Would you have Considered Amnesty to Hitler to Save a Million Jews?
(May 2, 2007)
A new generation has fallen victim to the atrocities of a genocide. Citizens of the world have met the cries of Darfuri victims with campaigns shouting "Never Again." As a Jew, this haunting phrase inevitably harkens back to the Holocaust.
In January I accompanied Governor Bill Richardson, of New Mexico, on a delegation to Sudan. Our mission was to establish a concrete, yet attainable, plan for peace in the Darfur region. In Khartoum we sat with President Omar Hassan Al Bashir, a man many have likened to a modern day Hitler. A question arose in my mind, should this man be granted amnesty in order to save the lives of one million people?
The tension between justice and pragmatism is devastating and hard to reconcile. Yes, we all want the genocide to end immediately. And yes, we all want the criminals responsible for the atrocities and crimes against humanity to face justice. But if we could get peace for millions at the expense of individual justice, is this a price worth paying?
We have lost the luxury of time in the fight to save the people of Darfur. With the failure of the United States and other entities to apply effective punitive measures, such as multilateral targeted sanctions, upon the government in Khartoum, the genocide has been allowed to continue, without international intervention. Advocacy-based attempts have been unsuccessful in pressuring the Bush Administration to mount significant diplomatic pressure upon the Sudanese. As a matter of life and death, while advocacy for punitive measures must continue, it is time to expand efforts and utilize other resources to end this conflict.
Through our meetings with government officials and non-officials I tried to understand what motivates the Sudanese. In order to gain insight into the mindset and calculations of the Sudanese Government, one must try to see the reality that President Al Bashir sees. Bashir believes that the international community - led by the United States - is trying to break Sudan apart. This perception is based on the Comprehensive Peace Agreement brokered in Southern Sudan in January of 2005, which opened the door to a Southern cessation from Sudan. "We cannot go the path of the South-North agreement," Bashir told us.
President Bashir is convinced that the United States' goal involves a regime change. Broadcasts of Saddam Hussein's capture and execution have only reinforced his suspicion and fear of international intervention. President Bashir also believes that the insistence on an international force is aimed at snatching Sudanese leaders from their seat of power and exporting them to The Hague for trial. Regardless of whether the President's perceptions are right, they are, in his eyes, reality.
As much as Bashir is concerned, a political solution to the Darfur crisis must include the following written and unwritten pillars: first, maintaining the territorial integrity of Sudan; second, political guarantees against a regime change policy; third, lifting of sanctions and normalization of relations with the West; and fourth, a "Get out of Jail Free Card" to be used by government and militia leaders with the International Criminal Court.
While the first three pillars, one can assume are attainable, the amnesty pillar is morally and practically the most problematic. If the world were to offer him amnesty, Bashir might agree to end the violence. Without this assurance he will continue to resist efforts to establish peace in order to protect his government and himself from a trip to The Hague for trial.
Interestingly, Darfuri rebel leaders have raised different issues. We spoke with General Mohammed Basher of the Justice and Equality rebel group and Colonel Abdul Abdallah Ismail, of the Non-Signatory Front in Al-Fashir, Darfur. As far as the rebels are concerned, the pillars on which a political settlement must be built are: first, disarming the Janjaweeds; second, the safe return of refugees and internally displaced people to their homes; third, financial compensation; and fourth, a seat around the table - i.e. power sharing. Note the absence of a demand for justice.
Although the international community looks to The Hague to hold individuals accountable for crimes against humanity, the victims in this case believe justice lies in their livelihood. In my previous visit to the region I spoke with a man named Adam in a Darfuri refugee camp in Eastern Chad. Although Adam has been both a witness and a victim of the violence, he said, "All we want is to go back to our villages, be safe, and resume our lives." The Darfuri cries for help have begun to land on our ears. But can we resist the temptation to punish the villain if it meant dignity could be handed back to the victims?
Michael (Mickey) Bergman is the Director of Congressional Relations and a Senior Policy Analyst at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Mickey joined Governor Richardson's delegation to the Sudan last January.