Follow Us:

News on the African Union, Sudan and the ICC

18 Aug 2009

Dear all,

Find below information related to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the African Union (AU).

This digest includes media coverage of an African Union in response to growing criticism; Sudan’s vow to 'respond' to AU countries supporting the ICC, the Sudanese government’s claims that Western countries are attempting to circumvent the African Union resolution and the AU defending its reprieve of Al-Bashir citing that it is not “vouching for Al-Bashir’s innocence.”

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.

CICC Secretariat
http://www.coalitionfortheicc.org



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

I. AFRICAN MEDIA REFLECTS ON SOUTH AFRICA’S REVERSAL ON ICC WARRANT.

i. “South Africa Reverses Course on ICC Arrest Warrant for Bashir”, Sudan Tribune, 30 July 2009, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article31986

“Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir will be arrested if he sets foot in South Africa, a foreign ministry official in Pretoria said today…The South African Foreign ministry director-general Ayande Ntsaluba said that his government does not agree with the issuing of the warrant, but “we have certain international obligations”. “Not only that, our Parliament passed a law” enforcing those obligations, Ntsaluba said. “I cannot foresee the government acting outside the framework of the law. We would not renege on our international legal obligations.”

ii. “South Africa Will Honour ICC Pledge”, IOL News, 31 July 2009,http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_Africa&set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=nw20090730234532789C775138

“Briefing the media in Pretoria, Director General Ayanda Ntsaluba said that as South Africa was a signatory to the International Criminal Court's founding Rome Statute, it would be obliged to arrest him if he visited South Africa."

There is not the slightest hint that South Africa will renege on its international obligations."

He said the African Union (AU) had "lost that battle" to have the arrest warrant for Al-Bashir - issued earlier this year - deferred…He said to not arrest Al-Bashir should he "hypothetically" land in South Africa could also potential violate elements of South Africa's own constitution."It [the law] is extremely explicit about what would happen.” If today President Al-Bashir landed in terms of the provision [of the Rome Statute] he would have to be arrested."

iii. “SA is Obliged to Arrest Al-Bashir, Says Ntsaluba”, BUA News, 31 July 2009http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/09/09073110251001


"If today, President Al-Bashir landed in terms of the provision [of the Rome Statute], he would have to be arrested," said the Director General for International Relations and Cooperation Ayanda Ntsaluba on Thursday…South Africa's position in this regard is that while it respects the ICC's efforts to end impunity for war crimes in Darfur, the ICC has not made enough effort to engage the AU to coordinate efforts to end the fighting in that country.”

iv. “SA Will Enforce Bashir Warrant”, The Times, 31 July 2009, http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1042521


“Foreign ministry director-general Ayande Ntsaluba said South Africa does not agree with the issuing of the warrant, but “we have certain international obligations. Not only that, our Parliament passed a law” enforcing those obligations, Ntsaluba said. “I cannot foresee the government acting outside the framework of the law. We would not renege on our international legal obligations.”Bashir has no plans for visiting South Africa, Ntsaluba said.This statement from the foreign ministry comes as more than 130 civil society and human rights groups from across Africa issued a statement on Thursday calling upon African states that are parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to reaffirm their commitment and their obligation to cooperate with the court.”

II. OTHER AFRICAN STATES STANCE ON AU DECISION

i. “Divisions Emerge Over Arrest of Bashir”, IWPR, 23 July 2009, http://www.iwpr.net/?p=acr&s=f&o=354642&apc_state=henpacr


“Divisions have surfaced in the Ugandan government over whether to press for the arrest of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, ICC, for war crimes….A source close to the government, who spoke to IWPR on condition of anonymity, said that Bashir cancelled the trip at the suggestion of Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni, who wanted to avoid an internationally prickly situation… James Aken, a member of the parliament from Northern Uganda, says that if Uganda were to take action against Bashir “it would throw the region into instability”. Uganda and Sudan have suffered a somewhat acrimonious relationship over the years, with each side allegedly funding the rebel insurgency in the other country.” The situation is made even more delicate by the fact that, in 2010, Uganda will host the first review discussion of the Rome Statute, which set up the ICC."If Uganda is seen to be too supportive of the African Union's position, then it is quite possible that this might provoke a change of venue," said William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights.”

