The new ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, signaled that position earlier when she told a council meeting late last month that the ICC “looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in … Darfur.”
 
(Despite strong views on the Darfur conflict, where it said “genocide” had occurred, the Bush administration’s stance on the matter was complicated by its opposition – due to concerns about sovereignty issues and politically-motivated prosecutions – to the ICC.)
 
U.S. support for ICC action against Bashir would put Washington at odds with a considerable proportion of the world body’s member states. The African Union this week reiterated its view that an indictment should be deferred, a stance endorsed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League. The three blocs, taking into account overlapping membership, together comprise more than 80 countries.
 
Article 16 of ICC’s founding statute allows the Security Council to defer, for renewable 12-month periods, any prosecution by the court. A resolution to that effect would require a majority of nine votes in the 15-member council, and no veto by a permanent member.
 
Permanent council members Russia and China – a close ally of Khartoum – have voiced support for a deferral, while Britain and France are opposed.
 
Of the 10 rotating non-permanent members Libya, Uganda and Burkina Faso are among those in favor of deferring ICC action, and Sudan has been lobbying Turkey to join the group.
 
ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has requested judges to issue an arrest warrant for Bashir on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. He accuses the Sudanese president of ordering the annihilation of three non-Arab ethnic groups in Darfur.
 
Opinions on ICC action against Bashir range from the view that he is being unfairly targeted for political, racial or religious reasons, to the argument that failure to prosecute him will encourage impunity, embolden Khartoum and prolong the conflict.
 
In between are those who argue that irrespective of the merits of the case against Bashir, prosecuting him will lead to further bloodshed in Darfur, endanger the comprehensive peace agreement process, and could return the country to civil war and chaos.

U.N. special representative for Sudan Ashraf Qazi reports to the U.N. Security Council in New York on Thursday, February 4 2009. (UN Photo by Eskinder Debebe)Qazi, the U.N. envoy, warned the council that it would have to consider “potential threats” to two peacekeeping operations – the U.N. mission in Sudan (UNMIS), set up in support of the comprehensive peace agreement process, and the joint U.N.-A.U. mission in Darfur (UNAMID).
 
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a report to the council this week that he was “concerned about remarks by some of [Sudan’s] officials that the government may redefine its relationship with UNMIS should an arrest warrant be issued against President al-Bashir.”
 
Ban said the peace accord was at a critical juncture and that “daunting challenges” lay ahead.
 
More than two million people died in the civil war, which pitted the Islamist Arab government in the north against animist and Christian Africans in the south.
 
The comprehensive peace agreement process encompasses a referendum, scheduled for 2011, on whether the south should secede or remain part of a united Sudan.