The New York Times March 31 explains:
The vote followed days of trans-Atlantic negotiation involving Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, and France's foreign minister, Michel Barnier, and produced an 11th-hour maneuver that secured agreement when Britain replaced France as the sponsor of the measure.According to UPI:
The outcome spared the United States the onus of casting a veto and seeming to block the arrest and prosecution of war crimes suspects, steps it has been insisting are essential to begin reining in the violence in Darfur.
The final negotiations hinged on the language in paragraph six of the resolution, which had nothing to do with Sudan itself. It says citizens of countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the court may only be prosecuted by their own national courts. Some countries object to that because their laws allow for the prosecution of foreign nationals suspected of committing a crime against their citizens. Several diplomats said they objected because they feared paragraph six seriously weakened the criminal court.See more reports here below that describe the United States gaining a paragraph in the brief measure. It said "nationals or current or former officials or personnel from a contributing state outside Sudan which is not a party to the Rome Statute" establishing the ICC should come under the "exclusive jurisdiction of that contributing state" in any allegations arising from operations sanctioned by the African Union or UN in Sudan.
"Operative paragraph six subsumes the independence of the ICC to the political and diplomatic vagaries of the Security Council," Philippines UN Ambassador Laoro Baja said. "Nevertheless, this eventually may well be worth the sacrifice if impunity is ended in Darfur."
"This resolution marks a turning point, for it is sending the message beyond Darfur to all of those criminals responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes who all too often believed that they were beyond the pale of justice," France's UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said.
France, Britain and seven other Security Council members have ratified the ICC statute, while two more have signed and are expected to ratify. In total, 98 countries are parties to the treaty and 139 are signatories.
A Reuters report today explains:
The next step is for ICC prosecutors to begin investigations and report to the Security Council in June. They will be given a list of 51 names, drawn up by a UN panel of experts who reported to the Security Council in January.China View says the ICC will not start investigation or prosecution within one year after the adoption of the resolution.
Richard Dicker, counsel for Human Rights Watch and an expert on the ICC, said he expected the tribunal to prosecute only about 15 top offenders. The others, he said should be tried by Sudan but with international supervision.
Here follows a selection of this morning's news reports on the story from around the world.
- - -
UK welcomes Sudan war crime vote
Straw welcomes Sudan war crime vote says a report in the Scotsman by John Deane, PA Chief Political Correspondent, April 1, 2005. Copy:
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw today welcomed the United Nations Security Council's approval of a resolution to prosecute Sudanese war crimes suspects before the International Criminal Court.
The Council moved after the United States, which has not signed up to the international court, reversed a long-standing policy and agreed not to veto the resolution.
The US abstained in yesterday's vote, along with Algeria, Brazil and China, after securing several concessions, including ironclad guarantees it sought that Americans working in Sudan would not be handed over to either the ICC or any other nation's courts if they commit crimes in Sudan.
With UN Secretary General Kofi Annan looking on, the Council voted 11-0 for the resolution.
An earlier Council resolution established a set of sanctions to be imposed against those in Darfur responsible for the continuing conflict and humanitarian crisis there.
In a statement issued from the Foreign Office in London this morning, Mr Straw said: "I am very pleased that the UN has together taken a strong stand on addressing the situation in Darfur, and in the wider Sudan.
"I have always made clear that the international community must be ready to take clear and decisive action to address both past and continuing actions contributing to the current situation in Darfur.
"It is right that we should now see those responsible for atrocities indicted and tried before an international court."
Mr Straw praised what he called the "constructive approach" shown by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Mr Straw added: "This, the first ever Security Council referral to the International Criminal Court, is a further step forward in the development of international justice and the fight against impunity for the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
"The UK is a firm supporter of the Court, so we are glad that the Council was able to reach agreement on a referral. The ICC was established precisely for this kind of purpose - to ensure that those individuals responsible for committing heinous crimes will be held accountable."
