The United States in Darfur: trapped by "genocide"

21 November 2005 by Adele Waugaman

"We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur, and that the government of Sudan and the Janjaweed militia bear responsibility," then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told members of Congress in September 2004. With one word - genocide - Powell catapulted the United States to the forefront of international efforts to end abuses in war-torn western Sudan. "Today we are calling on the United Nations to initiate a full investigation [...] into all violations of international humanitarian law that have occurred in Darfur, with a view to ensuring accountability," he added. Six months later, those statements would compel the U.S. government to allow the UN Security Council to refer the Darfur situation to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Bush administration surprised the court's proponents and detractors alike this March when it abstained from the Security Council's vote on Resolution 1593 instead of using its veto power. To some, the United States' silence signaled an implicit recognition of the fledgling court as a valid international justice mechanism - a stark contrast with the three-year U.S. campaign to secure iron-clad exemptions from ICC jurisdiction. That campaign included the so-called "un-signing" of the court's founding treaty, threatening to veto UN peacekeeping operations unless exemptions for U.S. personnel were granted, authorizing the use of "all means necessary" to release U.S. or allied citizens detained by the Hague-based court, withholding U.S. military assistance to ICC supporters that refused to sign agreements promising never to hand over Americans to the court, and deleting ICC references from UN resolutions or demanding exemption from ICC jurisdiction where such references remained.

Want to read more?

If you subscribe to a free membership, you can read this article and explore our full archive, dating back to 1997.

Subscribe now

Related articles

article
19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

article
11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

article
23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

article
United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

article
06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.