Follow Us:

Darfur: Blocking UNSC Presidential Statment; Status of UN-AU Force; Op-ed

17 Jan 2008

Dear all,

Please find below information on recent developments related to the
International Criminal Court's investigation in Darfur.

This news digest includes articles on recent developments surrounding
last Tuesday's Sudanese force assault on the U.N.-backed force during
the first weeks of its mission in Darfur; in-depth IWPR and Sudan
Tribune reporting on the scrapped UN Security Council (UNSC) statement
calling for the Sudanese government to comply with the ICC—the former
quotes CICC members Parlimentarians for Global Action and Human Rights
Watch; and finally, an op-ed by Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman in which he
likens the UN to "a toothless lion that only roars loudly in its den"
given the government's noncompliance with UN demands.

Please 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 and current situations before the Court or
situations under analysis. The Coalition, however, will continue to
provide the most up-to-date information about the ICC.

With regards,
Sasha Tenenbaum
CICC Communications

I. FAILED UNSC PRESIDENTIAL STATEMENT

i. "Khartoum's Military Forces Deliberately Attack a UNAMID Convoy,"
Eric Reeves (Sudan Tribune), 15 January 2008,
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25579

" …Despite Khartoum's military attack on the UNAMID convoy, the UN
Security Council has continued in its ineffectual ways, either
indifferent to or insufficiently concerned by the consequences of
UNAMID's potential failure.

…[T]he unwillingness to assign responsibility where it belongs
continues a pattern of deference and dishonesty on the part of the
Security Council. The same Security Council that authorized UNAMID has
now adopted a conciliatory statement concerning those who deliberately
and with premeditation attacked a UNAMID convoy.

This also is the same Security Council that in a March 2005 resolution
(1593) referred massive `crimes against humanity' in Darfur to the
International Criminal Court (ICC), but now refuses to offer even
rhetorical support to lead ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo in his
efforts to compel Khartoum to cooperate with international justice
efforts. Of course central to this shameful acquiescence is China's
perpetually wielded threat of a Security Council veto.

…The current implications of China's refusal to see international
justice done were laid out by lead ICC prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo.

...But China's threat to use its veto in defense of Khartoum's
génocidaires has evidently paralyzed most members of the Security
Council in responding to Moreno-Ocampo's urgent appeal for support.
"At the time [of debate about the Presidential Statement concerning
the ICC and Darfur], the then president of the UN Security Council,
Italy's ambassador Marcello Spatafora, described the contents of
Moreno-Ocampo's report as `very disturbing.' Following the
prosecutor's briefing, he said a UN Security Council declaration
should be drafted. `We cannot stay silent, and have to send a strong
message [to the Sudanese authorities] so we propose this to the
members and ask the countries to circulate a draft. It is now under
consideration,' he said. Slovakia, Italy, UK, France, and Belgium then
proposed a statement, citing the ICC arrest warrants for [Janjaweed
leader Ali] Kushyb and [former junior interior minister and current
minister for humanitarian affairs Ahmed] Harun, and urged Khartoum to
cooperate with the ICC `in respect of these individuals.'

However, on December 7, 2007, after two days of discussions between
the 15 members of the UN Security Council, the statement was suddenly
abandoned. In an apparent about-turn, Spatafora told journalists that
a statement was `not needed' because UN Security Council members had
already been `loud and clear' about their views that the Government of
Sudan should cooperate with the ICC." (African Report, Institute for
War and Peace Reporting [dateline: The Hague], January 11, 2008)

Of course this is shameful disingenuousness on the part of Spatafora
and Italy: a Security Council Presidential Statement could not be more
urgently needed, given Khartoum's refusal to cooperate in any fashion
with the ICC. Instead, Moreno-Ocampo and the ICC must continue to
struggle without any clear indication that their efforts are supported
by the very body that referred to them Darfur's atrocity crimes. The
suggestion that the Security Council has spoken `loudly and clearly'
about the role of the ICC in serving justice in Darfur is pure
mendacity. Indeed, the demise of the proposed Presidential Statement
received only the scantest of news coverage. The current dangers in
Darfur articulated by Moreno-Ocampo were barely reflected in
contemporaneous news coverage, even as ICC indictee Ahmed Haroun is
Khartoum's liaison for UNAMID as well as minister for humanitarian
affairs.

The history of UN Security Council failure in responding to the Darfur
genocide cannot easily be summarized.…Current and past failures
define, in the profoundest of ways, what the Security Council is and
represents."

ii. "UN Resolve Over Darfur Appears to Crumble: United Nations
Security Council heavyweights China and Russia quash statement
compelling Sudanese authorities to cooperate with the ICC," by Katy
Glassborow (IWPR), 11 January 2008,
http://iwpr.net/?p=acr&s=f&o=341898&apc_state=henh

"A United Nations Security Council, UNSC, statement calling for the
Sudanese government to comply with the International Criminal Court,
ICC, by handing over two men suspected of war crimes in Darfur has
been scrapped due to opposition from China and Russia.

