'A Tremendous Day for International Justice'

Other Sudanese officials have already been charged by the ICC, but only Bashir's indictment includes genocide. Would the indictment be weaker with only crimes against humanity and war crimes?
There's a snobbery about genocide. Genocide is always seen as the worst of all possible crimes. But the reality is crimes against humanity, as the name suggests, are pretty high-order crimes in themselves. People got hung at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. I think it's very unhelpful to think in terms of a ranking. Crimes against humanity, war crimes, violations of the laws and customs of war, they're all very, very serious offenses.

How do you respond to the criticism that bringing up this ICC indictment will increase the animosity between Khartoum and the West, that it will actually endanger the peacekeepers already on the ground?
At the end of the day, it's about justice. And it's about trying to enforce laws. If as an international community we're going to have laws that say certain things are completely unacceptable--again, think of the term "crimes against humanity"--certain things are so horrible that something has to be done about them. Then you have to step up to the plate, you cannot enforce selectively.

How much more damage can be done in Darfur? Is this too little, too late?
As long as there are people alive, there are people to save. There's more damage that can be done, and of course until this ends, nothing can be rebuilt. So people are stuck in refugee camps, you don't have farmers planting crops, you don't have kids going to proper schools, you don't have normal life re-emerging. The damage is continuous and cumulative, and every year that it lasts, every month that it lasts, the damage for people in Darfur gets worse.

What's the best mechanism for stopping the crimes that are still going on? Is it the African Union, the U.N. troops, U.S. forces?
The Europeans probably should be stepping up to the plate and doing more. The former colonial power is Britain, and both Italy and France have had interests in the region--those are the countries that probably have the greatest obligation to become involved. Like a lot of people, my preference is to see an African solution for an African problem, because it's empowering for African nations to do that.

If there's a new government in Sudan, what about trying Bashir in his own country, the way Saddam Hussein was tried in Iraq?
If there was a change of government in Sudan and that government decided to put him up on trial, they would have superior jurisdiction. Any local trial would have to be held to the highest international standard, like we tried to do in Iraq. Involving local people to see due international standards applied in a trial of that magnitude is empowering. It can become a venue for national reconciliation, but it can also become a site of contention.

But the most important thing I think is that when a head of state is brought on trial, that trial must be immensely authoritative, which means it's got to be held to the highest standards. The work that goes into proving the case has to be done properly, comprehensively, professionally. It's not easy to do with international investigators, it's even harder to do with local investigators with very little experience. There are lots of different challenges. Both could lead to excellent results for the Sudanese people. Both would require careful stewardship, as well.