Darfur Crisis

This year France is proposing a resolution to once and for all solve the on-going hummanitarian crisis in Darfur which led to the deaths of innocent civilians and the displacement of many. France condemns the Sudanese government for obstructing hummanitarian assistance as well as not cooperating with the International Criminal Court. France is very concerned with the disregard of some countries with UN arms embargo as well... Therefore France urges respect to all prior resolutions and demands up to this point and asks for more humanitarian assistance. France also beleieves that Sudan has to cooperate with ICC investigations on the Al-Bashir warrant to bring justice and order. It is a reasonable resolution which aims an end to this crisis. Now, it would be wonderful if the fellow delegates could comment on their positions regarding this issue.

Merci =]

Delegate of France,

Even though the delegation of South Africa is deeply concerned with the situation in Sudan, it doesn't share the same position as the delegation of France. What right has the ICC (International Criminal Court) to undermine Sudan’s national sovereignty and set a bad precedent for the unfair rulings of a politicized Court and preposterous intervention in the affairs of developing states? What right has the ICC to destabilize the pursuit of a “greater” peace and security causing a civil turbulence and apathy of the government to cooperate with peace agreements in order to pursuit justice? To pursue peace, security and a political solution to the Darfur crisis, the African Union and United Nations are conducting restless talks with Darfur's rebels in the hope of getting them to resume negotiations with the government. How could the mediators expect to persuade the rebels to be reasonable if the other side's president has been charged with war crimes? Could the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement remain in government with a party whose leader has been indicted? The list of practical problems that would flow from an indictment of Sudan's president far outweighs the benefits. The delegation of South Africa believes the the ICC have no right in interfering in Sudan's affairs.

Chinese delagte will post briefly;

- agaisnt the ICC and further agaisnt their will to intervene in national sovereignty and persecute a representative figure to the Sudanese citizens
- reminding France and other countries that various oganizations have stated that wihouth Chinese influence and help, the crisis would have been at least 2 times worst
-in favor of peaceful solutions to solve the issue, with multilateral decisions contriving above all, diplomacy

Dear Delegates,

How can Sudan cooperate with an international court that rules in favor of but a few hegemonic powers and against the very principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity? How can Sudan cooperate with the ICC when that court seeks to destabilize Sudan's peace-building efforts through an unfounded and utterly politically biased indictment of its President? How can Sudan, aware that President Al-Bashir is the custodian of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in Nairobi as well as the custodian of the peace accords signed in Darfur, let him be taken hostage to international interests and let the peace process crumble or suffer a major set back?

How? It cannot. Iran sees clearly than ever that the ICC indictment on President Al-Bashir is a threat against the Sudanese people, and therefore a threat to their allies. The Darfur humanitarian situation will not be solved through threats any less than it will be solved by weak and empty proposals of further international intervention in conflict-struck Darfur and other regions of the Chad Basin. Unless some novel way involving multilateral unconditional negotiations between equal states emerges from the French delegate's proposals, Iran does not see any productive end to its discussion.

Iran, however, is very intrigued as to how France proposes to tackle the humanitarian and political obstacles to a complete peace in Darfur. Now, if the delegate of France proves herself willing to respect the sovereignty of Sudan regardless of any prior resolution or charge issued by the ICC (which Iran dismisses as biased bogus documents), then Iran will be more than willing to discuss a multilateral way to peace, and I trust that my fellow South African and Chinese delegates would agree with that position as well. Is that correct?

Delegates,
For 5 years the Sudanese government has been incapable of solving the crisis, and instead it has supported sadistic militias. Should this type of government be in power? It is not about interfering in the sovereignty of a nation, it is about promoting justice. And in spite of the delegates’ opinions, the ICC is indeed a credible court that has the right under the UNSC to take action. Further on, the French resolution is not only about reinforcing the ICC demands but also it urges for more humanitarian aid to current UN missions like the UNAMID...What France is aware of, is that the problem needs to be solved by cutting its roots and it seems that the first step is promote justice and consequently peace. This is only a start...

Dear Delegate of France,

Have you recently talked to the the United States about your resolution? Are you aware that the United States doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the ICC? In other words, are you aware that the USA will be forced, if not by instinct then by national policy, to veto your resolution?

Regardless of Iran's position on the issue, it would be interesting to know where the U.S. stands on this issue. After all, the U.S. never signed the Statute of Rome (which created the ICC) for fear that its troops might behave badly and be tried not by a friendly American martial court, but rather by a fair international court.

Iran is fully supportive of the ICC until the point when it abandoned its credibility to threaten a country's sovereignty with unbased charges. Why does the ICC not support the Sudanese Special Courts for the Darfur and act in tandem with it? Where is the principle of cooperation and negotiation now? These are issues to be debated, and Iran will be overjoyed to do so in SALMUN.

Best regards

The Sudanese delagate would like to question the frenche delegate about how its resolution can ask for both the enhncing of the ICC procedures as for the enhancing of the UNAMID actions. Teoricaly the ICC alone is belived to be enough for solving a country's crisis the two parts of your resolution are ambiguous and make each other weaker. How can such a resolution slve a crisis such as the one inside the Sudanese country.

Sorry delegate, I will be clear with my resolution proposal. It is very humanitarian and asks for supplementary assistance to UNPKO in Darfur. As for the ICC prosecution, it does accepts their proceedings however, France wishes to defer the prosecution IF and only if the Sudanese government changes some of its policies...it is actually very favorable for Sudan, for France is giving the country another chance, by accepting to defer the prosecution (under some requirements of course). France believes that the ICC has their undeniable rights and really hopes that this conflict nears a peaceful ending.

The ICC will be a truly contraversial aspect in your resolution, France. The US did not ratify the Statute of Rome, as Iran pointed out. Yet, depending on the French proposal for the ICC participation, the US will consider the possibility. At least France is asking for SC approval, and that is a great sign of respect to the coucil and the UN charter. Hower, do not forget that China and Russia did not sign the Statute either. Please, correct the US delegate if she is wrong, but Iran did not fully approve of it either.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/RatificationsbyUNGroup_18_July_08.pdf
Your terms must be very good, delegate of France, for it seems that a great part of the council non-permanent members and 3 of the five permanent members do not fully support the current ICC policies.

Indeed its true American delegate, in spite the fact that more than 100 states have already signed the Rome Statute, 3 of the P5 have not signed or ratified the statute for reasons that don't fit on this discussion...However, the SC has already given full rights to the ICC to take action in Darfur. To deffer Al-Bashir prosecution under article 16, it is required that all permanant members agree to mutual terms...something France has rejected to do unless Sudan changes their policies...Therefore, this is a polemical issue for unfortunatelly the ICC has been questioned. but still, France believes on this council and hopes that Sudan changes their stubborn posture.

France's resolution will, in fact, be the first one in the agebda, so I just thought it would be reasonable to come here and justify some policies! The delegate of Pakistan is in favo of humanitarian aid to Sudan, the crisis has been going on for too long. But what right has the ICC to intervene, to violate the country's sovereignty? Pakistan is not a member of this court, and has not signed the Rome statue agreement, therefore not believing in the efficiency of the ICC, which violates the rights of other nations.

Delegates, Im sorry to interrupt this discussion in regards to the ICC's intervention in the Sudanese Government, but I must say that Georgia is looking forward to analyzing the french delegation's resolution considering its punitive and therefore fair nature since it will be discussing the disregard of some countries with UN arms embargo. The Georgian Delegate hopes the best solutions be found to this on going crisis.
Gmadlobt,
The Georgian Delegation