In Summary
·
The vote in the 15-member council was seven countries in favour, none
opposed and eight abstaining, including US, Britain and France.
·
AU has threatened to call an emergency session of its top decision
making organ, the heads of state summit, to ask its 34 members to quit the ICC.
·
The UN charter allows a state which is a member of the organization to
attend the session and participate as an observer, but without a vote.
The UN Security Council Friday rejected a resolution to defer the
International Criminal Court cases involving President Kenyatta and Deputy
President William Ruto.
The vote in the 15-member council was seven countries in favour, none
opposed and eight abstaining, including US, Britain and France.
In a sharp reaction to the outcome of the vote, Kenya’s Foreign Affairs
Ministry accused the “important members” of the Security Council of “reckless
abdication of global leadership” that it said, had “humiliated the continent
and its leadership”.
Exemplary
leadership
The statement accused the US and UK “contempt for the African position”
and “showing clear cowardice in the face of a critical African matter, and a
lack of appreciation of peace and security issues they purport to advocate” by
abstaining from voting.
At the same time, Kenya thanked China and Azerbaijan (in the chair) and
Rwanda, Togo and Morocco — the three African members on the Security Council —
“for their exemplary leadership”.
Rejection of the deferrals resolution means that the fate of President
Kenyatta and Mr Ruto now lies with the Assembly of State parties to the Rome
statutes, which form the ICC, to change the law to give immunity from
prosecution to heads of state and government.
African nations will be pushing for the changes when the group meets in
the Hague from November 28.
If successful, serving presidents, deputy or vice-presidents and prime
ministers and their deputies will be immune from prosecution by the ICC.
If this fails, the AU has threatened to call an emergency session of its
top decision making organ, the heads of state summit, to ask its 34 members to
quit the ICC.
It is thought that would force judges, prosecutors, investigators and
other staff from Africa working for the ICC to be withdrawn.
It would also mean that ICC staff currently enjoying diplomatic and
other VIP status in those African nations would have to leave.
Security Council rules stipulate that a resolution requires nine
affirmative votes in order to be approved.
The countries abstaining apparently acted on the view that votes in
opposition would have intensified divisions on the issue of the Kenyan trials.
Abstaining nations have, in effect, forced the trials to go forward.
Kenyan UN Ambassador Macharia Kamau was at the Security Council meeting
as an invited observer.
So were delegates from Burundi, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Namibia, Senegal and Togo.
African states currently represented on the council —Rwanda, Morocco and
Togo — were also present.
Former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Ms Jendayi
Frazer accused the Security Council of failing to take responsibility for international
security.
“Eight abstentions is a sign of cowardice. Africa’s fate is in your own
hands,” she tweeted.
Liz Evenson, a senior international justice counsel at Human Rights
Watch said: “The Security Council did the right thing in hearing out the
AU’s bid to suspend the ICC cases against President Kenyatta and
Deputy President Ruto.
But, after hearing the facts, the Security Council saw there were
no grounds here to justify delay.”
Kenya’s leadership wants the cases terminated, which “would rob the
victims of horrific crimes of any hope for justice.
This should put an end to efforts to undermine the ICC’s cases and
perpetuate decades of impunity which only fuelled cycles of violence in Kenya.”
This is how some countries voted.
United
Kingdom (abstained):
Fully understand the desire to allow president and deputy president to
fulfil their obligations, “But there is a right place and a wrong place to do
that.” Security Council is not the right place, the Assembly of State Parties
is.
Of eight situations before court, five were initiated by African states.
Going forward with trials does not constitute threat to international
peace and security.
We have long standing relationship with Kenya.
“We are disappointed that this draft resolution has been unnecessarily
put to a vote in a way that highlights disagreements.”
France
(abstained):
Vote was not necessary. We all knew what the outcome would be.
“This is useless, and is fraught with risks we would like to avoid” —
artificial confrontation between African Union and Security Council.
“Kenya is a democratic and respected country and we understand role
played by it in regional stability.”
United
States (abstained)
Concerns of Kenya are best addressed by Assembly of State Parties.
Families of victims of electoral violence have already waited five years
for justice.
Important to support accountability for those accused of crimes against
humanity.
This is a new situation. ICC has never had trial of sitting head of
state.
We are encouraged that Kenya is continuing to pursue its aim through
Assembly of State Parties.
We abstained rather than vote no because of our respect for Kenya and
African Union.
Luxembourg
(abstained)
Proceedings against President Kenyatta and Deputy President Ruto is not
in and of itself a threat to international peace and security.
Argentina
(abstained)
ICC was established in order to eradicate impunity.
Security Council must not be seen as “helping the law of the jungle.”
Argentina is working closely with Kenya and other African countries
regarding amendments to be proposed at Assembly of State Parties.
“We are of the South.” In keeping with memories of those victimized in
Argentina, “the right of victims are not to be forgotten,” including victims of
2007 in Kenya.
Pakistan
(in favour)
“ICC is a court of last resort. Principle of local jurisdiction needs to
be respected... We hope dialogue between African Union and council can continue
to find pragmatic solution.”
Russia
(in favour):
“African countries presented most compelling arguments.”
Rwanda
(in favour)
“Is this the right place to be today to discuss this issue? Yes, it
is... Africa wants confrontation? Not at all.
Terrorism is the most important issue facing people of the world.
Kenyan leaders “are at the forefront of fight against international
terrorism, and we are grateful.”
“Kenyatta and Ruto “should be respected, supported, empowered” not
undermined at this time.
Rwanda expresses its deep disappointment at what transpired” in council
today.
“Failure to adopt draft resolution supported by whole of African Union
is a shame.”
“Let it be recorded today that Security Council failed Kenya and Africa.
This undermines tremendous difference made by leaders of Kenya in
reconciliation of people of Kenya.
We believe this request was reasonable, legitimate.
“Some members of this council refused to negotiate on even a single
paragraph of draft resolution.
“Article 16 allowing Security Council to grant deferral was not proposed
by African state but by some of the Western powers at this table.
Seems to have been conceived by big powers to protect themselves.
Some countries that did not vote for this resolution have not cooperated
with ICC.
“ICC loses face and credibility in the world the more it allows itself
to be used by big powers of the world. It can’t continue like this.”
“One positive outcome today is reaffirmation of African unity and
solidarity.
Of the 10 non-permanent members, five are elected by the General
Assembly each year to serve two-year terms.
“The current non-permanent members are Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan,
Guatemala, Luxembourg, Morocco, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Korea and Togo.
The AU and Kenya formally wrote to the Security Council last month
seeking the suspension of the cases on the grounds that they are undermining
the Kenyan leaders’ efforts to fight terrorism.
The continental body has already resolved that President Kenyatta ought
not to attend his trial.
This was initially expected to start on November 12 but was pushed to
February next year on the request of Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda for more
time.
If he gets the chance to participate at the session listed on the
Security Council’s plenary session in New York listed on the order paper as
‘Peace and Security in Africa,’ Kenya’s ambassador to the UN Mr Kamau, would be
the man on the spot.
No comments:
Post a Comment