http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4119709.stm
The part that really has me disgusted is
China and Russia presumably have economic ties (China is one of Sudan's leading trade partners <http://www.tradepartners.gov.uk/sudan/profile/index/travel.shtml>). China may also be doing this just to put a thumb in the eye of the EU and the US; Russia's motives are, to me, a bit more obscure. Perhaps a desire to avoid setting a precedent for the punishment of nations who mistreat their citizens.
But here we go: the US opposition to the ICC can't just stop at trying to block it's acceptance. It can't just be a desire to opt out, to protect our citizens from being charged with international crimes (even if they've committed them). It can't just rely on pressuring and coercing allies and clients to reject the ICC or write exceptions for us into their ratifications of it. It has to come down to this: opposing the investigation and prosecution of war crimes by the ICC, because to do otherwise would be to legitimize it. How craven. How cowardly. How reprehensible. How American.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan says current attempts to end the conflict in Sudan's Darfur region are not working.
He says the situation is deteriorating and the UN and Security Council urgently needs to reassess its actions.
The part that really has me disgusted is
The UN Security Council has imposed an arms embargo against non-government groups and individuals including the pro-government Janjaweed militia.
It has also threatened oil sanctions unless the violence ends.
Aid agencies want the embargo extended to the government as well as the imposition of travel sanctions and freezing the assets of individuals.
But the council has little room for manoeuvre, says the BBC's Susannah Price at the UN in New York.
China and Russia, which have a veto on the council, oppose sanctions. The US, which also has a veto, does not want to refer the suspected war crimes cases to the International Criminal Court.
China and Russia presumably have economic ties (China is one of Sudan's leading trade partners <http://www.tradepartners.gov.uk/sudan/profile/index/travel.shtml>). China may also be doing this just to put a thumb in the eye of the EU and the US; Russia's motives are, to me, a bit more obscure. Perhaps a desire to avoid setting a precedent for the punishment of nations who mistreat their citizens.
But here we go: the US opposition to the ICC can't just stop at trying to block it's acceptance. It can't just be a desire to opt out, to protect our citizens from being charged with international crimes (even if they've committed them). It can't just rely on pressuring and coercing allies and clients to reject the ICC or write exceptions for us into their ratifications of it. It has to come down to this: opposing the investigation and prosecution of war crimes by the ICC, because to do otherwise would be to legitimize it. How craven. How cowardly. How reprehensible. How American.