لجنة الاتحاد الأفريقي بقيادة مبيكي تدعم المحكمة الجنائية ضد الرئيس البشير

Mbeki-led African panel backs Darfur warrants
10 Jul 2009 14:46:12 GMT
Source: Reuters
ADDIS ABABA, July 10 (Reuters) - An African Union (AU) panel led by South Africa's former President Thabo Mbeki backed on Friday an international court's indictment of Sudanese officials including President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes.
The panel's recommendation showed the differences around Africa over the indictment for crimes in the Darfur conflict. An AU summit in Libya last week voted to suspend cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the matter.
Mbeki told reporters his panel of eight eminent Africans had consulted widely inside and outside Sudan.
"The consensus reached is that those charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity should appear in court and defend themselves," he said. "The warrant has been issued. There is nothing that can be done."
The ICC has indicted Bashir on seven counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape and torture.
He has dismissed the allegations as part of a Western conspiracy, and the AU has sought a deferment of the indictment, saying it has complicated peace efforts in Darfur.
U.N. officials say the Darfur conflict in Sudan's western region has killed as many as 300,000 people since 2003. (Reporting by Tsegaye Tadesse; Editing by Sophie Hares)

AU Mbeki-led panel supports ICC on Bashir case
By Bec Hamilton | Published: July 10, 2009
Reuters is reporting that the AU Panel of “eminent Africans” led by former South African President Thabo Mbeki, and tasked by the AU with “looking into ways to balance accountability with bringing peace into Darfur” has come out in support of the ICC case against Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. This contradicts the “AU decision” in Sirte last week.
Happily I’m in Addis now and will be speaking with some of the relevant players in the coming week. I should point out though that to date I only have this one Reuters news source and have not yet got direct confirmation. Moreover I have heard that the panel’s final report is now not coming out until September, which may mean that this report is speculative. But on the assumption there is something to it . . .
I’m inclined to view this latest development as giving credence to the argument made by Jim Goldston that much as there is a range of grievances among AU members about the Court, “the main source of discontent is clear: fear that an international court may indict a head of state and get away with it.”
On the topic of AU grievances I have to say I think it is wrong - in fact just plain disrespectful - that the UN Security Council has not even responded to the AU’s attempts to get their request for a suspension of the case under Article 16 considered. The Council is divided and the culture of the Council is such that they like “gentlemen’s agreements” presenting a unified front wherever possible - and nothing is more certain that on this issue there is no such prospect. So in order to save face, they are not even giving the AU the courtesy of a response. This does nothing to help the so-called “big powers” relations with the AU, to the detriment of - as always - civilians needing these organizations to act effectively.
But such legitimate concerns notwithstanding, the AU decision not to support the ICC case against Bashir has always reeked of “the boys” (apologies to Johnson-Sirleaf) looking out for each other.
The charitable view put forward by some following last week’s AU decision was that this was just the pragmatic way forward. The AU have to mediate a peace agreement with the Sudanese government and they can’t do that while supporting an arrest warrant against the Sudanese President, was the way the argument went. I wasn’t so convinced. I didn’t see any reason for them to have come out with an AU statement on this issue - there was plenty else on the agenda and nothing would have been lost by maintaining the status quo whereby AU members that are party to the ICC respect their treaty obligations and cooperate with the court, and those who are not do as they choose.
If Reuters is right and the Mbeki panel has taken a different approach then the argument that the AU “had to” come out against the ICC in order to get a peace agreement in Darfur is directly challenged - the Mbeki panel is, after all, charged with looking at exactly this issue how peace and accountability can work hand in hand. Which brings us back to the key difference between those making the decisions at the AU Summit last week and those on the Mbeki panel: The former are still in power and fear the precedent of an ICC treating a sitting head of state like any other person charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The latter no longer have any such concerns.
[*A couple of local points of interest. ICC Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, was here in Addis earlier this week and spoke to the Mbeki panel. Also, Darfur advocates around here have been commenting that Mbeki looks "remarkably well, relaxed and confident" of late.]
This entry was posted in Darfur - current events, ICC. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
« Kenyan post-election violence: The ICC at its best