Follow Us:

More reaction to peacekeeper deployment; FIDH communique

06 Aug 2007

Dear all,

Please find below excerpts from media articles on recent developments related to the ICC's investigation in Darfur and continued coverage of and reaction to the Security Council resolution authorizing deployment of peacekeepers in Darfur; a communiqué from the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) highlighting the resolution's failure to discuss the role of the ICC; news that childrens' depictions of conflict in Darfur will be submitted to the ICC as evidence of Sudanese atrocities in the region; and various opinion pieces including new information about the Bush Administration's attempts to prevent a Security Council referral of the Darfur case.

Please note that all translations below are unofficial and provided by the CICC Secretariat as a service to our members, and should not be disseminated in official documents.

Please also take note of the Coalition's policy on situations before the ICC (below), which explicitly states that the CICC will not take a position on potential or pending situations before the court. The Coalition, however, will continue to provide the most up-to-date information about the ICC.

With regards,

Sasha Tenenbaum
CICC Communications
[email protected]

********************************************************

I. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION DRAWS CRITICAL REACTION

i. "Darfur war crimes suspect has free rein: Ahmad Harun, accused of recruiting militias who ravaged villages, is the minister of state for humanitarian affairs," by Maggie Farley (Los Angeles Times), 5 August 2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-harun5aug05,1,5079984.st
ory?
coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

"...[Ahmad Harun ]minister of state for humanitarian affairs in charge of caring for the very people he is accused of displacing. That he holds such a post says much about the limits of international power to cope with a festering crisis.

...Instead of being put behind bars, as the court asked, Harun still has the power to decide who lives and dies in Darfur. And without Sudan's cooperation, there is almost nothing the court can do to bring him to justice. 'It is absolutely unacceptable,' complained chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, whose team carefully built the case against Harun through interviews with refugees, tribal leaders, colleagues and enemies. 'Harun has to be removed from office, arrested and sent to the court,' Moreno-Ocampo said in an interview.
'Allowing
him to be the humanitarian minister is like putting the fox in front of the chickens.'

The trouble, experts say, is that asking the government to hand him over is asking it to indict itself. And charging those with the true responsibility for Darfur means targeting the only ones able to guarantee peace: the president and vice president.

...Further, Moreno-Ocampo's desire for swift justice competes with the aims of other U.N. bodies trying to bring peace to Darfur. The Security Council can demand that Khartoum make the arrests or face sanctions, but it is also trying to gain the government's acceptance of a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force for Darfur as well as its cooperation in peace talks.

So the court must rely on the government of Sudan to surrender Harun unless the Security Council were to order U.N. officials to arrest him - a move likely to get U.N. peacekeepers and aid workers tossed out of the country.

The choice does not have to be between peace or justice. The two are intertwined
- but perhaps the most effective tool is time, Moreno-Ocampo says. He has translated the indictment into Arabic, in a booklet to take with him on his rounds of neighboring countries, explaining the court and drumming up support to keep an eye on Harun. 'Sooner or later, Moreno-Ocampo says, 'circumstances will change or Harun will make a misstep'...."

ii. "An effective international force to be dispatched swiftly, "Communiqué, International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and Sudan Organisation against Torture (SOAT), 2 August 2007,
http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=4536

"The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and its member organization, Sudan Organisation against Torture (SOAT), welcome the adoption by the UN Security Council of Resolution 1769 to deploy a hybrid African Union-United Nations force to Darfur (UNAMID) in Sudan. It is now of crucial importance that the hybrid force is provided with the necessary resources to carry out promptly and effectively its mandate and that the Government of Sudan cooperates with the international force.

The people of Darfur can no longer wait and the tragic human rights record in the region requires that the international force is also fully equipped with a strong human rights component mandated to monitor, investigate and report on human rights violations and that adequate resources are allocated to ensure appropriate expertise on issues relating to sexual and gender based violence in accordance with UN Resolution 1325.

While welcoming the emphasis on 'the need to bring to justice the perpetrators'
of the crimes committed in Darfur, concern is expressed regarding the omission of any reference to the International Criminal Court and the need of the Government of Sudan to fully cooperate with it, if justice and a lasting peace are to be reached.

Concern is also expressed in regard to the fact that the new force will not have the right to disarm the militias and is only allowed to monitor 'whether any arms or related material are present in Darfur.'

