S/PV.6230
6230th meeting
Friday, 4 December 2009, 10 a.m.
New York
Reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan
Mr. Dabbashi (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (spoke in Arabic): We listened attentively to the briefing by Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Libya follows with great attention the situation in Darfur, based on its eagerness to achieve peace and justice, and has participated actively in efforts aimed at the achievement of peace, stability and justice in Darfur. Libya coordinates its efforts with the African Union-United Nations Chief Mediator for Darfur, Mr. Djibril Bassolé, and with the Government of Qatar, as well as with other regional Arab and African efforts. We do this with a view to bringing all parties together at the negotiating table in order to achieve a permanent settlement of the conflict and to put an end to the human suffering in Darfur.
Libya hopes that the members of this Council will realize that there is no alternative to an active political process that must take highest priority in order to foster circumstances conducive to stability and security, and to establish justice and national reconciliation in Darfur.
The measures adopted by the Prosecutor come under the framework of Security Council resolution 1593 (2005), which referred the situation in Darfur to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. The resolution raised a great number of objections both within and outside the Council. A significant number of Council members abstained from voting on that resolution, and there are still questions circulating around the purpose of issuing a resolution on Darfur while the Council remains silent on other areas where civilians are being killed by the most ferocious weapons and where, up to this very moment, systemic impunity is condoned before the eyes of the world.
The Gaza Strip and Afghanistan are testament to that. Those who today speak about the realization of justice and ending impunity in the Sudan are the very same who opposed even discussion in the Security Council of the report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (A/HRC/12/48), known as the Goldstone report, concerning the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinian civilians by the occupying Israeli forces. That makes the International Criminal Court nothing more than a tool manipulated by certain countries to further their policies. Regrettably, the Prosecutor appears to be the executor of the policies of those countries.
As we all know, the Sudan is not party to the Rome Statute and is therefore not bound by the resolutions of the International Criminal Court. Even resolution 1593 (2005), which Mr. Moreno-Ocampo and others use as a fall-back, is not binding on the Government of the Sudan because it clearly affirms in paragraph 2 that “that States not party to the Rome Statute have no obligation under the Statute”, although it also “urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully”. As indicated in the advisory opinion that the Secretariat’s Office of Legal Affairs circulated to the press a few months ago, from a legal perspective the term “urges” is not binding. I do not believe that Mr. Moreno-Ocampo and certain delegations present are better equipped to interpret United Nations resolutions than the Office of Legal Affairs.
Paragraphs 62 and 63 of Mr. Moreno-Ocampo’s report contain clear falsifications of the Security Council’s pronouncements in a resolution and a presidential statement. The Prosecutor is mandated to work within the framework of a jurisdiction established under professional principles and free of selectivity, incitement and threats. He is expected to refrain from making and repeating accusations and allegations through press campaigns that go so far as to describe a head of State as a fugitive from justice when that individual is participating in summit meetings seeking to resolve the conflict and to establish peace in his country.
In that respect, the report before us, especially in paragraph 66 — which is intended to indicate the support enjoyed by the International Criminal Court — clearly reveals how limited that support is. That paragraph notes that “[d]uring the general debate in the General Assembly in October, 56 States emphasized the importance of cooperation with the Court including in relation to arrests”. This statement plainly shows that more than two thirds of Member States do not in fact support the steps and measures taken by the Prosecutor in his dealings with the Sudan.
Although the report of the Prosecutor clearly indicates in paragraph 67 that “African States parties to the Rome Statute” — totalling 37 States — “have affirmed … their position as African Union members that the Security Council should consider a deferral of the Darfur investigation”, the Prosecutor has ignored that request, as the report reveals in subsequent paragraphs, particularly paragraph 69, which focuses on the Prosecutor’s contacts with African States but does not detail the outcomes of those contacts. That is obviously because the States in question have rejected his measures.
Also surprising is the absence of any objective and practical vision behind the Prosecutor’s measures and positions. He requested that an arrest warrant be issued against President Omar Al-Bashir at a time when efforts were being made to deploy the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur and to advance the peace process. On 4 March, he urged the issuance of arrest warrants against State officials, provoking popular outrage and undermining hopes for peace and stability.
