The Franch can be damned cunning at times. In the game of international diplomacy, they have suddenly managed to corner the USA out of nowhere.
After the USA has beaten the drum so loudly about alleged atrocities in Sudan, France has now proposed a resolution to force Sudan to surrender war crimes suspects for trial … by the very court the USA opposes.
The USA must now either vote to send people to this court, validating its exitence, or veto or stay silent on a resolution to bring to trial the alleged perpetrators of the violence that the USA has so loudly bleated about.
It looks like the French still have the magic to pull of diplomatic coups…
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/24/news/UN.html
France, in a direct challenge to the United States, has proposed a UN Security Council resolution referring war-crime cases from Sudan to the International Criminal Court, a move that gave Washington the choice of validating a tribunal it strongly opposes or casting a politically awkward veto.
.
The French resolution on Wednesday was among the latest attempts by UN members to reach an agreement for sending help to the Darfur region of western Sudan, where an ethnic-cleansing campaign has left as many as 300,000 people dead and two million villagers displaced. Disagreements over where to try accused war criminals and whether to press for sanctions against the Sudanese government have delayed a UN response for weeks.
.
A UN commission on Darfur recommended in January that war crimes be referred to the international court in The Hague, but the United States, citing its objections to the court, proposed setting up a new tribunal in Tanzania. The U.S. plan drew scant support from other members of the 15-nation UN Security Council.
.
The Bush administration, which revoked the Clinton-era signature on the treaty establishing the court, opposes the court on the basis that it might bring frivolous or mischievous legal actions against Americans abroad.
.
With criticism over the Security Council’s inaction mounting, the United States circulated three resolutions this week in the hope of separating measures that have full Council support from those that do not.
.
The first resolution calls for a 10,000-member peacekeeping force to monitor a cease-fire in southern Sudan and to lend assistance to African Union peacekeeping troops already in Darfur. It was scheduled for a vote Thursday and has broad, perhaps unanimous backing.
.
The second resolution, calling for sanctions, including a travel ban and asset freeze on people suspected of war crimes, is opposed by at least three Council members - Algeria, China and Russia - and was not put up for a vote.
.
The third, also held back, says a “climate of impunity in Sudan” should be ended without delay and the Council should take into account three proposals - the Tanzania tribunal, a vaguely defined court suggested last week by Nigeria and the International Criminal Court.
.
The French put forward their counterproposal calling for a referral to the international court, and said they would call for a vote on Thursday. The French mission said it had assurances of at least 11 votes in favor.
.
Only nine votes are needed to pass a Security Council resolution, although it could be vetoed.
.
Asked if the resolution was in competition with the American one, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, the French ambassador to the United Nations, said, “No, it’s a draft resolution which is complementary.”
.
He said it was the broad conviction of the Council that action had been put off for too long. “We had to act now,” he said.
.
He also noted that the resolution specifically exempted from investigation or prosecution, citizens of countries like the United States that are not ratifiers of the court treaty.
.
“We think that this paragraph meets American concerns,” he said. “So we hope they’ll vote for the resolution.”
.
The United States has argued in recent weeks that any referral to the international court - even one with language protecting Americans - would be opposed by Washington because it would confer legitimacy on the tribunal.
.
U.S. diplomats have discouraged suggestions that the U.S. might abstain from voting rather than casting a veto.
.
Richard Grenell, the spokesman for the American mission, said, “With respect to using the International Criminal Court, our views are well known and still unchanged.”
.