"Without a sustained escalation of U.S. leadership and diplomatic engagement, other critical players like China will not be pushed to act," said Gerald LeMelle of the Washington, DC-based advocacy group Africa Action.
LeMelle's group and several other human rights organizations charge that attacks on innocent civilians in Darfur are continuing in part because the Security Council has failed to take firm action against Sudan.
"Progress is possible, but the lack of international commitment has led to poor results," said Africa Action's Michael Swigert in response to the Security Council's latest presidential statement.
Recently, the 15-member Council issued a strongly worded statement urging Sudan to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and put an end to impunity for the crimes committed in Darfur.
In briefing the Council early this month, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo said Sudan was not cooperating with him to arrest Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb, the two Sudanese charged with committing war crimes in Darfur.
Under international law, the Sudanese government is obliged to hand over the two suspects to the Hague-based courts, but has been reluctant to do so, despite pressure from the international community.
The UN Security Council referred the Darfur case to the ICC prosecutor in March 2005. Kushayb is said to be a "Janjaweed" militia leader while Harun is serving as humanitarian affairs minister in the government in Khartoum. The men are wanted for 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In his three regular reports to the Security Council since March 2005, the prosecutor has informed the UN of Sudan's refusal to cooperate with the ICC.
The ICC has jurisdiction over cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity when national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to handle them. So far, the treaty that established the court in 1998 has been signed by 139 nations and ratified by 106.
Though with reservations, the United States signed the treaty during the last days of Bill Clinton's presidency, but that position was reversed soon after George W. Bush entered the White House. The United States does not recognize the Court's authority anymore.
On Monday, the current Security Council president Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States said under UN Resolution 1593 the Sudanese government is "required" to take into custody all those charged with committing crimes against humanity.
Diplomats and observers say Sudan is not fully complying with the UN resolutions because it has strong commercial and military ties with China, which has protected the war-torn nation with the veto power it enjoys in the 15-member Security Council.
China is thought to purchase as much as 70 percent of Sudan's oil and has at least $3 billion invested in the Sudanese energy sector. The Asian giant has allegedly exported at least $24 million worth of arms and ammunition to Sudan.
For its part, time and again, the United States tried to threaten Sudan with economic sanctions, but failed to get a Security Council resolution passed due to fierce opposition from both China and Russia.
However, in August 2007, both countries softened their stance and went along with the United States in endorsing the resolution authorizing the deployment of a 20,000-strong peacekeeping force in Darfur.
Many observers believe China's acquiesce was due, at least in part, to the pressure activists brought to bear on the nation as it attempted to purify its image ahead of the Olympic Games.
In addition to China, now many other members of the Council have also hardened their stance. Critics of the Sudanese regime say Monday's Security Council statement was a signal of impatience with the impunity for Darfur war crimes.
"[It] sends the message that Khartoum cannot obstruct justice by recycling unkept promises to accept peacekeepers," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's international justice program.
"Sudan must take real action on both justice and peacekeeping," Dicker added in a statement. "The Council has put justice for the people of Darfur back on the table. The Sudanese authorities need to get -- and act on -- the message."
Dicker, a harsh critic of U.S. policy on the ICC, said that in this case his organization welcomed the role played by the U.S. government as Security Council president. "This support for justice marks a further break from Washington's previously ill-conceived and highly ideological opposition to the ICC."
In urging the United States to lead the international community on Darfur, Africa Action's LeMelle said this week's Security Council response needs to be "galvanized" from "empty commitments" to "robust leverage" on Khartoum.
Related links
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