Regrettably, he did so in utter disregard for the realities of the Sudan and its current sensitive and complex circumstances. For instance, the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South is now at a critical phase as elections, an important referendum and deadlines for resolving other outstanding issues are looming. At the same time, we hear reports of violent tribal conflicts over sources of livelihood in the South. In Darfur itself, the humanitarian and security situation has been affected by the Prosecutor’s actions, and incidents against humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping operations are on the increase.
The Prosecutor has actively escalated his accusations and marginalized the constructive efforts and positions of the forces, parties and organizations that have direct knowledge of the situation on the ground and its repercussions in Darfur. He has ignored several resolutions and statements that have been reissued as official documents of the Security Council after having been issued by important regional organizations representing more than two thirds of the States Members of the United Nations, including the African Union — the Organization’s principal partner in Darfur — the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non‑Aligned Movement. The Security Council operates on behalf of those States, while the United Nations Charter recognizes the importance of regional arrangements in achieving the pacific settlement of disputes and specifically mandates the Council to encourage their role in that respect.
In this regard, I recall the following African Union resolution, in which the Peace and Security Council expressed its conviction that,
“in view of the delicate nature of the processes underway in the Sudan, approval by the Pre-Trial Chamber of the application by the ICC Prosecutor could seriously undermine the ongoing efforts aimed at facilitating the early resolution of the conflict in Darfur and the promotion of long-lasting peace and reconciliation in the Sudan” (S/2008/481, annex, para. 9).
The Peace and Security Council reiterated its call on the Security Council, “in accordance with the provisions of Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to defer the process initiated by the Court” (ibid., para. 11).
In addition to the statements issued by the African Union, the United Nations principal partner in the hybrid operation in Darfur, other regional organizations — including the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States and the Non-Aligned Movement — have outlined similar positions in a series of statements and resolutions on this matter. In his briefing on 27 April, Mr. Rodolphe Adada, Joint African Union-United Nations Special Representative for Darfur and head of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur, told the Council:
“The ICC issue has dominated and polarized Sudanese political life. It has weakened the position of those in the Sudan who have been working for compromise and consensus and has encouraged militant sentiment ...” (S/PV.6112, p. 2).
As members know, Mr. Adada’s views about the improved situation in Darfur did not please certain members of the Council and he was forced under pressure to leave his post.
It is unquestionable that peace and justice are indivisible. But how can we achieve justice, especially in a society exhausted by conflict and numerous humanitarian tragedies? It can be done only through a political process and by seriously and comprehensively addressing both the conflict’s underlying causes and its effects. That is the lesson we learn from history, and it is the only way to achieve national reconciliation, security and stability, and to ensure respect for the sovereignty of a State Member of the United Nations. These are the objective conditions for establishing justice and reconciliation.
That has been the basis of the positions and resolutions of the African Union on this matter, which were not motivated by any desire to overlook or ignore the conditions needed for establishing justice in Darfur, but rather by the determination to create those conditions by bringing about security and political stability. In that regard, we recall the report of the African Union High-level Panel on Darfur (S/2009/599, annex I) chaired by former President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, which was adopted by the Peace and Security Council of the African Union on 29 October. Libya highly appreciates the Panel’s efforts, and we hope that the Council will discuss its recommendations objectively and positively, bearing in mind the requirements of simultaneously ensuring peace, justice and reconciliation, including by providing redress for the victims of the Darfur conflict and helping meet the desire of the people of the Sudan to live in lasting peace and stability so that they can dedicate themselves to development, progress and prosperity.
It is time to undo the negative effects of the ICC’s measures and return to the spirit of the Rome Statute by activating its article 16, which gives us the authority to defer investigations or prosecutions. That is what is required to maintain peace and security, especially in the light of the African Union High-level Panel’s recommendations. The Security Council’s failure to apply article 16 of the Rome Statute, despite a number of requests that this be done, affects its credibility. The negative ramifications of implementing article 13 (b) require that we activate the other provisions and defer pending legal steps.
That is necessary in order to create a climate conducive to comprehensive solutions ensuring stability and justice in the Sudan. That is the hope of my country, whose Leader has the honour of Chairing the African Union. It is also the hope of more than two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, which are represented in the relevant international and regional organizations. All of them are continuing their noble efforts on all tracks; we have no doubt that those efforts will be effective in achieving peace, stability and justice in the Sudan.
