Council Squabbles Over Darfur Trial Venue
BY BENNY AVNI - Special to the Sun
February 2, 2005
UNITED NATIONS - While the killing in Sudan rages on, members of the Security Council began a debate about trial venues for potential Darfur war criminals.
And a day after Secretary-General Annan reported that no genocide took place in Sudan, several American legislators, led by Sam Brownback, a Republican of Kansas, asked him to resign his post as protest for the U.N.'s inability to stop the bloodshed in Darfur.
After Mr. Annan recommended in his report, which was released to the council on Monday, that those who committed crimes against humanity be referred to the International Criminal Court, Europeans prepared to endorse his recommendation. Even Sudan embraced the ICC, which is strongly opposed by America.
Instead, America is hoping to convince the African Union to endorse the extension of the existing U.N.-backed tribunal in Abuja, Tanzania, which was formed to deal with war crimes in Rwanda, to include the new allegations of crimes against humanity that, according to Mr. Annan's report, occurred in Darfur.
We want the African Union to play a fundamental role, American ambassador at large for War Crimes, Pierre Richard Prosper, told The New York Sun yesterday. It is important for the continent.
It is also important for the strategy to convince American allies on Sudan to bypass their enthusiastic support of the Hague-Based court. Europeans see the case of Darfur as a first and crucial watershed point for the ICC, which was founded in Rome and began operating in March 2003.
For us, as the host nation, it is most important, Ambassador Dirk Jan vander Berg of the Netherlands told the Sun. Several European diplomats said that it is impractical to finance a specialized tribunal while the ICC is up and running.
The Security Council is expected to convene on Friday to discuss Mr. Annan's report and begin negotiating a resolution on Darfur. A senior British diplomat said yesterday in a background briefing that he expects the discussions on the resolution, which would also deal with the size of any U.N.-mandated force on the ground and sanctions, could be finished by the end of February.
The ICC question seems to be a sticking point, with Europeans citing cost as a major argument for using the ICC, rather than a tribunal.
The British diplomat claimed that the cost of an average single indictment in Abuja amounts to $48 million. That is nonsense, an American official told the Sun in response, arguing that though the costs were high while the Rwanda venue was set up, they are much lower now. He said that setting up the ICC prosecution would cost a lot of money as well. It's a wash, the official concluded.
In order to send the case to the ICC, the Security Council, where America has veto power, would have to endorse a resolution calling for it, because Sudan has not ratified the Rome Treaty, which established the court.
Khartoum yesterday celebrated the fact that Mr. Annan's report did not conclude that genocide took place and disputed findings about war crimes. The justice minister, Ali Mohamed Osman Yassin, told Reuters the excessive press coverage and almost continuous visits by dignitaries had influenced the commission. This made it an emotional rather than realistic investigation, he said.
There is also no evidence to back up these claims - they are keeping this evidence hidden from us, he added. The report, written by a commission named by Mr. Annan and headed by Italian Judge Antonio Cassese, named several Janjaweed leaders and Sudanese officials as responsible for war crimes, but sealed the names in an envelope.
U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard told reporters yesterday that this was done because in the past names of war criminals were leaked to the press.
Mr. Yassin said the government would cooperate with any ICC investigation, but added he would prefer it if Sudanese courts prosecuted suspects.
In Washington, Mr. Brownback said that after his report failed to conclude that the atrocities in Darfur amounted to genocide, it was time for Mr. Annan to resign. We cannot wait any longer for credible action in Darfur, he said. The time is now for the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to lead or leave.
Representative Frank Wolf, a Republican of Virginia, said he does not blame Mr. Annan for the violence in Darfur and called the debate over whether it was genocide a matter of semantics. He said Mr. Annan's resignation could jolt the Security Council into imposing sanctions and taking other steps to pressure the Sudanese government.
I think it's wrong to assume that he could somehow force them to take a course of action, and should he not be successful he would be obliged to step down, Mr. Eckhard told reporters. I think that's inconsistent with the (U.N.) charter.