« Wanted: an opposition party | Main | Impressions from the field »
April 22, 2005
The UN resolution on Darfur
When, on 31 March 2005, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1593 (2005)
After all, had the US taken its principled stance on the ICC, it could have vetoed the UN resolution sponsored by France. But the US decided to abstain, thus allowing the referral to the ICC of a situation that the Bush administration had no hesitation at labelling “genocide”.
In Africa, as elsewhere around the world, the US government has taken steps to ensure that the ICC does not exercise its jurisdiction over its citizens.
Strategies to include this objective go from : the enactment of legislation restricting cooperation with the ICC and with States that are parties to the ICC to the adoption of Security Council resolutions preventing the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties that are involved in UN authorised operation.
Given this background, the vote of the resolution on Darfur in the UN Security Council is seen by many as a compromise. Others have celebrated the resolution as a diplomatic success for Europe
Washington was able to win language saying that nations not party to the court would be exempt from prosecution over Sudan. But to secure a US abstention, supporters of the ICC option had to offer a broad exemption from prosecution for nationals of states that are not party to the Statute.
The Sudanese government has furiously rejected the resolution claiming that it “contradicts justice and objectivity and violates national sovereignty”, according to International Justice Tribune. President Omar al-Beshir of Sudan claimed that the UN has “ignored all norms of international legitimacy by exempting Americans…just because America is powerful…”, as reported in The Australian. This is hardly surprising.
Needless to say, there is widespread displeasure with language that the US insisted should be inserted in the resolution. Indeed, the question may be raised: are some peacekeepers better than others? The complaints of the government of Sudan – which calls upon the rule of law when it suits its interests - can only attract limited sympathy.
For what it is worth, though, this attitude suggests that ignorance of international law is not the problem in Sudan.
It is an irony of history that the US administration’s campaign against the ICC has helped raising public awareness of the Court and, in fact, bolstered the Court’s legitimacy.
Whatever the success or failure of the diplomatic efforts in New York, the ICC, armed with a ‘compromised’ mandate from the Security Council, will have a hard time at convincing the government of Sudan to cooperate.
By using threats, intimidation, and tremendous economic pressure to defend its policy on the ICC, the US administration has alienated many friends.
Posted April 22, 2005 05:10 AM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)