US pushes for firmer, faster action to resolve Darfur Crisis

DAKAR, Senegal, Mar 25, 2005 (PANA) — One of three US-backed resolutions seeking firmer and faster action towards restoring peace in Sudan was adopted Thursday by the UN Security Council, which unanimously approved the deployment of a 10,700-strong force to monitor a peace deal between Khartoum and southern separatists.

However, the Council postponed debate on two other resolutions tabled by Washington concerning sanctions as well as the punishment of war criminals in Sudan’s troubled western region of Darfur.

In an effort to hasten the end of fighting in Darfur, the US
split its draft resolution on Sudan into three parts, hoping this would facilitate negotiations, an earlier comprehensive
resolution encountered hitches at the Security Council.

“The United States has run out of patience on Sudan and has
circulated three draft resolutions: one on peacekeeping, one on sanctions, and one to provide measures to end impunity,” US Ambassador Anne Patterson explained last 22 March as closed-door talks on the resolutions dragged on.

“This has gone on for weeks and we are simply running out of time and it is critical to move ahead,” she said.

Patterson said the US delegation felt that splitting the issues into three separate resolutions would garner each resolution more support in the council.

“It is clear there is very broad support for the peacekeeping
resolution, and that is very, very critical because it will
strengthen the new government in Sudan and get more boots on the ground,” the Ambassador said, adding “it also has recommendations for the secretary-general to provide support for the African Union (AU).”

The peacekeeping resolution was effectively voted on Thursday, authorising the deployment of 10,000 troops and 700 policemen to monitor the peace agreement signed between Khartoum and rebel Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) last January, ending a 21-year civil war in the south.

Diplomats hope that as it is implemented, the new peace agreement will have a positive effect on the situation in Darfur, where the government and its Janjaweed militias have been accused of gross human rights violations against civilians.

The second resolution, still to be debated, would impose a
stiffer arms embargo and sanctions against those who violate
cease-fire agreements in Darfur. Some members of the council,
including China and Russia which have veto powers, object to the harsher measures.

The third resolution, also pending debate involves how to deal with persons accused of human rights abuses.

A Commission of Inquiry reported to the Security Council that
gross violations of human rights have been committed in Darfur and that the Sudanese justice system “is unable and unwilling to address the situation in Darfur.”

The Commission turned over the names of alleged perpetrators in a sealed file to the secretary-general with the recommendation that it be handed over to “a competent prosecutor” such as the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

A separate, voluminous sealed file that contains evidentiary
material was handed over to the High Commissioner for Human
Rights to be delivered to the prosecutor.

“The accountability resolution basically keeps all options open. It does not prejudice anyone’s positions and we hope it will have broad support, as well it should,” said Patterson.

Because differences on how and where to prosecute violators
persist, the draft resolution addresses the three proposals for handling the cases and would allow the Security Council to continue discussing the alternatives until agreement is reached on which one to authorise, the ambassador said.

“There are several options here,” Patterson explained. “One is the Nigerian proposal, which is a combination of a court and a reconciliation commission; the second is an African Union hybrid court that would be based in Tanzania; and the third, of course, would be the ICC,” Patterson said.

“The resolution makes no judgement about which would be
preferable but simply enables discussions to continue until a decision is reached,” the ambassador said.

“The United States was the delegation that promoted the
Commission of Inquiry,” Patterson affirmed, stressing we are very much behind accountability. It is obviously a central part of our strategy in Sudan.”

The US, which is not a party to the ICC, proposed a “Sudan
Tribunal” created and mandated by a UN Security Council
resolution and administered by the UN in conjunction with the
African Union.

Under the US proposal, the tribunal would be based in Arusha,
Tanzania, and would share the existing physical infrastructure of the Security Council-created International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, but would have its own judges, registrar, prosecutor, and other personnel appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in
coordination with the AU.