Four wire-service stories (updated to add a third AP story at the end):
From the AP (earlier story by George Gedda; the dateline is "Washington")...
The United States is dropping its objections to use of the U.N.'s International Criminal Court to try Sudanese responsible for an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Darfur region that has killed tens of thousands of people and uprooted more than 2 million, administration officials said Wednesday night.
The administration had preferred that an African court try the case but agreed to a compromise during daylong discussions at the United Nations on Wednesday.
The United States has strongly opposed the ICC on grounds that American service members or civilians serving overseas could be subject to politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions.
In return for its concession, the United States received assurances that Americans deployed in Sudan, in whatever capacity, would not be subject to ICC prosecutions, the officials told The Associated Press. They asked not to be identified because the decision has not been officially announced.
The decision could raise hackles among conservatives for whom the ICC is an unaccountable body that cannot be trusted to the right thing. The 97 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty establishing the court maintain that there are sufficient safeguards built into the process to prevent unwarranted prosecutions.
The administration agreed to a compromise after concluding that opposition to the U.S. stand was too strong, particularly among Europeans, who have been united in support of the ICC, which is based in The Hague, Netherlands, as the trial venue.
Concerned about a possible U.S. veto, France on Wednesday delayed a U.N. Security Council vote on a resolution to authorize an ICC prosecution.
The western Sudanese region of Darfur has been the scene of perhaps the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The widespread death and destruction has been the result of a brutal counterinsurgency campaign led by government-support Arab militias against black African farmers. The conflict began in February 2003.
Last September, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the perpetrators had engaged in genocide. Tens of thousands of displaced Darfurians are confined to refugee camps, refusing to return to their villages for fear they would only be forced to flee once again.
The United States, as one possible option, has suggested that ``a hybrid court'' be impaneled by the United Nations and the African Union to try the Darfur perpetrators. It has said the ICC is already overextended, with existing commitments in Congo, Rwanda, Central African Republic and Ivory Coast.
But critics have said the ICC is ready to take on the Darfur prosecution, arguing that the tribunal proposed by the United States would take a year to get off the ground.
Also from the AP, reprinted on Sudan Tribune (newer story; the dateline is "United Nations")...
France said it expects the U.N. Security Council to vote Thursday on a resolution that would authorize the prosecution of Sudanese war crimes suspects by the International Criminal Court - with approval virtually certain after U.S. officials said Washington had dropped its objections.
France delayed Wednesday's vote in hopes of averting a U.S. veto - and the additional time appears to have won over the Americans.
Administration officials in Washington said Wednesday night that the United States was dropping its objections to using the court after concluding that opposition to the U.S. stand was too strong, particularly among Europeans.
France's U.N. Mission said Wednesday night it expects the council to vote on the resolution on Thursday, probably in the afternoon.
President George W. Bush's administration had preferred that an African court try alleged perpetrators of war crimes, but the U.S. proposal garnered little support among the 14 other Security Council nations.
The United States faced a dilemma because it wants the perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan's western Darfur region brought to justice but it vehemently opposes the International Criminal Court on grounds that Americans could face politically motivated or frivolous prosecutions. An ethnic cleansing campaign in Darfur has killed tens of thousands of people and uprooted more than 2 million.
In return for its concession, the United States received assurances that Americans deployed in Sudan, in whatever capacity, would not be subject to ICC prosecutions, the officials told The Associated Press. They asked not to be identified because the decision has not been officially announced.
The U.S. decision to allow the court to prosecute war crimes perpetrators could raise hackles among conservatives for whom the court is an unaccountable body that cannot be trusted to do the right thing. The 97 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty establishing the court based in The Hague, Netherlands -including all European Union nations -maintain that there are sufficient safeguards built into the process to prevent unwarranted prosecutions.
France agreed to postpone a vote until Thursday after the United States said it wanted to amend the draft resolution to ensure that no Americans could be handed over to the court, the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal, U.N. diplomats said.