ii. “Uganda: ‘Nation Came Close to War with Sudan’”, The Monitor, 2 August 2009,http://allafrica.com/stories/200908020007.html


“Uganda was warned by its neighbour, the semi-autonomous South Sudan, of grave consequences including war and instability, if it dared arrest indicted Sudanese leader, Omar El Bashir. Sunday Monitor has learnt from credible sources that a senior member of the Sudan People's Liberation Army/Movement jetted into Kampala carrying a letter from South Sudan president Salva Kirr Mayardit urgently asking President Yoweri Museveni to diffuse a situation created by Uganda's position that it could arrest and hand Bashir to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The special envoy was Maj. Gen. Gier Chuang Aluong, the current minister for internal affairs of the Government of South Sudan. He arrived in Uganda on July 14 and had a meeting with President Museveni in the evening of the same day, literally entering State House just as President. Museveni concluded an uncomfortable session with Luis Moreno Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the ICC…”Gier said Uganda may turn into Somalia with suicide bombers making security difficult and there was the risk of war if Bashir was facing arrest" said one source with close ties to the South Sudan political establishment.”

iii. “South Africa Legally Rebuts AU Resolution on Arresting Bashir”, Sudan Tribune, 3 August 2009,http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article31996


“South Africa formally announced that it will not abide by the African Union (AU) resolution taken last month to halt cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in arresting Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir….According to the statement if South Africa was to comply with the AU resolution this would violate the constitution that is based on "values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms…"Ascension to the AU Assembly Decision....will negatively impact on our international reputation and stature as observed during South Africa’s non-permanent membership to the UNSC"… The South African official criticized some unspecified parties " jumping into conclusions" who "seemed to anticipate that SA would take the view of acting against its own laws and therefore in preference of the decision of the AU". (Full text of the statement by South Africa’s foreign ministry included in attachment).

iv. “Ghana Will Not Arrest Al-Bashir”, The Statesman, 5 August 2009, http://www.thestatesmanonline.com/pages/news_detail.php?newsid=8770&section=1

“The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Alhaji Muhammad Mumuni, has emphasized that Ghana will not arrest Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, the Sudanese President if he is to visit the country. According to him, although Ghana highly respects the International Criminal Court, which issued the arrest warrant for the Sudanese President for his alleged atrocities in Darfur, the country cannot abide by that order….Answering questions at the weekly meet the press series in Accra, Alhaji Mumuni explained that Ghana’s decision not to arrest Mr Al Bashir was tied to the stand of the African Union, which it is a member state… Alhaji Mumuni indicated that President Al Bashir is a sitting President of a sovereign country and his immunity has to be respected. But quickly added that despite Ghana’s stand on the ICC arrest warrant, the country does not approve of impunity.”

III. SUDANESE GOVERNMENT’S ANALYSIS OF AU DECISION AND ICC

i. “Sudan Accuses Western Countries of Working to Thwart AU’s Decision”, Sudan Tribune, 3 August 2009, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article32007
“The Sudanese government today accused Western countries of seeking to circumvent the African Union (AU) resolution halting cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in apprehending president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir… Rights groups and some African diplomats have accused the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi of “bullying” reluctant African countries to adopt the resolution. The AU Secretariat issued a statement in mid-July dismissing such claims saying that the decision was reached by consensus “with only one opinion to the contrary, which was duly recorded as a reservation,”. However, the African states of Botswana, Chad, Uganda and more recently South Africa have publicly said they will arrest Bashir irrespective of the AU resolution.”