FIDH and SOAT welcome and encourage the Security Council readiness to support initiatives to improve the security situation of civilians, including refugees and internally displaced people, in the region of eastern Chad and north-eastern Central African Republic in light of the spill over effect in the neighbouring countries and the deteriorating humanitarian and human rights situation caused by the ongoing conflict in Darfur.

Enough time has passed and more crimes have been committed in the years leading to the adoption of this Resolution, Darfurian people cannot afford to wait any longer for the effective deployment of the international force."

iii. "Sudan 'will support Darfur force,'" BBC News, 1 August 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6925538.stm

"Sudan will co-operate with UN and African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, Sudan's UN ambassador said after the UN Security Council backed a joint force. The mandate for the 26,000-strong force was watered down to appease critics and it will only be able to protect civilians deemed to be under threat. The new UN-AU mission head welcomed the move but urged a political solution 'as there needs to be a peace to keep.'...The new force will not have the right to disarm the militias and it does not have the powers to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, the resolution does not threaten sanctions against Sudan if it does not comply.
The
unanimous vote came after negotiations secured the support of China, which has a veto on the Security Council and strong economic interests in Sudan...."

iv. "UN orders massive force to Darfur," The Australian, 2 August 2007, [Link unavailable]

"THE UN voted last night to deploy the largest peacekeeping mission in the world in an attempt to halt more than four years of massacres that have cost almost a quarter of a million lives in the Darfur region of Sudan.

... [UK Prime Minister] Mr. [Gordon] Brown threatened to seek further sanctions if Sudan failed to co-operate. ''This is the world coming together to say we have a plan now, and we expect the authorities in Sudan to act. We will not tolerate further inaction, and the violence has got to stop now,' he said.
The
hybrid force will try to quell the bitter fighting in Darfur between camel-riding Arab Janjaweed militia forces and African rebel groups and feuding tribes, which has spilt over the borders into Chad and the Central African Republic.

...Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in Manila yesterday that Australia would send a small number of doctors and nurses to Darfur but would not be sending any troops.

The Sudanese ambassador to the UN, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, said the Khartoum Government -- which includes a minister for humanitarian affairs who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes in Darfur -- would implement the resolution establishing the hybrid force...."

v. "Rebel JEM welcomes Darfur peacekeeping mission," The Sudan Tribune, 2 August 2007, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article23095

"The rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) has welcomed the unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council of the resolution 1796 providing the deployment of 26000 peacekeepers in the war-torn province of Darfur.

Ahmed Hussein Adam, the JEM spokesperson told Sudan Tribune that 'this resolution is a victory for the Darfur people.' Adding that UN Security Council decision mandates the hybrid peacekeeping force to protect Darfur civilians and secure the humanitarian aid.

...Nonetheless he deplored the absence of a clear mention to the disarmament of the Janjaweed militia indicating that they are the main tool of Khartoum to commit genocide in Darfur. He also regretted that the 1796 resolution is void from any reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its role to achieve justice in Darfur."

vi. Transcript of Al-Jazeera talk show on UN Resolution 1769, BBC Monitoring International Reports, 2 August 2007, [link unavailable]

['Behind the News' talk show moderator Jumanah Nammur asks]: 'What authority do these troops have and how does this resolution respond to Khartoum's demands and concerns? Does the resolution include effective concepts and mechanisms to settle the various aspects of the region's problem?'

[Al-Jazeera correspondent Haya Baydunre responds]: 'The adoption of a resolution to deploy UN-AU peacekeepers in Darfur was not at all easy. After many rounds of threats and menace, the Sudanese Government accepted the resolution, because it was midway between what it sought and what the world community wanted in order to resolve the Darfur crisis.' She adds that some observers interpreted Sudan's acceptance of the resolution as a response to US and British pressures, while other observers interpreted it as a result of a deal with the Hague International Criminal Court to close the case against Sudanese charged with war crimes.

[Moderator Nammur asks Ahmad Husayn, official spokesman for the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, via satellite from London how he views the UN resolution and Husayn responds]:

'We in the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement welcome this resolution because it is a significant and first step towards the fulfillment of the aspirations of the Darfur citizens and their demands for a decent and secure life.' He adds that 'this resolution clearly discusses the protection of civilians, humanitarian teams, and the elements of the force that will be deployed.' He says that 'the other important aspect of the resolution is its reference to a political solution, new negotiations, and a new political process that would tackle the roots of the problem.' He also says that the resolution prohibits the Sudanese Government from using planes against civilians.
Husayn
reiterates that the resolution, however, failed to state clearly that it demands that the Sudanese Government cooperate with the International Criminal Court. He says that 'the resolution is a good one because it notes that the situation in Darfur poses a threat to world peace and security, which brings in Chapter Seven of the UN Charter to tackle the issue....'"

