RIGHTS-ICC: We’re not Obstructionist, Arab Delegations Say

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

ROME, Jul 1 1998 (IPS) - Delegates charged with laying the ground rules of an International Criminal Court (ICC) are embroiled in argument over whether Arab governments labeled “osbtructionist” are intent on derailing the process.

That accusation seems to be leveled daily against Arab delegates, whose numerous revisions and amendments of proposals to establish the Court are causing frustration here, at the Conference on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.

The Arabs, however, insist they are pushing in good faith for a strong and independent Court. A number of diplomatic analysts, likewise, say they doubt that Arab states as a whole intend to block the Court, but rather that they intend to support it as a counterweight to other international organs, notably the UN Security Council.

“There is no bad faith in terms of obstructing the process,” says one observer. “But some delegations who only speak in Arabic miss a lot of the debate. They miss a lot of points and, many times, their intervention is a reflection of not understanding the point … They don’t see the totality of the ICC statute.”

Linguistic misunderstandings and a lack of long-term involvement in the ICC process by some Arab states, notes one source involved in the negotiations, has led their delegations to “unintentionally create a serious problem.”

Signs of the problem abound. Some non-governmental groups worry that the pace of ICC talks is slackening at least in part because several Arab states are voicing objections and amendments on matters large and small. These range from the issue of state consent for the Court’s work, to the question of whether enforced pregnancy should be listed as a crime.

Many objections and proposals have caused delegates to “lose sight of the very objective” of creating a strong Court, and replaced that aim with “defensive, more political, considerations”, warns Waleed Sadi, head of the Jordanian delegation.

In other respects, the Arab states simply have a different set of expectations of the Court, says one diplomat from a Gulf country. They want an ICC which can successfully assert its independence from the 15-nation Security Council. Some Arab states have felt increasingly frustrated with the body, particularly over ongoing embargoes against Libya and Iraq.

“The Security Council is a political body, not a legal body,” argues one Arab diplomat. As a result, the independence of the Court and its prosecutor from the control of any nation must be established.

“It is a requirement that the member states should, in their endeavours to assure the effectiveness of the Court, refrain from interfering in the activities of the Court,” adds Sudanese Justice Minister Ali Mohammed Yassin. “It is equally important to protect the Court from the interference of international political organs.”

Those positions, ironically enough for critics who complain of Arab obstructionism, place many of the North African and Middle Eastern states at the forefront of supporting an ICC largely free of Security Council oversight and a prosecutor empowered to conduct independent investigations. This also is a wish of a “like-minded” coalition of predominantly European, Latin American and African states.

However, other issues are proving more divisive. As one diplomat notes, “We are serious about the death penalty. That is one area where we will not back down.”

Since many Arab countries – as well as other states involved in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – maintain capital punishment, their delegations in Rome expect the ICC to do no less, regardless of opposition from the nations which have abolished the death penalty.

Similarly, in what one activist calls an “unholy alliance” between the Vatican and conservative Islamist, many Gulf Arab nations are blocking proposals to protect the victims of enforced pregnancy.

The alliance, which also includes a few conservative Catholic states, is wary that language categorising enforced pregnancy as a crime and spelling out victims’ rights, could serve as the basis in domestic laws for allowing abortions in the case of rape. A non- governmental Women’s Caucus, however, disputes that interpretation.

Earlier, a number of delegations had pushed for the Court’s officers and judges to embrace not just geographic, but also cultural and religious diversity. That effort, says one envoy, was designed to prevent instances such as the recent exclusion of an Egyptian legal expert from serving as prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Some Muslim governments suspected the exclusion of Cherif Bassiouni, who now chairs the ICC drafting committee, stemmed from the Egyptian’s Muslim roots.

Arab diplomats also appear ambivalent on other scores. Many cite cases – such as Kosovo, Bosnia or the Palestinian territories – perhaps best dealt with by a strong Court. But they also resist the possibility that their own legal systems might have to cede jurisdiction to the ICC. As a consequence, the Arab bloc is pushing hard for a requirement that the Court obtain state consent before opening an investigation.

For all the signs of disagreement, says one well-placed source, many Arab countries “are very keen on participating, because they feel it is a Court they can support.”