ii. “Sudan Vows Response to AU Countries Who Support ICC”, Sudan Tribune, 8 August 2009, http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article32059
“The Sudanese government today slammed African nations that have recently announced that they will not stand by the African Union (AU) decision halting cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) on arresting president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir…. Over the last few weeks some countries including Botswana, Chad, Uganda and South Africa distanced themselves from the AU decision announcing that they would arrest Bashir if he steps on their soil. A senior unnamed Sudanese official told the pro-government Sudanese Media Center (SMC) website that “voices coming out of some African officials in Pretoria and Kampala on ICC will not prevent Sudan from going forward in what it views as achieving pride and dignity to the nation first of all and Africa secondly”….The official despite the “courageous and bright” support received at the Sirte summit against ICC “we are hearing dissenting voices every now and then in some African capitals…..some supporting and defending Sirte decision and the right of Africans to resist international hegemony and ICC,”….The influx of statements by Sudanese officials recently warning African countries of reneging on the AU resolution reflects worries that other states in the continent may follow suit, isolating Bashir among his peers….the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) said in a statement last month that African government representatives at the summit told them of “unprecedented levels of intimidation and pressure by the host government and Chair”.

IV. AFRICAN UNION RESPONSE TO AL-BASHIR WARRANT

i. “African Union Dismisses Criticism on ICC Resolution”, Sudan Tribune, 20 July 2009, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article31864


“The African Union (AU) issued a statement last week in response to growing criticism over the procedure that led to the adoption of a resolution halting cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in apprehending Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir…. The AU rejected the claims saying that the decision was taken by consensus. “The decision by the Assembly on the Meeting of African States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was arrived at by Consensus after due consideration by the Executive Council at which a number of amendments were made to the draft decision” the AU said. “At the level of the Assembly, the decision was adopted by consensus with only one opinion to the contrary, which was duly recorded as a reservation”…The text, which was hotly debated, was changed from refusing to arrest any African individual to specifying that it was only Bashir who would be afforded immunity….The AU commissioner Ping, who is one of the fiercest critics of the ICC said that the regional body is “showing to the world community that if you don’t want to listen to the continent, if you don’t want to take into account our proposals... if you don’t want to listen to the continent, as usual, we also are going to act unilaterally."

ii. “Sudan: Al-Bashir Indictment is No Solution, Says AU Envoy”, Sudan Tribune, 20 July 2009, http://allafrica.com/stories/200907200587.html


“AFRICAN Union (AU) special envoy to the Darfur region Salim Ahmed Salim has said the indictment of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is not the best solution to the problems in the troubled area. Dr Salim said in an interview here that as long as Mr Al-Bashir remained President of Sudan, the Western world and others should agree to negotiate with him to ensure that peace was restored. He said it was unfair for some people to state that the AU leaders were opposed to the indictment of President Al-Bashir as what was important now was to ensure that peace was restored. ”

iii. “AU Not Vouching for Bashir’s Innocence: Kenya FM”, Sudan Tribune, 6 August 2009, http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article32046


“The Kenyan foreign minister Moses Wetangula today defended the resolution adopted by the African Union (AU) granting reprieve to Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir from arrest in the continent…. “The AU does not and has not and will not say that President Bashir is innocent, because we have no capacity to say that. He has been investigated, he has been indicted,” Wetangula told reporters at a press conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Nairobi…“Nobody will stand in the way of President Bashir being arrested and prosecuted, but for now, the AU’s position is that let’s see what internal mechanisms can be done. I don’t think the AU is asking for too much,” the Kenyan foreign minister said. Wetangula did not say whether Kenya, an ICC member, is prepared to arrest Bashir if he was to visit despite the AU resolution…The US Secretary of State standing next to Wetangula appeared critical of the AU position. “The United States and others have continued to support the need to eventually bring President Bashir to justice, but he’s found a lot of protectors, and mostly in this continent, where people have allowed him to travel and have not used the forces of their own judicial and law enforcement institutions to arrest him, to turn him over the ICC,” she said. Clinton added that the ICC arrest warrant for Bashir “is a very significant step by the international community”. “The actions by the ICC sent a clear message that the behavior of Bashir and his government were outside the bounds of accepted standards and that there would no longer be impunity,” she said.”

