a campaign of ethnic cleansing that has killed more than two hundred thousand Darfurians and driven more than two million from their homes. After enduring months of criticism for failing to end the conflict, the Security Council recently passed three new resolutions on Sudan. The first resolution created a UN-led peacekeeping force for Southern Sudan. The second and third resolutions were meant to stop the violence in the western province of Darfur by imposing, respectively, sanctions and accountability. Unfortunately, the sanctions resolution was watered down by compromises among the Security Council members and lacked targeted economic sanctions or a mechanism for enforcing a no-fly zone.

The third resolution, which addresses accountability, refers the atrocities that have occurred in Darfur to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US had proposed the creation of a new African regional court as an alternative to the ICC, but could not muster any support for the idea. Most countries – as well as the UN’s International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur – pointed out that creating a new ad hoc tribunal would be difficult, expensive and very slow, while the ICC is fully staffed and ready to begin investigating the situation in Darfur right away. Ultimately, the US abstained from the vote on the ICC referral, however, it is unclear what prompted the United States to abstain. While unwilling to confer any “legitimacy” on the ICC, it is possible that the US realized the ICC is the only practical means of bringing justice to the victims. On the other hand, the US may have abstained simply to avoid a very embarrassing veto, but remains determined to undermine the Court.

The US attitude towards the Court is very important because the success or failure of the ICC’s work in Darfur may well be critical to ending the violence there. The failure to include targeted economic sanctions or a no-fly zone in the sanctions resolution means that the ICC referral is the biggest stick the international community wields against the Sudanese government. Moreover, there is anecdotal evidence that senior individuals in the Sudanese government are genuinely concerned about the prospect of a fair and impartial court investigating their actions. In short, the ICC may well be in a unique position to apply pressure on the architects of the genocide in Darfur.

An ICC referral is the beginning of the process of accountability, not the end. The international community must keep up the pressure on the Sudanese government to cooperate with the ICC and must share information with the ICC’s Prosecutor. The United States has tremendous influence and US support for the ICC will go a long way towards ensuring that the individuals responsible for genocide in Darfur are prosecuted. If the US is serious about ending the violence, then it must support the ICC’s investigation in Darfur.

Stuart Ford is the Coordinator of the International Law and Justice Program at Citizens for Global Solutions.

READ ON THE ICC MONITOR WEBSITE (PDF)