The United States came up with amendments late Thursday [?] but the diplomats said they weren't acceptable to the nine council members that are parties to the court, including France and close U.S. ally Britain.
In response, France drafted new amendments which were to be shared with the court's supporters overnight and discussed with the Americans on Thursday, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The 15 Security Council nations have been deadlocked for weeks on the issue of holding people accountable in Sudan, and the court's supporters have demanded a vote on the French resolution.
The French draft introduced last week would refer Darfur cases since July 1, 2002 to the International Criminal Court. That was the recommendation of a U.N. panel that had found crimes against humanity - but not genocide - occurred in the vast western region.
In a clear concession to the United States, the resolution said citizens of countries that have not ratified the treaty establishing the court will not be subject to prosecution by the court if they take part in activities in Sudan.
Diplomats said Washington was concerned that the language wasn't airtight and therefore proposed the amendments.
Details of the final text were not disclosed in Washington or New York.
Negotiations on the draft have been going on in key capitals, with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier, and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw trying to agree on wording that would allow the United States to abstain rather than veto the resolution, the diplomats said.
A veto could be politically damaging because it would give the appearance that the United States opposed the punishment of those responsible for atrocities in Darfur, the scene of perhaps the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
The widespread death and destruction has been the result of a brutal counterinsurgency campaign led by government-supported Arab militias against black African rebels. The conflict began in February 2003, and the number of dead is now estimated at 180,000.
Last September, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the perpetrators had engaged in genocide. Tens of thousands of displaced Darfurians are confined to refugee camps, refusing to return to their villages for fear they would only be forced to flee once again.
On Tuesday, the Security Council passed a resolution strengthening the arms embargo in Darfur to include the Sudanese government and imposing an asset freeze and travel ban on those who defy peace efforts.
Last week, the council voted to deploy 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers to monitor a peace deal between the government and southern rebels that ended a 21-year civil war. The council hopes the resolution will also help Darfur move toward peace as well.
From Reuters (by Evelyn Leopold and Arshad Mohammed; the joint dateline is "United Nations" and "Washington")...
The United States would allow the International Criminal Court it fiercely opposes to try perpetrators of atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region if it can ensure Americans would not be prosecuted by the court, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
It appeared unlikely that all the U.S. demands would be accepted by the at least nine nations expected to vote for a French-proposed U.N. Security Council resolution giving the ICC jurisdiction in Darfur.
The Bush administration is in the difficult position of either swallowing some of its qualms about the ICC or vetoing a resolution to prosecute people for the pillage, slaughter and rape in Darfur that Washington itself has called genocide.
No one expects the United States to vote in favor, but European envoys, who are strong supporters of the court, hope Washington will abstain and not use its veto power in exchange for some changes in the text.
"We are trying to find language that we would find acceptable. We're trying to make the resolution work so that we can avoid a train wreck," said one U.S. official.
France, backed by Britain, agreed to delay a vote on the resolution until Thursday in hopes of averting a U.S. veto.
Diplomats said France had revised its resolution to meet some U.S. concerns and council member governments were studying the text overnight. But a senior envoy said most of the council was willing to risk a U.S. veto rather than undermine the ICC.
The envoy also said concessions to the United States needed to be limited to the case of Sudan because the Security Council should not change ICC statutes ratified by 98 countries.
"We would like a deal tomorrow. ... We're going the extra mile," said a senior Bush administration official. "But if we cannot work out protection for American nationals then obviously we're not going to be able to go along with it. There is always the possibility of an American veto."
Nine of the 15 council members have ratified the treaty establishing the ICC, the world's first permanent criminal court set up to try individuals for genocide, war crimes and gross human rights abuses.
Over the last two years, at least 180,000 people have died from fighting, hunger and disease in Darfur. Rape is common and more than 2 million people, mainly African villagers, have been forced out of their homes by Arab militia.
The council can refer cases to the ICC, based in The Hague, if the country where the crimes occurred is unwilling or unable to bring perpetrators to justice. The Bush administration opposes the ICC, fearing its citizens would be targets of politically motivated prosecutions, and is not a party to it.