V. NGO RESPONSE TO AU DECISION AND AL-BASHIR WARRANT

i. “Peoples of Eastern Sudan Face Marginalization”, Voice of America, 30 July 2009, http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2009-07-30-voa3.cfm


“Professor Lobban, who also serves as executive director of the Sudan Studies Association, notes …“The Bashir administration is running out of time and options and speed. And it just has to do something to respond to the now multiple crises and the critical turning points that have been put in the way, not to mention, of course the ICC charges,” he pointed out, referring to the International Criminal Court’s indictment of Sudan’s leader for complicity in committing war crimes in the Darfur region.

ii. “African Civil Society Groups Rebuke AU for Stand on Bashir”, Voice of America, 31 July 2009, http://www.voanews.com/english/Africa/2009-07-31-voa5.cfm


“More than 130 Africa-based civil society and human rights groups have banded together to issue an urgent appeal for African governments to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC). The statement, released Thursday, follows a July 3 declaration by the African Union (AU) shunning cooperation with the ICC’s pursuit of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity… The head of the International Crime in Africa Programme (ICAP) for the Africa-based Institute for Security Studies, Anton du Plessis, says a collective endorsement of the court is needed to reaffirm obligations undertaken by the 30 African countries who helped create the court 17 years ago. 
“Civil society in Africa is worried about recent developments that seem to indicate that there’s some backtracking in terms of the political support for the court. And we believe that the statement that was issued in Sirte by the African Union heads of state summit not only undermines the International Criminal Court, but is an undermining of the rule of law in Africa,” he said….Du Plessis says that the ICC respects the domestic national integrity of these states to work out how they are going to deliver justice to wrongdoers. 
However, the challenge of AU member states, says Anton du Plessis, must be met by the citizens of those states and the rights groups that speak out on their behalf. “And we do believe that this will put ultimately more and more pressure on the African Union, on African countries, to delegitimize President Omar al-Bashir to the point where there will be a groundswell of support, where it will become difficult for him to travel really, not only within Africa, but also beyond Africa. Ultimately, all of us will contribute to the international effort to bring him to justice,” he said.”

iii. “Lawyers Flay AU for Shielding Al-Bashir from Justice”, Next, 17 July 2009, http://www.234next.com/csp/cms/sites/Next/News/National/5437376-147/story.csp


“The National Executive Committee of the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) has described the decision of the African Union not to execute the judgment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) against the Sudanese President, Omar El-Bashir as self-serving. According to the Resolutions of the committee, signed by Muritala Abdul-Rasheed, national publicity secretary and Ibrahim Eddy Mar, general secretary, the group said African leaders are merely shielding themselves from facing justice because almost all of them have committed various crimes against humanity.“NEC rejects the resolution of the African Union refusing to execute the warrant of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court as self-serving gimmick of African leaders who have, with few exceptions, committed various crimes against humanity and are afraid of facing justice,” the statement read.”

VI. THE UNITED STATES AND THE AFRICAN UNION

i. How Different is his Policy?”, The Economist, 18 July 2009, http://www.economist.com/world/mideastafrica/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14038237
“Several of Mr Obama’s closest advisers on Africa are known to be disgusted by the AU’s refusal to isolate—let alone encourage the arrest of—Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s leader, who has been indicted on charges of war criminality…“We will stand behind efforts to hold war criminals accountable,” he said, without naming names. He failed to deplore the AU’s reluctance to co-operate with the International Criminal Court at The Hague, where Mr Obama hopes Mr Bashir will be sent…Susan Rice, his ambassador to the UN, and Samantha Power at the National Security Council, have in the past urged more robust action to deter Mr Bashir over Darfur. But Mr Obama’s new envoy to the conflict zone, Scott Gration, is seeking diplomatic engagement. It was under Mr Bush’s watch that a separate peace accord was hatched between the Sudanese government and a rebel movement in the south that may be offered the option of secession following a referendum promised for 2011. Mr Obama may well be called on to help sort out that mess if conflict breaks out again, as many fear, within the next year or so.”