And he stressed: "We support the imposition of sanctions against all those - both government and rebels - who continue to violate the commitments they themselves have made to end the conflict in Darfur.
“This has been long threatened by the UN, and it is right that the international community is now seen to hold by its word.”
Mr Straw called for both sides in the Darfur conflict to return to the negotiating table.
The Council's resolution refers Darfur cases since July 1 2002 to the court - a move in line with the recommendation of a UN panel that concluded in January that crimes against humanity, but not genocide, occurred in the vast western region of Sudan.
The document is the last of three resolutions aimed at putting pressure on Sudan to stop the crisis in Darfur.
Photo: Janjaweed fighters ride their horses in western Darfur
[Courtesy Middle East Online report on Security Council's move clear way to ICC to prosecute those responsible for atrocities in Darfur.
The ICC is based at The Hague in The Netherlands which is in Holland, Europe. Pretty flat and cool compared to the Sudan. Janjaweed appearing before the ICC would think they were on another planet. Hopefully, this resolution, is the thing that will knock all of their heads together in Sudan and stop the violence and start sorting a poilitical solution. Ultimately, it's the only way.
Further reading:
April 1 BBC UK: UN backs Darfur war crimes move. A UN report two months ago said attacks on civilians in Darfur could amount to crimes against humanity. The report said such cases should be tried at the court in The Hague. "It is important that the international community speak with one voice in order to help promote effective accountability" said Anne Patterson, US deputy ambassador to the UN.
- - -
April 1 India UPI: UN OKs Sudan prosecution resolution.
- - -
April 1 Canada AP: The document is the last of three Security Council resolutions aimed at putting pressure on Sudan to stop a crisis in Darfur. The US decision to allow the court to prosecute war crimes perpetrators could raise hackles among conservatives for whom the court is an unaccountable body that cannot be trusted. They include John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security and the nominee to become the next US ambassador to the United Nations.
- - -
March 31 New York Times: John R. Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be ambassador to the United Nations, was the official who signed the letter abrogating the American signature and he said afterward that the experience had afforded him "the happiest moment in my government service."
The key concession to the Americans was a clause giving exclusive jurisdiction to troop-contributing states over any of their citizens arrested abroad. This posed a problem for the French sponsors because France had opposed the same language in a previous resolution sending peacekeepers to Liberia. The solution Thursday was to have the British insert that language and take over the sponsorship of the resolution.
- - -
March 31 Xinhua China View: Under the resolution, war crimes and crimes against humanity taking place in Darfur since July 1, 2002, will be dealt with by the ICC. But the ICC will not start investigation or prosecution within one year after the adoption of the resolution. The court is the world's first permanent tribunal, which has the right to try suspects of war crimes and crimes against humanity when a government is unable or unwilling to do so.
The resolution stipulated that personnel from states which are not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their own governments for all alleged acts in Sudan. It called on the Sudanese government and all other parties to the Darfur conflict to cooperate fully with the ICC. The United Nations will not bear the cost for prosecuting Darfur suspects, which will go to the parties of the Rome Statute. Among the 15 council members, only the United States and China are not parties to the ICC's Rome Statute.
In a statement issued through his spokesman, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hailed the resolution, saying it provided "an appropriate mechanism to lift the veil of impunity that has allowed human rights crimes in Darfur to continue unchecked." Stressing lasting peace in Darfur can "only be based on a negotiated settlement," he urged Khartoum and rebels in Darfur to return to negotiations in Abuja, the Nigerian capital.
- - -
April 1 Guardian UK AP: "This resolution marks a turning point, for it is sending the message beyond Darfur to all of those criminals responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes who all too often believed that they were beyond the pale of justice," France's UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere said.
The draft refers Darfur cases since July 1, 2002, to the International Criminal Court. That was the recommendation of a UN panel that had concluded in January that crimes against humanity - but not genocide - occurred in the vast western region of Sudan.
"Operative paragraph six subsumes the independence of the ICC to the political and diplomatic vagaries of the Security Council," Philippines UN Ambassador Laoro Baja said. "Nevertheless, this eventually may well be worth the sacrifice if impunity is ended in Darfur."