II. SUDAN'S MINISTER HARUN DENIES ICC CHARGES AGAINST HIM

"Sudanese minister denies war crimes charges, says US finances rebels in Darfur," BBC Monitoring Middle East, 1 August 2007, [link unavailable]

Transcript of a report on Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television in Arabic at 1810 GMT on 1 August carries the following announcer-read report:

"Sudanese Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs Ahmad Harun...has denied in an interview with Al-Jazeera all charges leveled against him. Ahmad Harun said that the United States is the party financing rebel movements and supporting continued fighting in Darfur.

... [Harun]:'...We laugh when we hear these allegations because they are an attempt to twist obvious facts and simply because these investigations have not been conducted at the purported crime scene if there is a crime.' "

III. CHILDRENS' GRAPHIC DRAWINGS OFFER EVIDENCE IN INVESTIGATION

"Through the eyes of children: new evidence of the horrors of Darfur," The Independent (London), 2 August 2007, [Link unavailable, but same information published in "Children's drawings show Darfur civil war," UPI, 3 August 2007, http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/02/childrens_drawings_show_dar
fur_
civil_war/2591/]

"...Dramatic new evidence of the attacks on the people of Darfur by Sudanese government troops has emerged in 500 drawings by children who escaped the violence by fleeing across the border to Chad...In a ground-breaking move, the remarkable collection of images will now be submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC).The testimony of the children, some as young as eight, emerged by chance when a peace campaigner handed the children paper, pencils and crayons to keep them occupied while she interviewed their mothers.

Anna Schmidt, a researcher for Waging Peace, which campaigns against genocide, had been hoping to gain information about the atrocities in Darfur from the women, who are among 250,000 to have fled to the relative safety in neighbouring Chad. Yet it was their children who provided perhaps the most significant indication yet of exactly what has gone on in Darfur. Most of them could not read or write. But they could draw. And, unprompted, they started to reveal what they have seen with their own eyes.

The drawings depict Sudanese tanks, planes and helicopters launching coordinated attacks with the Arab Janjaweed militia against Darfuris defending themselves with bows and arrows.

...The graphic images include the bombing of civilians and children; homes being set on fire as villages are destroyed; beheadings; victims lying in pools of blood; women chained together being led away; and mass graves. Many of the children who drew the stories of their lives do not have fathers or brothers.
Men and older boys have been slaughtered in Darfur. Childish lines that look as though they should be depicting fairgrounds or farmyards instead show helicopter gun attacks, tanks bearing the Sudanese flag, soldiers wearing the uniform of the Sudanese army alongside vehicles with machineguns driven by Janjaweed.
The
perpetrators are always light-skinned. The victims are always black.

'This is the proof,' said Rebecca Tinsley, a director of Waging Peace, who will submit the drawings to the ICC and plans to exhibit them to rally support for tougher international action against Sudan. 'If this is not evidence, I don't know what is. The children have provided a photographic record. They have not been manipulated. The pattern that emerged in the drawings is amazing. It corroborates what we know is happening and disproves what we are being told by the government of Sudan...' "

III. OPINION ARTICLES

i. "ICC, Darfur and a Flawed U.S. Foreign Policy," by Raj Purohit, Partnership for a Secure America, 2 August 2007, http://blog.psaonline.org/2007/08/02/icc-darfur-and-a-flawed-us-foreign-poli
cy/

[Citizens for Global Solutions' Raj Purohit provides introductory text]:

"If we needed another example of the flawed approach to foreign policy taken by the current Administration Mark Goldberg, writer in residence at United Nations Foundation, just provided us with it. Mark put in a FOIA request for cable traffic and other items that spoke to the development of Darfur policy at the State Department. He recently received 800 or so documents and kindly gave us permission to share some of the most important info. Please find his full note below; the intensity with which the Administration sought to undermine the ICC, regardless of the costs to the people of Darfur, is certainly worth noting."

