UN Chief assures Darfur war criminals for their safety from ICC
By Wasil Ali*
September 223, 2007 – I was deeply shocked to see the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon degrading the importance of extraditing Darfur war crime suspects to a simple political matter that can be resolved through negotiations. The UN hinted in remarks to the press that the arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Ahmed Haroun and Ali Kushayb should be kept in the background for the time being so that peace efforts and deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur can be successful.
The message Ban Ki-Moon sent to the perpetrators of the crimes in Darfur is unprecedented in the history of the UN. The first message is that justice is a political matter that can be negotiated on a round table. The second message is that UN Security resolutions can be overruled for the purposes of achieving peace. It is also important to note that the UN top official did not mention the word ‘impunity’ even once when talking about Darfur since he took office.
Unlike what Mr. Ban Ki-Moon thinks, accountability is not a luxury in resolving conflicts. It serves multiple purposes; it acts as a deterrent from committing further crimes and it assures the victims that the pain inflicted on them will not go unpunished boosting their outlook to the future.
We have seen in the case of the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda where the ICC arrest warrants have acted as a very powerful tool to placing the movement in a corner. Joseph Kony, leader of the LRA, appeared scared to say the least when he appeared in a rare interview with the BBC following the arrest warrants and pleading for his innocence. It was only after the arrest warrants were issued did the LRA seek a peace agreement with the Ugandan government in a clear attempt to circumvent arrest attempts.
In the case of Sudan one of the suspects, Ahmed Haroun state minister of Humanitarian affairs, was nominated to co-chair a national committee investigating human rights abuses in Darfur. The UN Secretary General did not even issue a statement of concern to this decision which clearly challenges resolution 1593 and the authority of the Security Council. Moreover the second suspect Ali Kushayb is believed to be freely roaming in Darfur and making calls through his cell phone despite Khartoum’s claim that he is under arrest. Is this an acceptable situation to Ban Ki-Moon? Perhaps it is.
Moreover the UN leader has been acting as if Sudan’s compliance with UN resolutions is optional. His justification for not bringing the ICC arrest warrants was to secure Sudan’s cooperation with the deployment of the hybrid force and the peace process. The matter of fact is that both matters are mandatory upon the government of Sudan per UN resolutions. As one Sudanese journalist put it, Khartoum has ‘celebrated’ Ban Ki Moon ignoring the issue of the ICC and praised him as someone who is ‘more diplomatic’ than his predecessor Kofi Annan. The Sudanese government has taken his silence as a blank check to disregard resolution 1593 referring Darfur war crimes to the ICC.
Feeling guilt and perhaps embarrassed by criticisms from Ban Ki-Moon told the press that he brought up the ICC arrest warrants with the Sudanese president in private and declined to give details citing his desire to “make progress” on them. I have little reason to believe that the UN chief is telling the truth. To start with the Sudanese government said that Ban Ki-Moon did not bring up the matter at all during his recent visit to Khartoum. Back in May the UN leader said he conducted a recent phone call with the Sudanese president over the hybrid force. A statement by a Sudanese official to the daily Al-Rayaam denied any contact with Ban Ki-Moon since April. Matthew Russell Lee from Inner City Press at the UN said that this report shown on Sudan Tribune was removed on purpose from Ban’s spokesperson’s “morning headlines”. He questioned why the Secretary General’s office did not seek correction or clarification to this story.
Ban Ki-Moon described himself to his aides as a “man of action” who “put much stock in grand rhetoric”. It was a self servicing statement for the many concessions he was planning on giving to Khartoum during his recent visit which of course included the Darfur war crimes. The top level meeting with the AU last Friday has ended in disagreement because the “man of action” has failed to assert his authority over the UN hybrid force even though it’s the money of the UN member states. The contributions of the countries have not been finalized by August 30th as resolution 1769 required forcing the “man of action” to extend the deadline. Moreover it was only recently that the “man of action” chose his special representative to Sudan after seven months of taking office. It remains to be seen if any concrete results are achieved on Darfur crisis by year end under Ban’s leadership.
While it is understandable that Mr. Ban Ki-Moon is trying to build a legacy different from that of his predecessor, it is not conceivable that he does that by accommodating defiance to UN resolutions. As the former US envoy to the UN expressed it, the world body needs a “Chief Operating officer”. In other words the UN needs someone who will preserve the interests of the UN and ensure compliance with UN resolutions let alone those under Chapter VII. The damage Mr. Ban Ki-Moon has done by his remarks on ICC arrest warrants will have serious implications that extend far beyond Sudan and for years to come.
* The author is a Sudan Tribune journalist, can be reached at [email protected]