S/PV.6688 Security Council

I thank Mr. Moreno-Ocampo for his briefing. I now give the floor to the representative of the Sudan.

I would first like to say that the records of this meeting should reflect an important truth, namely, that our participation in this meeting should in no way be interpreted as Sudan dealing with the International Criminal Court (ICC). As the Council is aware, the Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute and we are in no way affected by the Court’s proceedings. Our participation in this meeting is based on the need to shed light on the truth of what is taking place in Darfur. The baseless accusations in the report given to the Council today stand in complete contradiction to the situation in Darfur. Moreover, they contradict the report (S/2011/643) of the Secretary-General on Darfur and the various statements made by senior officials of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Paragraph 20 of the Secretary-General’s latest report on the situation in Darfur, which Mr. Hervé Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, presented to the Council on 25 October (see S/PV.6638), refers to the decrease in violence in Darfur resulting from clashes between Government and movement forces, including a drop in the number of deaths from 1,039 in 2010 to 342 thus far in 2011. Paragraph 38 of the report refers to the ongoing voluntary return of internally displaced persons and refugees to their places of origin. With regard to the protection of civilians, paragraph 49 refers to a decrease in protection incidents this year over the last one due to the intervention of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID). Who are we to believe, then, the reports and their precise statistics or the usual lies and false accusations? Are we to believe the report of UNAMID, the mission actually on the ground in Darfur, or the information provided by the Prosecutor? We do not know where that information came from. What kind of justice are we talking about here? Those who act in this way must answer to their conscience. History will not forgive them. Such false accusations run counter to reason and to the basic standards of a professional attitude. I am quite certain that the Council will dismiss them. This time, the Prosecutor focused mainly on the case of the Prosecutor versus the national Minister for Defence, after having attempted to alter reality to justify his allegations by saying that it was the Minister for Defence who had appointed Mr. Ahmad Harun. However, he reveals the true motives behind those proceedings in paragraph 12 of the report before the Council, in which he notes that Mr. Hussein has been Minister of Defence since 2005, when the Sudanese Armed Forces were engaged in armed conflict in various regions of the country, including Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Therefore, an important question arises. If the armed forces of any country were facing armed rebels who were jeopardizing the security and stability of that country, would the Prosecutor issue an arrest warrant against the Minister of Defence? Members may have noted that the Prosecutor deliberately ignored the most important historic event regarding the situation in Darfur, namely, the signing of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur. There can be no doubt that those who are aware of those events know why the Prosecutor ignored the Doha Document. He did so because chapter V of the Document, entitled “Justice and Reconciliation”, stresses national justice procedures, which means refusing the prerogatives of the ICC, which has no competence in the Sudan because the Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute and therefore under no obligation to deal with the Court. I need not recall that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties confirms that States not parties to a convention are not bound to comply with it. Were we to be asked why we have not acceded to or ratified the Rome Statute, we would reply that like many other sovereign States, including members of the Council, we have various reasons, which we have shared on other occasions. I shall merely mention one that appears to me to be sufficient to illustrate the reasons we have not acceded to the Rome Statute. The Statute places the Prosecutor above accountability, and there is no guarantee of the Prosecutor’s compliance with the principles of neutrality and professional integrity. Allow me to put forward an argument made by Ms. Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State of the United States. On page 188 of her book entitled No Higher Honor: A Memoir of My Years in Washington, she states: (spoke in English) “[We] opposed the ICC on the grounds, among others, that its prosecutor is not accountable to any Government. For us this was an issue of sovereignty and a step that looks a bit too much like ‘world government’.” (spoke in Arabic) There is no doubt that members of the Council agree with me that the principle of sovereignty is one and indivisible, whether with regard to a super-Power or a small State. Therefore, we have freely not ratified the Statute, like others who did likewise. Consequently, we are not bound by the Rome Statute. The reservation that we have mentioned with regard to the lack of accountability on the part of the Prosecutor, in the event that he does not abide by the principles of professional integrity and impartiality, has been justified. I would like to share with the Council several examples providing evidence in that regard. The International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, under the chairmanship of the late Judge Antonio Cassese, submitted its report to the Secretary- General of the United Nations (S/2005/60, annex), pursuant to Security Council resolution 1564 (2004). On page 4 of its report, the Commission concluded that the Government of the Sudan had not pursued a policy of genocide. In addition, the report has proven the absence of the main element of the charge of genocide, namely, the intention to commit acts of genocide. The Commission, which was chaired by Mr. Cassese, an outstanding international jurist, also stated that the crucial element, namely, genocidal intent, appeared to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities were concerned. Another source, an official of an internationally credible organization, Dr. Mercedes Taty, a former Deputy Emergency Director for Médecins sans frontières, stated in an MSNBC interview on 16 April 2004 that she did not think that the word ‘genocide’ should be used to describe the conflict in Darfur. Another example, taken from outside the Sudan, which refutes the allegations of the Prosecutor, who has considerably compromised his professional integrity and impartiality, was given by Dr. Jean-Hervé Bradol, past President of Médecins sans frontières in France, who said: (spoke in English) “Our teams have not seen evidence of the deliberate intention