July 8, 2009 (WASHINGTON) — The South African government sought to defend its position regarding the African Union (AU) resolution adopted last week in their semi-annual summit halting any cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the arrest of Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir.
- President of South Africa Jacob Zuma talks to reporters after attending the closing session at the third day of the 13th African Union summit of heads of state and government in Sirte, Libya, Friday, July 3, 2009 (AP)
Al-Bashir faces an outstanding arrest warrant by the ICC in connection with crimes allegedly committed in Sudan’s Western region of Darfur.
The AU has reportedly adopted the resolution by consensus but the Vice president and foreign minister of Botswana said that the issue was not properly debated and member countries were forced to accept it under pressure from Libya which chairs the pan-African body.
Botswana is the only ICC member at the AU to announce that it will not abide by the Sirte resolution and will arrest the Sudanese president if he visits.
Observers were awaiting to see how South Africa, a heavyweight country in the continent, would act on the issue of the ICC.
In May, South Africa informed Sudan that Bashir would be arrested if he attends the inauguration of the president-elect Jacob Zuma. Sudan’s First Vice President Salva Kiir was dispatched instead.
However, Bashir in an interview with BBC the same month said that he could have travelled to South Africa if he wanted to.
South Africa along with Botswana were the only two countries to publicly announce their intention to execute the arrest warrant if needed.
The ‘Cape Town’ newspaper based in South Africa had also reported that the deputy justice minister Andries Nel upheld his government’s commitment to the ICC during a meeting of African members of the court in Addis Ababa last month contemplating withdrawal from the Rome Statute, which is the founding text of the ICC.
The newspaper said that Nel further called on the AU to “increase its co-operation with the ICC and firmly reject the view that the ICC was picking on Africa because all four situations it was prosecuting were on this continent”.
However, following the Sirte summit questions were raised on the commitment of South Africa to fulfill its obligations under the Rome Statute.
The newspaper quoted unidentified South African officials who acknowledged that government “is in a difficult position” over the resolution which conflicts with its obligations under the Statute.
The officials commented on Botswana’s dismissal of the AU resolution saying “it is not an option for South Africa” which they say is “deeply involved” in attempts to resolve the conflicts in South Sudan and in Darfur.
They further said that they blame the ICC for not engaging with the AU on trying to suspend the arrest warrant for 12 months under Article 16 of the Rome Statute. Only the UN Security Council (UNSC) is empowered to invoke a deferral.
The AU said that their decision was in response to the UNSC ignoring their request to suspend the arrest warrant.
“How is it going to help the ongoing peace processes in South Sudan and Darfur, if Al-Bashir is behind bars?” one official said. “We need him to take those processes forward.”
The AU decision on non-cooperation with the ICC will not take place until it is ratified by the parliament the officials said. It is not clear how long the process will take as it involves a complex legal issue
Last week the Sudanese foreign ministry spokesperson Ali Al-Sadiq said he thought the AU decisions are binding to its members, so Bashir would not have to wait for further approval from the parliaments of each state.
South Africa’s judiciary committee in the parliament did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The influential, privately-owned South African daily Business Day said that South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma failed his first foreign policy test by allowing the resolution to go through.
“The government should have unequivocally distanced itself from the AU’s gangster approach towards the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court (ICC), to which South Africa is a signatory,” its editorial said.
“With the exception of Botswana….the African heads of state consciously chose, however, to ignore a process that they started. Instead they resolved to dishonor a treaty obligation….South Africa’s silence on the AU’s resolution implies that the government would be willing to host al-Bashir in this country”.
“SA cannot have its cake and eat it too; it can either take a stand against the AU as a signatory to the ICC and fight for justice, or allow the AU to resort to the old ways of its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity, which protected political despots and dictators”
Business Day cited the spokeswoman of the Department of International Relations and Co-operation Nomfanelo Kota as saying that while South African government would explain its position in due course, the AU resolution was not indicative of the government’s attitude to the ICC.
(ST)
Are Arabs evil simply because they are Arabs?
Tuesday 9 February 2010
By Zechariah Manyok Biar February 8, 2010 — The struggle for freedom is a complicated thing. Oppressed people who struggle for freedom can sometimes turn oppressors if they are not careful in the (...)
When did the SPLM turn separatist?
Monday 8 February 2010
By Charles B. Kisanga February 7, 2010 — In their desperate attempt to mislead Southern opinion, Salva Kiir and the clique around him are going around claiming that they are the champions of the (...)
Maintain Arman candidacy for Sudanese presidency
Sunday 7 February 2010
By Koang Tut Jing February 6, 2010 — The National Congress Party’s latest political maneuvering must not blindfolds the SPLM from looking outside the box. The endorsement of Kiir by the NCP (...)