…UN sources told IWPR that China and Russia felt the presidential
statement was not conducive to humanitarian, political and
peacekeeping efforts.

UK ambassador to the UN John Sawyers suggested that China was
responsible for blocking December's statement. He said he was
`confident that if the Chinese had not taken such a firm line against
the statement, it would have been adopted.'

ICC watchers, such as David Donat Cattin from Parliamentarians for
Global Action, were not surprised the statement was scrapped and feel
that it would not have made any real difference to the Darfur crisis.
`It would have been a nice political move, but would not have added
anything to the legally binding Resolution 1593,' he said.

But representatives of rebel groups in Sudan are disappointed that the
UNSC has backed down.

Ahmed Diraige, chairman of the Sudan Federal Democratic Alliance and
former head of the National Redemption Front, said in order to stay
credible and respected by Darfurians, organisations such as the UN and
ICC must prove they are fulfilling their duties…

…Justice minister of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement, JEM,
Bushara Suleiman, said that whether Kushayb and Harun end up in The
Hague is entirely dependent on pressure from the UNSC on the
government, and is calling for further sanctions.' The UNSC need to
impose oil sanctions, which is the only thing which will stop the
genocide in Darfur, but [permanent member] China will never allow
this,' he said. `The Chinese have a UNSC veto and also have oil
interests in Sudan. So rebels need to control cities like El Genina,
El Fasher and Nyala, because any other sanctions will not convince the
GoS to comply with the ICC.'

…Bushara told IWPR that those who have committed crimes have to be
taken to the ICC and that `we will fight until this happens. For us it
is clear. We need comprehensive sanctions'.

…Cattin said that a travel ban currently in place against Harun is
short-sighted because `experience tells us that the best way to arrest
these people is to allow them to travel and arrest them outside Sudan'.

Steve Crawshaw from Human Rights Watch said that blame for the UNSC's
half-hearted response to the Darfur crisis cannot be laid solely at
the feet of China and Russia. He said that right across the UNSC,
there has been a lack of will to help the ICC, and added that the body
was sending out `confusing signals' to Sudan.

…Crawshaw said that Khartoum was praised by the UN for cooperating in
discussions over peacekeepers, with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
failing to raise the issue of justice on a trip to Sudan. `You can't
have Khartoum praised, and not mention that Harun was appointed as the
liaison to UNAMID. This is a shameful slap in the face to the UN, and
every government has to confront this,' added Crawshaw.

Belgium's UN ambassador Johan Verbeke told IWPR he has again and again
stressed the importance of the fight against impunity in Sudan,
particularly in relation to the case of Harun, and succeeded in making
an increasing number of UNSC members sensitive to the issue. `Belgium
will not accept Sudan's utter defiance of its obligations.' These are
welcome words for ICC prosecutors after what they describe as `months
of silence from the international community'.

An ICC spokesperson told IWPR that `it is now up to the members of the
UNSC to live up to their responsibility and ensure that the GoS
respect its obligations under Resolution 1593 and cooperate with the
ICC, in particular through the arrest and surrender of Harun and Kushayb'.

The Chinese and Russian delegations to the UN declined the opportunity
to respond to interview requests from IWPR."

II. STATUS OF THE UN-AU FORCE IN DARFUR

i. "Attack Seen As a Setback For the U.N: In Darfur Incident Points to
Peacekeepers' Lack of Resources, Critics Say," By Colum Lynch
(Washington Post), 13 January 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/12/AR2008011202410.html

"…The assault ..[from Sudanese forces]against a clearly marked supply
convoy of more than 20 trucks and armored personnel…prompted a formal
protest from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. It also gave the
U.N.-backed force a humiliating defeat during the critical first weeks
of its mission in Darfur.

…The incident marked a setback to U.S.-backed efforts to end nearly
five years of violence in Darfur through the deployment of more than
26,000 peacekeepers, mostly Africans. The mission replaced 7,000
African Union peacekeepers who had largely retreated to their barracks
amid armed attacks. So far the new force has about 9,000 peacekeepers,
most of whom are African Union troops who simply replaced their green
berets with blue U.N. berets.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has
accused the Sudanese government of `dragging its feet' in an attempt
to ensure that the U.N.-backed force remains incapable of protecting
civilians in Darfur. But Khalilzad also conceded that inadequately
equipping the force has placed the credibility of the United Nations
and its political patrons, including the United States, at stake. `We
need to take stock of this and consider steps that incentivize the
government of Sudan to cooperate,' he said.

…But in Darfur, an ill-prepared peacekeeping force has entered a live
battle zone involving combatants from the Sudanese army, neighboring
Chad and a major Darfurian rebel group.