- - -
March 31 New York based Human Rights Watch: Historic Step Toward Justice. "The Security Council's action signals that those most responsible for mayhem and murder in Darfur will be brought to justice," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program.
"This historic step by the Security Council offers real hope of protection for people in Darfur." "We now look to the ICC prosecutor to respond swiftly and assume the responsibilities entrusted to him," said Dicker. "The resolution's exemption is offensive, and it sets no precedent for the future," said Dicker. "We oppose this exemption giving non-ICC states exclusive jurisdiction over personnel they contribute to Security Council or African Union operations in Sudan."
- - -
April 1 Ireland: UN votes to prosecute Sudan war crimes in world court. The US, which abstained with three other countries, got significant concessions yesterday, including ironclad guarantees it sought that Americans working in Sudan would not be handed over to either the ICC or any other nation's courts if they commit crimes in Sudan. The resolution refers Darfur cases since July 1, 2002, to the court - a move in line with the recommendation of a UN panel that had concluded in January that crimes against humanity - but not genocide - occurred in the vast western region of Sudan.
- - -
April 1 News From Russia: The approval of UN resolution turned to stop a crisis in Darfur. The United States, which abstained with three other countries, won significant concessions, including ironclad guarantees it sought that Americans working in Sudan would not be handed over to either the ICC or any other nation's courts if they commit crimes in Sudan. Acting U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson said the United States still "fundamentally objects" to the court but was determined to get something done on Sudan, reports the Houston Chronicle.
According to ABC News, the document is the last of three Security Council resolutions aimed at putting pressure on Sudan to stop a crisis in Darfur, where the number of dead from a conflict between government-backed militias and rebels in c is now estimated at 180,000. The United States itself has declared genocide has occurred in Darfur and demanded swift action. A veto could have also been politically damaging exactly because of those American demands, and the impression that a veto would have made it look like the United States was stalling. The Bush administration had wanted an African court to try those accused of war crimes, but the U.S. proposal had little support among the 14 other Security Council nations. The U.S. decision to allow the court to prosecute war crimes perpetrators could raise hackles among conservatives for whom the court is an unaccountable body that cannot be trusted.
- - -
April 1 Reuters report by Evelyn Leopold via Wired News: The resolution marked the first time the council referred a case to the ICC, which opened its doors a year ago. It is the first permanent global criminal court, set up try individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and mass human rights abuses.
The 11 "yes" votes came from France, Britain, Russia, Denmark, Greece, Argentina, Benin, Tanzania, Romania, the Philippines and Japan. The US stance, negotiated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, represented a compromise, if not a switch in position. The Clinton administration had signed the 1998 Rome Treaty creating the court but the Bush administration rescinded the signature through a letter signed by John Bolton, the new US nominee for UN ambassador.
France and Britain gave each other credit for negotiating Thursday's resolution. French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere had initiated the text but left it to his British counterpart, Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry, to sponsor it because of misgivings about the US exemption. Sudan's UN ambassador, Elfatih Erwa, said the resolution showed how the ICC was used as a weapon against poor nations and that "those with muscles can get whatever they want of exemptions."
The next step is for ICC prosecutors to begin investigations and report to the Security Council in June. They will be given a list of 51 names, drawn up by a UN panel of experts who reported to the Security Council in January.
Richard Dicker, counsel for Human Rights Watch and an expert on the ICC, said he expected the tribunal to prosecute only about 15 top offenders. The others, he said should be tried by Sudan but with international supervision.
"This is a historic step. The council has acted to provide real protection to the people of Darfur," Dicker said. "But it comes at a heavy price -- the unlawful exemption the US imposed on the referral."
- - -
Quotation of the Day
Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Elfatih Erwa, said the resolution showed how the ICC was used as a weapon against poor nations and that "those with muscles can get whatever they want of exemptions." - extract from Reuters report April 1, 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment