UNAMID Renewal Negotiations in the Security Council Expose Serious Divisions Over Darfur

On July 31st the Security Council passed resolution 1828, renewing the beleaguered peacekeeping mission in Darfur known as UNAMID. The fact that the resolution passed in the late afternoon on the day it was scheduled to expire points to its contentious nature and illustrates the deep divisions within the Council related to Darfur. Indeed, several diplomats involved in the resolution’s negotiations described them to Human Rights First as very divisive. One diplomat present during the Council’s negotiating sessions observed that “nearly every word in the resolution was being closely studied and debated.”

At issue was the desire of several Security Council members (led by Libya, China and South Africa) to use the UNAMID renewal resolution as an opportunity to suspended for twelve months the charges brought by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. The Prosecutor has charged Mr. Bashir with multiple counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The charges are now being reviewed by a pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which will decide whether or not to issue a formal arrest warrant for Mr. Bashir.

In the end, the UNAMID renewal resolution narrowly escaped having a provision included in it that would have temporarily suspended the ICC prosecution of Mr. Bashir (read more about it here). But this has far from ended the debate. Sources tell Human Rights First that China is leading efforts to introduce this contentious issue in the Security Council again in the near future. You can be sure China’s allies on the Council will rally behind such efforts. This makes it all the more important that those countries on the Council committed to the principles of justice and accountability redouble their efforts to ensure that the ICC is able to carryout its work without obstruction.

An early draft of the UNAMID renewal resolution included a provision which demanded that all parties to the conflict in Darfur fulfill their obligations to relevant Council resolutions with a specific mention of resolution 1591. (Resolution 1591 expanded the Darfur arms embargo to cover all parties to the conflict, including the Government of Sudan.) However, even this weak language reportedly faced objections by the Chinese, Libyans and Indonesians and was stripped out of the resolution as part of the negotiations. This points to the challenging work ahead for both Security Council members and advocates who wish to see the Darfur arms embargo enforced and expanded.

After years of neglect, the Darfur arms embargo needs serious attention from the Security Council if the embargo is to be taken seriously by all parties to the conflict. Indeed, those who violate the arms embargo have faced far too few negative consequences from the Council for their actions. The Council will have a particularly important opportunity to reverse this trend at the end of September when a new report on adherence to the embargo is submitted to the Council by the Panel of Experts. In the weeks leading up to the release of this new report, Human Rights First will be working to ensure that Council members are poised to respond appropriately and forcefully to what is expected to be new evidence of regular violations to the embargo.