Peace or justice?

I have been pondering this article from The Guardian for the last week and I am no closer to resolving exactly what I think about the issues that it raises. However, I thought that it was worth discussing regardless.

Essentially, the Ugandan government has asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to drop its charges against Joseph Kony - the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army - so that they can proceed with a peace deal that may see the end of the civil war in Uganda.

The ICC believe that dropping the charges at this point would be fatally damaging to the credibility of the Court and would be a blow for International Justice. The Ugandan government (and many community members) believe that they should not be made to suffer an ongoing war just so that the ICC can have its historic first case and feel good about itself. I think that they both have a point.


On the one hand, dropping the charges against Joseph Kony would seem to encourage an international culture of impunity; one where people can get away with anything they like so long as they are powerful and violent enough to broker a good settlement at the end of the day. It sends the message that mass murder, mutilation and abducting children in order to force them to become child soldiers and sex slaves is OK - so long as you hold enough power to force the government to grant you amnesty in exchange for a peace deal. What will this mean for future conflict? Will it give confidence to future Joseph Konys that they will never have to deal with the consequences of their actions? Will it mean that they hold out longer and cause more suffering in order to ensure that they too are granted amnesty when it all gets too hard?

On the other hand, why should the people of Uganda continue to suffer for some nebulous idea of justice or even to serve as a warning for future conflicts in other countries? How do they benefit from a standing warrant when they are being terrorised daily and are forced to watch as their children are taken away to face hell on earth?

There is also the question of consequences - how do we know that charging Kony will have any kind of deterrent effect on future tyrants? I doubt any of them start with the idea that they are actually going to lose. It is just 'Western' arrogance to assume that we can solve these issues through the courts rather than allowing them to be solved internally over the negotiating table?

I just don't know. Both dropping the charges and refusing to do so seem completely wrong - how dare the real world be so messy.