March 25, 2005
Pressure Mounts on U.S. as Darfur (Sudan) Vote Looms
Inter Press Service

A French proposal to refer war crimes in Sudan to The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) has left two options for the United States, which adamantly opposes the ICC's legitimacy: either abstain from voting, or use its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.

by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS - A French proposal to refer war crimes in Sudan to The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) has left two options for the United States, which adamantly opposes the ICC's legitimacy: either abstain from voting, or use its veto as a permanent member of the Security Council.

When the French formally submitted the final draft of their resolution to the Council for vote Wednesday, many diplomats and observers wondered whether the U.S. would take the path of multilateralism, or the unilateralist's exit.

”It would be shameful for the Americans if they opposed this resolution,” said Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, an influential U.S.-based advocacy group that campaigned for the establishment of the court, created in 1998 to try war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.


”The ICC is the only (court) that would have credible effect of prosecution. That would be helpful for the people of Darfur,” Dicker said.

The two-year campaign of violence and pillage, allegedly at the behest of the Sudanese government, has taken the lives of as many as 300,000 African tribespeople in Sudan's westernmost region.

The Council was scheduled to vote Thursday afternoon, but a few hours before the vote, French ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere declared that he had agreed to the delay at the request of ”some delegates.” Without naming names, he said they needed ”to reflect on it and seek instructions” from their governments.

Those closely watching the negotiations say the resolution put the U.S. in a dilemma because it has been at the forefront of international efforts to address the situation in Darfur.

”I don't think the U.S. will be satisfied,” Abdallah Baali, the Algerian ambassador, told reporters.

Washington describes the killings of civilians in Darfur as ”genocide,” but does not recognize the ICC and has waged a worldwide campaign against the court by signing bilateral agreements with individual nations to protect its citizens from possible prosecution.

Observers say a vast majority of Security Council members are in favor of referring war crimes cases to the ICC.

”There are nine members who have already ratified the Rome Treaty,” a diplomat from Latin America told IPS. ”You know they wouldn't vote against it.”

British Ambassador Emyr Jones Perry, whose country is the closest ally of the United States, said, ”If the French text is voted tomorrow, we will vote for it.”

”It's not targeted at the U.S. at all,” he said. ”It's targeted to bring justice to the people of Darfur.” Britain is one of 98 countries that have ratified the ICC treaty.

The draft resolution comes three months after a U.N. commission for Darfur recommended that the Security Council refer the situation to the ICC. The commission was created by the Council after adopting a U.S.-sponsored resolution. Its findings suggest that the ICC is the ”single best mechanism” and ”only credible way” to ensure justice in Darfur.

Instead of embracing the commission's recommendation, the U.S. has circulated a draft offering alternative venues. Though it does not explicitly oppose discussions on the ICC option, the resolution reiterates the U.S. proposal that Darfur cases could be tried in Tanzania by an independent tribunal, or an African panel for ”justice and reconciliation,” as suggested by Nigeria.

Those seeking strong action against Sudan say if the U.S. vetoes the French resolution, those committing atrocities in Darfur and their backers in Khartoum would perceive that they were safe from punishment.

”As the Security Council delays, the situation in Darfur is only getting worse,” said Peter Takirambudde, director of Human Rights Watch's Africa Division. ”The people of Darfur need a vastly enhanced protective force. But in the meantime targeted sanctions and justice could have an immediate impact.”

On the issue of imposing sanctions against Sudan, the Council remains sharply divided. While the George W. Bush administration would like to see strict sanctions against Khartoum, Russia and China, who have vital economic interests in the region, are reluctant to endorse such a proposal.

However, despite their differences, all members of the 15-member Security Council agree on the need for a large contingent of U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan. On Thursday, the Council unanimously adopted a separate U.S.-sponsored resolution calling for the deployment of up to 10,000 U.N. troops in Sudan.

But critics say the mission will cover areas in the north and south of Sudan, not Darfur, where continued fighting and violence against civilians has created a human rights disaster.

”In the guise of taking action on a peacekeeping force in the North-South conflict, the United States is pushing aside measures needed to deal with atrocities in Darfur,” said Dicker. ”Vague commitments to accountability are not enough. The heinous crimes need immediate investigation and prosecution by the ICC.”

The delayed vote on whether the ICC will have a role in Sudan is likely to take place next week. Whether the U.S. decides to get along with the majority of the Council members is yet to be seen.

”Our position is well-known,” a U.S. diplomat told IPS Thursday. ”But we are still having discussions.”

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. GlobalIssues.Net distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.