Lessons in diplomacy

If things start to get messy, just walk away:

 The Kenyan foreign minister Moses Wetangula on Tuesday announced that his government will not host the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) meeting that was to be dedicated for discussions on the Sudan issues.
The decision comes against the backdrop of the arrest warrant issued by a Kenyan high court judge last month for Sudanese president Omer Hassan al-Bashir in compliance with similar warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC)....the Kenyan top diplomat reversed course revealing that Kenya has written to IGAD to allow Ethiopia host the summit since President Meles Zenawi is the current IGAD chairman.

from Sudan Tribune.

Also, read the rest of the article to see a beautiful political system with its powers well distributed in action.

AU and the ICC

Ok, Im sorry I keep bringing this up, but this revelation was too exciting to pass up. Please also excuse the mess of this post as thats too much I want to include.

"The African Union (AU) delegates at the summit in Uganda agreed to remove language from the draft resolution that instructs its members not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in apprehending the Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir." ST

The removal of the language was pushed by (ICC members) South Africa, Ghana and Botswana, in opposition of (non-ICC members) Libya, Eriteria and Egypt.

However, the resolution will still stand to defer Bashir's arrest warrants and will push to amend article 16 of the Rome Statute that basically only allows the UN security council to defer any investigations. The AU is calling for that power to be passed on to the General Assembly. More on that here and here.

Despite the differing views on what to do with Bashir's warrants, it is nice to see a unified position on the ICC by AU member states

"To subject a sovereign head of state to a warrant of arrest is undermining African solidarity and African peace and security that we fought for for so many years," Malawian President Bingu wa Mutharika, current head of the pan-African organization.

This is concreted with the resolution

REQUESTS Member States that are states parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC to ensure that they adhere and honour their obligations to the AU under Article 23(2) of the Constitutive Act;

So the reason all this is so exciting is because it essentially brings rise to three major issues that that require careful deliberation:

1) Which international law is greater? With the growing importance and respect of regional bodies such as the AU or the EU by their member states, will the more global international law come second to those of regional law in the same way that international laws come second to state laws? In this case, a country that choose to go against the AU and favor the ICC may face isolation and sanctions by all other members, under article 23 (2).

2) Justice vs. Peace: should countries risk causing instability and potentially bringing harm to the civilians/citizens of the country in question as well as their own civilians/citizens, for some self-righteous conception of justice? If undermining the ICC warrants can lead to long term peace in Sudan and the region, is it not worth doing?

3) Will Africa and the rest of the non-western world ever really shake that feeling that the ICC is "a European driven court, focusing on the continent only and turning a blind eye to atrocities elsewhere"?

US diplomacy in Sudan

Dave Eggers and John Prendergast have publish and op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled
In Sudan, War is Around the Corner

The article pretty much stems from Scott Gration's comments on the US' lack of leverage/pressure in Sudan to ensure a peaceful referendum.

"But we do have leverage. The peace in Sudan is one the United States “owns.” Developing a more robust package of carrots and sticks — rolled out multilaterally when possible, unilaterally if necessary — would strengthen America’s diplomatic hand, not weaken it."

Ignoring the fact that they just said the US "owns" the peace in Sudan (because I really don't know and don't want to know what they meant by that), the suggestions of carrots and sticks that the writers provide include:

The sticks
"...placing sanctions on key ruling party officials, blocking debt relief from the International Monetary Fund, supporting International Criminal Court arrest warrants...tightening the United Nations arms embargo and providing further support to the south."

The carrot
"If — and only if — true peace comes to Sudan, we could offer conditional, one-year suspensions of the International Criminal Court warrants and normalization of relations between Khartoum and Washington."

Whilst most of these seem reasonable and is typical of most 'diplomatic' strategies, the main problem I have with their suggestions are those pertinent to the ICC. This is simply because the US has failed to re-sign and ratify the Rome Statute, simply because it fears its own citizens being prosecuted (though there are other arguments for this).
So, legally, the US can only go so far as providing strong words of "support" to the warrant, providing legal advice and/or discovery of documents . Support which doesn't have enough clout to be considered a stick. This isn't a rebel leader in an ICC member state, this is the president of a non-member. So unless the US wants to throw in all its chips and intervene to overthrow another state leader, "support" for warrants is not really going to add up to much. And when did the US gain the ability to "offer conditional, one-year suspension of the International Criminal Court warrants"?! Is this a bluff? Do they think that Khartoum will not realise that they are throwing political weight they don't actually have? Or were they hoping that the ICC will back them up on this? Because the ICC should realise, by doing so, they are destroying the credibility of their warrants and their overall credibility and legitimacy....put simply, they become the US' bitch.
Furthermore, why would anyone agree to a conditional one year suspension?!
"Brilliant! Il let there be peace just so I can enjoy a years' worth of freedom before you DEFINITELY haul my ass to the Hague...yeah, nice one."

Strategically, with the rest of the World gunning for Bashir, the US should take advantage of its position as a non-member of the ICC to approach Khartoum and apply some of its 'soft-power' rather than trying to eliminate the last channel of diplomacy with an already alienated state with its guns pointed at the South and Darfur, whilst potentially in possession of strong connections and intelligence on a range of terrorist networks. It is therefore very clear to understand why Scott Gration has recently come out to voice his disapproval of the second ICC warrant on Bashir - a further example of the divided relationship of the White House and it's diplomatic actors.



For more info on US and ICC: link and link