Google – AFP, Timothy Witcher (AFP), 15 November 2013
UNITED
NATIONS (United States) — The UN Security Council on Friday rejected an African
demand to suspend the International Criminal Court crimes against humanity
trials of Kenya's top two leaders, sparking a diplomatic storm.
Some
African nations reacted with fury to the rebuff, while Security Council members
were angered by accusations by Kenya and its allies that they had humiliated
the continent.
An African
resolution called on the council to use its special powers to defer the trials
of President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vice President William Ruto for one year.
The two are
accused of fomenting political unrest after a 2007 election in which more than
1,100 people died.
![]() |
Kenyan Vice
President William Ruto arrives
on September 23, 2013 at the International
Criminal Court in The Hague (AFP/File,
Jan Hennop)
|
Eight
council nations, all ICC members or supporters including Britain, France and
the United States, abstained to ensure the failure of the bid.
The draft
resolution said the court case is "distracting and preventing" Kenyatta
and Ruto from carrying out their duties.
It took up
African Union complaints that the two should be left to handle Kenya's role in
battling Islamist militants in Somalia and the aftermath of September's mall
attack in Nairobi, which left 67 dead.
African
leaders frequently complain that the ICC discriminates against their continent.
China and
Russia gave strong backing to the resolution.
ICC member
states acknowledge that Kenya is a special case, but say Kenyatta and Ruto must
be judged on their legal merits.
Western
diplomats and activists see the campaign to halt the proceedings as political
and, more generally by countries opposed to the ICC, to discredit the court.
"Reason
and the law have been thrown out the window. Fear and distrust has been allowed
to prevail. Africa is disappointed and we regret this very much," Kenyan
UN Ambassador Macharia Kamau said after the vote.
He blasted
what he called the "paranoid" fear of some nations that other leaders
could use the deferral as a precedent to delay any proceedings against them.
Rwanda, a
temporary member of the Security Council, played a key role in drawing up the
resolution. Its UN envoy, Eugene Richard Gasana, said the council had
"failed" Kenya and Africa by rejecting the resolution.
But the
African nations who put forward the measure also faced strong criticism for the
way it was portrayed as a vote for or against Africa.
Guatemalan
UN Ambassador Gert Rosenthal called the tactic "offensive" and
highlighted how Security Council countries had provided peacekeeping troops to
Africa and backed efforts to boost justice on the continent.
"In
our view, the voting was detrimental for the African Union, which perceives
that its proposal was rejected; for the International Criminal Court, whose
aspiration of universal membership is under assault, and for the Security
Council, which presents itself... divided," Rosenthal said.
French UN
Ambassador Gerard Araud said the vote risked sparking an "unnecessary
confrontation" between the African Union and the Security Council.
Britain's
UN envoy Mark Lyall Grant, meanwhile, said the resolution was
"unnecessarily" put to a vote.
The United
States, Britain and France said Africa's complaints should be put to a meeting
of the ICC member countries due to start in The Hague on Wednesday.
The meeting
is to consider changes in procedure -- such as allowing defendants to appear by
video conference -- which could ease the conditions for the trials of the
Kenyan leaders.
"We
believe that justice for the victims of that violence is critical to the
country's long term peace and security," said US UN envoy Samantha Power,
whose country is not an ICC member but strongly supports its work.
Ruto's
trial has started, while that of Kenyatta is scheduled to get underway February
5 after being delayed three times.
"Kenya's
leadership wants theses cases squashed, but that would rob the victims of
horrific crimes of any hope of redress," said Richard Dicker,
international justice specialist for Human Rights Watch.
"One wonders whether the governments which pushed the resolution did so in a bid to ward off the possibility of their own officials being prosecuted for crimes in the future," he added.
"One wonders whether the governments which pushed the resolution did so in a bid to ward off the possibility of their own officials being prosecuted for crimes in the future," he added.



No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.