…Sudan's Defense Ministry acknowledged Thursday that its troops
carried out the attack, but it said the U.N.-backed force shared
responsibility for the `mistake' because it had failed to alert
Sudanese authorities that it was traveling in the area. The United
Nations maintains that it provided adequate notice.'

ii. "Sudan intends to raise new objections on UN-AU force," Sudan
Tribune, 10 January 2008,
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25523

"A senior Sudanese official warned that his government wants further
discussion on issues relating to the status of the UN-AU force in Darfur.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador Abdel-Mahmood Mohamad said that Khartoum will
require a change to the force's uniform to reflect `African character
of the force' to be included in the agreement on the status of the forces.

…A joint African-United Nations force took over peacekeeping duties in
Darfur last week and existing AU forces switched their green berets to
the UN blue ones. The transfer of authority has been largely symbolic.

Sudan has not signed off on the Status of Force (SAF) agreement that
governs the work of the new force….

…Guéhenno briefed the council on the progress made on deploying the
hybrid force in Darfur. He painted a bleak picture of the situation on
the ground. `We do not yet have guaranteed agreements from the
(Sudanese) government on basic technical issues,' Guehenno told the
council. `The mission itself will not have the personnel or assets in
place to implement its mandate for many months, even in the best-case
scenario.'

The UN official said that security situation on the ground in Darfur
deteriorated since his last briefing. He accused the Sudanese army of
being behind the attack on a UNAMID convoy this week. Guéhenno told
the Security Council that a local commander of the Sudanese armed
forces had contacted UNAMID and taken responsibility for the attack
but Sudan's envoy denied the claim.

…The US condemned the attack and said it will seek an expansion of
arms embargo against Sudan as well as a presidential statement from
the UNSC. However Libya, the new president of the UNSC appears to be
blocking the statement which requires unanimity from the 15 members.

However despite the report by Guéhenno there appeared to be little
appetite for coercive measures against Sudan as reflected by
statements of the US & UK envoy at the UNSC."

iii. "UN Assails Sudan Peacekeeper Attack," by John Heilprin
(Associated Press), 12 January 2008,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiP4wkHSaahk_oQkZbcLsX8_Ej7AD8U41RV00

"The United Nations Security Council opened the door Friday to new
economic, political or military sanctions against Sudan because of an
attack by its troops on a U.N. peacekeeping convoy earlier this week.

Because of the attack, the council said in a statement that it
`expresses its readiness to take action against any party that impedes
the peace process, humanitarian aid or the deployment' of the U.N.
force, known as UNAMID, made up of U.N. and African Union troops and
other personnel.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, brushed off
the suggestion of new sanctions, saying the council always threatens
action but rarely follows up.

According to Khalilzad and other diplomats, Mohamad had tried
unsuccessfully to remove a reference to the attack having been carried
out by Sudanese armed forces. The council finally agreed to include in
its statement qualifying language that the attack was carried out `by
elements of the Sudanese armed forces, as confirmed by the United
Nations African Union Mission in Darfur.'

For more, please refer to the Statement by the SC President dated 11
January 2008:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/205/83/PDF/N0820583.pdf?OpenElement

IV. OP-ED

"UN Security Council: A toothless lion!," by Dr. Mahmoud A. Suleiman
(Sudan Tribune), 14 January 2008,
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25569

"Frustrated by its lack of action, the UN was seen as `a toothless
lion' at best at present. Many analysts thought the only way it would
survive as a body capable of maintaining world peace was to amend its
charter….

…At the beginning of the Millennium, world is failing its entrance
exam to protect people of Darfur by deploying UN operations that can
be relevant to the genocide prevention mission including the
`preventive deployment' of troops….

The Security Council has also authorized a ban on Sudanese military
flights, referred indicted war criminals to the International Criminal
Court (ICC) in March 2005, and created a pathway for sanctions on
certain financial interests of the Sudanese leadership. So far, none
of the authorisations of the Resolution 1706 have been implemented due
to non-compliance of government of Sudan. The Security Council has
passed lots of resolutions, but the government of Sudan ignores them.

…The AU/UN Hybrid mission in Darfur (UNAMID), will operate under
Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which grants them the right to use
force to protect civilians. Yet they will have no authority to seize
weapons from belligerents, nor is there any provision for sanctioning
the Sudanese government if it continues its non-compliances with U.N.
Security Council resolutions. The mission lacks critical equipment,
such as at least 18 helicopters to move the troops around in the vast
Darfur area, and no contributors have offered any. Khartoum,
meanwhile, has banned several countries from contributing troops and
know-how.

Many disillusioned observers say as the track record of UN on
protecting civilians is patchy, The United States and the other
permanent UN Security Council (UNSC) members should support a
recommendation for the permanent Security Council members to withhold
the use of the veto in the case of dire humanitarian need, except when
their own vital national security interests are at stake. Such an
informal agreement would remove another obstacle to early Security
Council action. The resolution 1706 was rendered impotent and after
the threat of sanctions was removed and reports of government-backed
killing continued. The UN is perceived by many like a toothless lion
that only roars loudly in its den…"

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

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 (potential and current), or situations under
analysis befote 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