U.S. officials described three "protections" they want for their citizens in order to permit ICC jurisdiction in Sudan.
The first would exempt foreign forces in any peacekeeping mission for Sudan from ICC jurisdiction and would allow them to be tried only by their national authorities, something the Security Council reluctantly backed for peacekeepers in Liberia in 2003.
The second, and most controversial, would allow the United States to opt out of ICC jurisdiction over war crimes for its peacekeeping forces throughout the world for seven years.
Parties to the ICC's founding treaty have such a seven-year opt-out for war crimes and the U.S. officials argued they should have the same right without, however, conceding their forces would be subject to its jurisdiction after seven years.
But diplomats said its was highly unlikely that the nine council members who have ratified the court's treaty could take a decision that they feel belongs to all members of the court.
Third, the United States wants guarantees it would not be asked to cooperate with the ICC in ways that violate limits on such cooperation imposed by U.S. law. U.S. officials said there was little opposition to this from other nations.
Also from the AP, reprinted on Sudan Tribune (brand-new story by Anthony Deutsch; the dateline is "The Hague")...
The International Criminal Court was gearing up Thursday for a possible war crimes investigation in Sudan's violence-plagued Darfur region -- an important case that officials say could confirm the fledgling tribunal's legitimacy.
The U.N. Security Council is expected to vote Thursday on a resolution that would authorize the prosecution of Sudanese war crimes suspects by the court, whose creation was fiercely opposed by the United States.
The resolution appeared more likely to pass after U.S. officials said Washington was dropping its objections to sending the Sudan case to the court because the international pressure was too great, especially from the European countries.
The court was established in July 2002 to prosecute individual perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but it has not yet tried a case.
Some 98 countries have ratified its founding treaty, but the United States sought to undermine its powers by signing bilateral immunity deals with countries guaranteeing they would not hand over U.S. nationals to the court.
Prosecutors said in January they would welcome the Darfur case if they were given jurisdiction by the United Nations.
Once prosecutors have jurisdiction, they would begin a preliminary analysis to determine if the crimes fall under their authority. A court official who spoke on condition on anonymity said the prosecutor would be expected to report back to the U.N. Security Council in a matter of weeks about launching a formal investigation.
A case of such magnitude would place the young institution at the center of a conflict which is estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions more. It also would put a severe strain on its 2005 budget of around euro70 million (US$91 million).
Michael Wladimiroff, an attorney who defended the first suspect at the U.N. tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s, called the apparent shift in U.S. policy an unexpected change that could open the way for further cases at the Netherlands-based court.
"This means the court ... can now be used as an instrument by the Security Council," Wladimiroff said. "All of a sudden there will be a change from waiting for cases to expanding capacity and moving more quickly toward trials."
If the United States were to drop its opposition to having cases referred by the United Nations, that would signal political acceptance of the court, albeit indirectly, he said.
The ICC is a court of last resort, empowered to step in only when countries are "unwilling or unable" to dispense justice themselves. It can only prosecute crimes if they have been committed in countries that ratified the Rome Treaty, if a nonmember country grants it special jurisdiction or if the United Nations refers a case.
Prosecutors have said they expected to issue the first arrest warrants and begin trials later this year against suspects in Uganda and Congo, but officials said they would need more money to open such a large-scale investigation.
Prosecutors are reviewing possible cases in six countries, among them Sudan, Ivory Coast and the Central African Republic. Darfur would pose a great challenge, not least because of the danger of sending investigators into a conflict zone to prepare cases and interview witnesses.
The western Sudanese region of Darfur has been the scene of perhaps the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The widespread death and destruction has been the result of a brutal counterinsurgency campaign led by government-support Arab militias against black African farmers. The conflict began in February 2003.
Social change for the next generation
Young girl with infant child at refugee camp in Darfur. Photo by Dan Scandling, Office of U.S. Representative Frank Wolf