[Excepts of letter by Mark Leon Goldberg on his research findings]:

"In early January 2005, upon learning that Cassese was to recommend ICC referral, UN Ambassador Jack Danforth sent a cable to Washington asking for instructions. The cable, addressed to Secretary of State Rice, recounts a meeting Danforth held with French Perm Rep Jean-Marc de la Sabliere (and an individual whose name is redacted.) Danforth was informed by de la Sabliere that France would, in fact, take up Cassese's recommendation. Danforth, therefore, asked Rice for some direction: should the US seek to A) block the ICC referral all together, or B) simply carve out US exemption (that is, insert language into the resolution that would grant immunity to any Americans that might be somehow be caught up in the investigation.)"

ii. "Resolved to act," The Guardian Limited Edition, 2 August 2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2139506,00.html

"Quite whether the UN Security Council resolution to deploy the world's largest peace-keeping operation in Darfur was a personal triumph for Gordon Brown, or whether he simply got the timing of his speech to the United Nations right, hardly matters. The British and French injection of energy into a fresh resolution yesterday capped months of pressure on Sudan and showed, for once, that the international community could do more than watch slaughter take place before its eyes.The UN resolution is welcome for two reasons. It injects urgency into the search for an end to a brutal conflict that has been going on since 2003. A joint United Nations-African Union force will be in place by the end of the year. And it should send a 26,000-strong force, to the country, composed largely of African and Asian troops, although France and Denmark will be involved. China is also considering sending peacekeepers.

...The resulting barbarities claimed over 200,000 lives and uprooted 2.5 million people. Sudan's humanitarian affairs minister, Ahmed Haroun, and a janjaweed militia leader have been charged by the International Criminal Court with 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

For four years, Sudan has defied international attempts to stop the conflict.
Despite pledges to disband the janjaweed, the regime in Khartoum has continued to arm them and until recently, to block the arrival of a muscular international force. ...."

iii. "China's diplomatic victory in Sudan's Darfur," The Sudan Tribune, 2 August 2007, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article23090

"Groping for stones to cross the river, that's how China is testing and conceiving its role and position as a rapidly developing world power.
Sudan's
scorching arid region of Darfur is one of the focal points where diverging interests merge into an awkward and often confusing learning process. Here, Beijing has to maneuver its pressing economic interests in a way that avoids collision with competitors and circumvents the pitfalls related to local instability and insecurity.

The People's Republic's commercial stakes in the North African country are widely surveyed. According the United Nations, China represents as much as
64
percent of Sudan's trade volume...

...Likewise, China voiced its opposition to the referral of Darfur to the International Criminal Court, a proposal sponsored by the UK. Initially, Beijing assumed the United States would bring this resolution to a halt, given Washington's opposition towards the ICC. However, the pressure of the American public opinion became so strong that the Bush administration gave in and decided to abstain. An early counter-proposal of the Chinese delegation to charge Sudanese courts with the investigation drew a blank, but still it was confident enough that the resolution could be passed without threatening government officials in Khartoum. After all, the scope of the ICC would entirely depend on the cooperation of the Sudanese government."

iv. "New thinking and new hope," The Guardian, 1 August 2007, http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/conor_foley/2007/08/new_thinking_and_new
_hop
e.html

"However, the resolution explicitly acknowledges the Sudanese government's sovereignty and the force will not be allowed to seize and dispose of illegal arms. The threat of economic sanctions, which had also been contained in an earlier draft, has been dropped from the text that was adopted. There has already been some wrangling over the meaning of the term 'to protect civilians without prejudice to the responsibility of the government of Sudan.' There will certainly be more disagreements about the ongoing investigation into war crimes in the region by the International Criminal Court."

*************************************
CICC's policy on the referral and prosecution of situations before the ICC:

The Coalition for the ICC is not an organ of the court. The CICC is an independent NGO movement dedicated to the establishment of the International criminal court as a fair, effective, and independent international organization.
The Coalition will continue to provide the most up-to-date information about the ICC and to help coordinate global action to effectively implement the Rome statute of the ICC. The Coalition will also endeavor to respond to basic queries and to raise Awareness about the ICC's trigger mechanisms and procedures, as they develop. The Coalition as a whole, and its secretariat, do not endorse or promote specific investigations or prosecutions or take a position on Situations before the ICC. However, individual CICC members may endorse referrals, provide legal and other support on investigations, or develop Partnerships with local and other organizations in the course of their efforts.

Communications to the ICC can be sent to:

ICC
P.O. box 19519
2500 CM the Hague
The Netherlands