Sudan raps France over Security Council resolution

KHARTOUM, Apr 1, 2005 (Sudan Tribune) — Text of report by Qatari Al-Jazeera satellite TV on telephone interview with Sudanese Information Minister Abd-al-Basit Sabadrat, in Khartoum, by Al-Jazeera anchorperson Tawfiq Taha on 1 April; subheadings inserted editorially

– Taha I have with me from Khartoum Sudanese Information Minister Abd-al-Basit Sabadrat. How will Khartoum deal with this UN resolution on Darfur?

Sabadrat: We earlier said that the Sudanese government is committed to the trial of any suspect who, through judicial investigations, is found guilty of any crime related to the war in Darfur. No one is to be excluded from this. We are confident about the Sudanese judiciary’s ability to dispense justice.

– Taha: Does this mean that you reject the implementation –

CONFLICT

Sabadrat, interrupting: Please allow me to explain Sudan’s viewpoint. The disagreement at the Security Council was not related to Darfur, but rather to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and to the conflict between the USA, being the party against the ICC, and the other forces that are in favour of it. Therefore, there was a deal. This is because the ICC tries only the weak – weak, developing countries that do not have the veto right.

They, therefore, sold the USA an exception that cannot be in conformity with the international law. This constitutes a very serious precedence, because US citizens, unlike citizens of developing countries, are not to be tried in any country outside the USA.

And France comes to claim that it advocated justice! For the first time, France – which speaks about fraternity, equality, and justice, and which led the biggest revolution in the world for the sake of justice and equality – agrees to exclude the USA and send the weak Sudanese citizens to court.

The world is now facing a major irony; namely, a court for the weak and poor countries and the complete exemption of hegemonic forces. We, therefore, believe that this resolution would complicate the matter.

Even if we say that they tried 51, 50, or 100 persons, would this restore security to Darfur? No. Every one of those who they say will be tried has a tribe and clan, and this could trigger a new fire in Darfur.

IRONY

– Taha: To what extent would the exemption of the US citizens be a chance for Sudan to reject dealing with and contesting the resolution?

Sabadrat: The USA says it is not a signatory to the ICC. Sudan is also not a signatory to the court. So how can the USA, which is not a signatory, have, while Sudan, which is also not a signatory, is forced to appear before the court? That is the irony. We are saying that even the procedures of the ICC in this regard are complicated and lengthy. This resolution was meant-

– Taha, interrupting: Despite all that, this remains a Security Council resolution, and Security Council resolutions are binding.

“UNFAIR” SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS

Sabadrat: We are talking about unfair Security Council resolutions. You should not shift talk to the binding nature of the resolutions. You should instead highlight the fact that the Security Council has become an oppressive force that pursues double standards. This is the view that should be highlighted by the satellite channels. They should not say that this resolution is binding and you should remain silent and implement it.

We want all the satellite channels to serve as a lung, through which people would breathe and see the enormous injustice. They should not say that this is binding on you and ask us what we are going to do. Say with us that this is unjust.

Material provided by the BBC Monitoring Service.