VII. OP-EDS

i. “African Union Now Officially Naked Before World and Darfuris”, Sudan Tribune, 21 July 2009,http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article31879
“The African Union (AU) circus that took place in Libya this month is yet another example of why Africa remains the world’s poorest and most underdeveloped continent with the worst human right records. There are so many aspects of the AU summit that exposes the true nature of the African leadership in place today, and the mentality that prevails among them that kills every hope of any real progress in the continent’s fate in the foreseen future….It is safe to say that the AU’s claim of possessing “unflinching commitment” to combating impunity has no basis whosoever. The AU said nothing about the ICC arrest warrants for Haroun and Kushayb or the case against those who killed their own troops. They never pressed Sudan on the issue of war crimes except privately and with no success. However, they all started jumping up and down when the arrest warrant was issued for the Sudanese president.”

ii. “Saving International Justice in Africa”, The Guardian, 3 August 2009, http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/editorial_opinion/article04/indexn2_html?pdate=030809&ptitle=Saving international justice in Africa


“AT the conclusion of its Summit in Sirte, Libya, on July 1, 2009, the Assembly of Heads of State and Governments of the African Union (AU) decided that "AU Member States shall not cooperate ... in the arrest and surrender of President Omar El Bashir of The Sudan." In a press release issued two weeks later, on July 14, the organisation explained that this decision "bears testimony to the glaring reality that the situation in Darfur is too serious and complex an issue to be resolved without recourse to an harmonised approach to justice and peace, neither of which should be pursued at the expense of the other….The AU Summit is not the place to decide issues about the ICC because 23 of the 53 members of the AU have not yet accepted the ICC and this decision is capable of giving the unintended impression that the AU tolerates impunity for mass atrocities in Africa. What it does, however, is provide an opportunity to acknowledge and confront the many challenges currently facing international justice in Africa. The greatest fears about the role that international justice is playing in Africa arise not from crimes behind us but in connection with a mass atrocity that some informed people foresee and all must work to prevent - a disintegration of Sudan into a regional killing field….In most of our countries, these basic expectations of citizenship are illusory. This is why most of us supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). For us, justice for mass atrocities is intimately personal. We believed the Court would help to end high level impunity for mass atrocities, enabling us to attain the best we are capable of…Victims now seem to be the people paying the highest cost for international justice. They suffer threats of death, exile, and other forms of persecution for their commitment to justice with little protection, assistance, or acknowledgement from governments or international institutions. I have heard claims that those who express uncertainties about the work of the ICC in Africa may have been purchased by powerful enemies of justice. This makes victims seem expendable and discredits their well-founded fears as dubious. They are neither. Most victims need reassurance that when the neighbourhood mass murderer arrives their only defence is not the promise of a warrant from a distant tribunal on thin resources. They are right in asking that the promise of justice should be accompanied by credible protection from reprisals. The ICC's friends must address this.”

iii. “Is Darfur Still a ‘Genocide’? Sudan Envoys Say Call it What you Want”, Politics Daily, 30 July 2009, http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/30/is-darfur-still-a-genocide-envoy-says-call-it-what-you-want/
“One of the most contentious issues came down to a label -- genocide. Does Darfur still qualify as a "genocide" if the violence there has been muted after international intervention? "It doesn't matter what we call it," Gration told Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). "We have people living in dire, desperate circumstances. We have women who fear for their lives, who have had their souls ripped out of them...I'm not going to get into a debate that doesn't have to happen.”… But Gration told the senators he was also once a refugee himself, having fled from the Congo as a boy when his family lived there in the 1960's. "I know what it's like to live in another person's attic," he said. "I've lived in another person's clothes." In the end he said, "We want only what is best for the Sudanese people…As Gration spoke to the senators, the United Nations in New York voted to extend its peacekeeping mission in Sudan. Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, remains wanted by the International Criminal Court for implementing "a plan to destroy" portions of Sudan's Darfur region.”