to kill people of a specific group” and that the use of the term “genocide” was inappropriate. (spoke in Arabic) Dr. Bradol worked in Darfur and was a member of a credible volunteer organization in a country that respects the values of justice. (spoke in English) Dr. Bradol subsequently described the claims of genocide propagated by a certain circle as “obvious political opportunism”. I refer here to an article that appeared in The Financial Times on 6 July 2004, and a news article by Agence France Presse. I would also mention another article by Dr. Bradol, entitled “From one genocide to another”, dated 28 September 2004. I can provide more details for all the sources that I have cited, just to show that our sources are credible, while the other party simply propagates unfounded allegations without referring to even a single credible source, let alone factual information. (spoke in Arabic) Another source is the European Union (EU) fact- finding mission that was dispatched to Darfur in 2004, at the zenith of the conflict. The official spokesperson of that mission stated: (spoke in English) “We are not in the situation of genocide there”. He added that the EU saw abuses, but not genocide, in Darfur. I refer here to a Reuters news article of 9 August 2004. (spoke in Arabic) Speaking to Al-Jazeera on 10 August 2004, the spokesperson of the EU fact-finding mission stated that (spoke in English) “the EU mission finds no evidence of genocide in Darfur”. I would note that he actually travelled to Darfur and did not simply carry out his assignment from some unknown remote location. (spoke in Arabic) Another source is Mr. John Danforth, who at the time was serving as the Special Envoy for Peace in the Sudan of former President Bush. On 3 July 2005, in a BBC Panorama interview, he stated that (spoke in English) the use of the genocide label “was something that was said for internal consumption within the United States”. He is a credible source who is from the United States itself. (spoke in Arabic) Another source is former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the then President of the African Union and host of the Inter-Sudanese Peace Talks on the Conflict in Darfur held in Abuja. He stated, (spoke in English) “What we know is that there was armed rebellion, and the government repelled them. That does not amount to genocide from our own reckoning.” Another example is Mr. Jan Egeland, former Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, saying ethnic cleansing did not “fit [the legal definition of] events in Darfur”. The last example is Mrs. Asma Jahangir, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudiciary, summary and arbitrary executions, at the height of the conflict in Darfur told the BBC on 8 June 2004: “I would not categorize it as ethnic cleansing at the moment because that is not the impression that I am getting.” (spoke in English) The reference is BBC News, 8 June 2004. Here again, I ask the person who spoke before me just to provide a single source for his allegations. (spoke in Arabic) I have cited examples that refute the allegations of the Prosecutor and show the lack of authenticity in the most serious accusation, that of ethnic cleansing, with which he charged President Ahmad Al-Bashir. If that is his approach, which I have just disproved before the Council — not on the basis of Sudanese arguments and contentions, but by examples from a range of credible heads of international and voluntary organizations, senior United Nations officials and senior politicians, such as Mr. Danforth, President Bush’s special envoy to the Sudan — then what are we to make of all those false allegations and charges that he has made against a number of Sudanese officials? The most recent was the current Minister of Defence, Mr. Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein, who had previously fulfilled his national duties as Minister of Interior when he contained the armed rebellion. His current actions as Minister of Defence, protecting the country against armed rebel movements that threaten the peace, stability and security of the country, and the considerable efforts he has made have led to the establishment of peace, security and stability in the Sudan from Darfur to the Nuba Mountains and as far as Blue Nile state. We challenge anyone to say that there is now one single outbreak of violence or battle happening anywhere in the Sudan. Life has returned to normal. It is a source of pride for those who have been falsely accused by the Prosecutor that they were a central part of the Government of the Sudan that negotiated and implemented the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the longest war in Africa and led to the peaceful establishment of the South Sudan. How can those who have tried to make peace for more than 60 years be falsely accused by those who do not respect the principle of impartiality and have no professional integrity, as defined in the provisions of the United Nations Charter? With regard to the responsibility of the military State to ensure peace and security throughout the country, the Government of the Sudan opens the doors wide to the rebels in the various regions of the country and calls on them to have the sense to come and negotiate with a view to reaching peaceful solutions. The Doha Document for Peace in Darfur is the most credible example of our Government’s eagerness to achieve peace. All leaders of the 11 rebel factions who came from outside the country were originally from Darfur. Having signed the Doha Document, they returned to the Sudan and engaged with the Government and our people in Darfur to implement the Agreement in order to achieve development, peace and justice. The situation in Darfur has improved considerably. Only a blind person cannot see that. The contents of the most recent report of the Secretary- General (S/2011/643) are clear proof of it. I therefore appeal to the Council, which is entrusted with the maintenance of peace and security, to assist the Government of the Sudan in our efforts to complete the drive for peace and, through its commendable efforts, to encourage and urge the remaining rebel movements in Darfur, the Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan to come and negotiate with us so that we can all live in a homeland for us all. I am confident that the Council will not heed those who propagate the culture of war. In conclusion, it is clear that the Prosecutor intentionally ignored the most important historic event in Darfur, namely, the Doha Document for Peace. That was acknowledged in a previous resolution (2003 (2011). I am confident that the Council will continue to support that considerable effort, which is about to conclude and of which we are in the final phase.

In accordance with the understanding reached in the course of the Council’s prior consultations, I now invite Council members to informal consultations to continue our discussion of the subject in a closed meeting.