US claims ‘precedent-setting’ victory on Darfur tribunal vote
WASHINGTON, April 1 (AFP) — The United States claimed a “precedent-setting” victory in a UN resolution to try war crimes from Sudan’s Darfur region in the International Criminal Court opposed by Washington.
Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said the administration agreed to using the tribunal in The Hague only after winning tighter exemptions for Americans from the possibility of prosecution.
The UN Security council ended weeks of deadlock late Thursday and voted 11-0 to refer prosecutions from the two-year-old Darfur conflict to the ICC. The United States abstained along with Algeria, Brazil and China.
The United States has branded the violence in Sudan’s western region, where an estimated 300,000 people have died in the past two years, as “genocide”.
Burns told reporters the United States did not veto the measure because it “felt strongly that we had to join the international community in a serious effort to see that justice was done in Darfur.”
After adoption of previous resolutions providing for 10,000 peacekeepers and sanctions, “it was very important the international community speak with a single voice” on war crimes trials, Burns said.
“We have sent a very clear, strong and unmistakable message to the parties responsible that will hopefully motivate better behavior and an improvement in the human rights situation in Darfur,” he said.
Burns referred to the ICC as a “competent international court” but made it clear that the United States, which is not a party to the tribunal, went along with the British resolution only after obtaining key concessions.
After a day of diplomatic back-and-forth, Washington was able to win language saying that nations not party to the court would be exempt from prosecution over Sudan.
The resolution also gave those nations “exclusive jurisdiction” over its nationals — meaning, for example, that an American charged with killing the citizen of another country in Sudan could only be tried in American court.
“We achieved precedent-setting assurances,” Burns said, adding that the United States had not changed its overall position on the ICC that was set up in July 2002.
Washington fears the tribunal could be used to bring politically motivated cases against US diplomats and military personnel. “We’re not party to it, we’re not going to be party to it,” Burns said.
Sudan also has not recognized the ICC. But Burns said US officials were in contact with Khartoum. “We’re urging the Sudanese government to take these (resolutions) very seriously and begin cooperating.”
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asked why Americans can be held exempt from ICC prosecution but not Sudan, told reporters that the conflict in Darfur had produced an “extraordinary circumstance.”
“It is a crisis that is extraordinary in its scope and in its potential for even greater damage to those populations so I think this is a different situation, frankly,” Rice said.
“In terms of our view of the International Criminal Court has not changed, nor has our view that those who are responsible for atrocities in Darfur need to be held accountable,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
“We’ve expressed our concerns about the International Criminal Court and how it could be used for political prosecutions,” McClellan said.
“That view remains the same.
“But this resolution included some protections that addressed our concerns and so that’s why we supported it,” he said.