Source: http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/conferences/hrc2006/four/hrc070315am-eng.rm?start=00:20:23&end=00:23:26

Human Rights Council, Fourth Session
March 15, 2007
Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights- Interactive Dialogue


Sudan

Thank you, Mr. President and I would like to thank the distinguished High Commissioner for Human Rights on her report.  We would have hoped that the report would have given equal space in the report to various questions of Human Rights.  

In paragraph 42, the High Commissioner called for an international presence to defend victims in Darfur.  I wonder whether these recommendations are in line with the indication in the Charter as to the importance of regional arrangements and organizations and their role in preserving international peace and security.  This recommendation in our opinion, perhaps, is linked to the admissibility criteria of the International Court.  We wonder whether the High Commissioner asked for such a mandate to give such an opinion even without consulting the relevant country or trying to obtain information on a basis of transparency.  Mr. President, in view of the current understanding between the government of Sudan, the African Union, and the United Nations to consolidate and strengthen the Darfur agreement, we have a legitimate question to pose on such a recommendation regarding deploying international forces as indicated in paragraph 42 of the report of the High Commissioner.  Sudan never accepted the principle of international cooperation to settle conflicts.  However, what Sudan has reservations about is using international legitimacy either through the Security Council or through recommendations from the High Commissioner which express in a different way the principle of responsibility to protect which is still controversial and this legitimacy is used in order to interfere in internal affairs of countries such as trying to restructure national police and to restructure the justice system, as is the case in Sudan.

What we see on television every day show the negative consequences of a foreign intervention when it is nonconsensual.   It only leads to much human suffering.  Such misguided and nonconsensual foreign intervention cannot be a magic wand that will deal with such conflicts.  It may on the other hand be a political tool to realize the agenda of certain states.  Thank you.