By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 7 2015 (IPS)

As part of a politically-amusing annual ritual, the guessing game is on at the United Nations: will he, or will he not, address the General Assembly, along with more than 150 heads of state who are due in New York next month?

Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted on war crimes charges by the International Criminal Court (ICC), is reportedly toying with the idea of defying the international community once again – as he did in South Africa in June — and appearing before the U.N.’s highest policy making body when it begins its general debate, come Sep. 28.“Even though we’re not a party to the Rome statute of the ICC, we have strongly supported the ICC’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. So I’ll just leave it at that.” -- U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner

This will be his third attempt to address the General Assembly, the last two being aborted.

However, his proposed visit to New York this time has been accompanied, as usual, by a rash of widespread rumours: will he be arrested on his way from the airport and handed over to the ICC? Does the United States, which is not a party to the ICC statute, have the legitimate right to do so?

Elise Keppler, Acting Director, International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, told IPS, “Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir belongs in one place only, the International Criminal Court, where he faces outstanding warrants for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur.”

“A visit by al-Bashir to the U.N. would not only be an affront to Darfuri victims, but a brazen challenge to the U.N. Security Council, which was responsible for sending Darfur to the ICC for investigation in the first place in 2005,” she added.

Still, will the U.S. Embassy in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum provide him with an entry visa which the United States has rarely denied to visiting heads of state because it is mandated to facilitate the working of the United Nations under what is called the Headquarters Agreement with the host country?

But so far neither the United Nations nor the U.S. State Department is willing to provide any answers.

Asked about the proposed visit, Mark Toner, the U.S. State Department’s deputy spokesperson told reporters: “We’ve seen reports that President Bashir plans to speak at the U.N. summit in September – Summit for Development. We don’t have any further information at this time.”

“We can’t, frankly, talk about individual visa cases or disclose any details from it. We’re prohibited by law from doing so,” he said.

More broadly, “Even though we’re not a party to the Rome statute of the ICC, we have strongly supported the ICC’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. So I’ll just leave it at that.”

Asked if the Sudanese president will be arrested if he arrived in New York, Toner said: “Again, I’m not going to get out and speak to hypotheticals. We haven’t received any word that he’s intending to go there. And frankly, if we did, I couldn’t speak to it from here. Sorry about that.”

Addressing the U.N.’s Legal Committee last year, Hassan Ali, a senior Sudanese diplomat, told delegates, “The democratically-elected president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, had been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the General Assembly (last year) because the host country, the United States, had denied him a visa, in violation of the U.N.-U.S. Headquarters Agreement.”

Furthermore, he complained, the host country also applied arbitrary pressures on foreign missions, “depending on how close a country’s foreign policy is to that of the United States.”

“It was a great and deliberate violation of the Headquarters Agreement,” he said, also pointing to the closing of bank accounts of foreign missions and diplomats as another violation.

“Those missions have now been without bank accounts for some three years,” he added.

A denial of a U.S. visa amounts to violations of specific international agreements such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and particularly the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, entered into by the U.S. and the U.N. in 1947 and unanimously ratified by Congress.

In response to the U.S. refusal to grant a visa to Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat in 1988, the General Assembly had to move its meeting to Geneva at huge expense and inconvenience.

In June al-Bashir, in complete defiance of the international community, participated in an African Union (AU) summit meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa.

But he left the country hours before a South African court issued an interim order to prevent the president from leaving the country.

Peppered with questions early this week, U.N. Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq, was non-committal.

“Well, I don’t speak on behalf of the ICC, but what is clear and what the Secretary-General has said repeatedly is that he believes that the Member States of the U.N. system need to take the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court seriously, and, of course, as you know, there are relevant resolutions of the Security Council also about this matter, which we expect the Member States will abide by.”

Asked if al-Bashir will be visiting the U.N., Haq said “Well…at this stage, I’m not… I’m not aware that this is confirmed. I am aware of what the (Sudanese) Permanent Mission has said on this, but at this stage, I’m not aware of what the arrangements are for this.”

“And we’ll have to see how that goes. But certainly, we have continued to treat the matter of the ICC prosecutions regarding Darfur seriously, and we believe all Member States should do so,” he added.

Pressed further on the issue of a U.S. visa, Haq said the basic understanding is that the Heads of State and Government who come for the general debate will be able to come to the United States in order to speak (at the U.N.)

“As you know, there have been some disputes about this over the years, but the general rule has been that,” he noted.

Asked if the United States could refuse a visa and not let him into the country, or arrest him at the airport, even though the U.S. is not a signatory to the ICC, Haq said: “That would essentially be a matter to ask the United States Government… I wouldn’t comment on what they may or may not do.”

Asked if it is his understanding that immunity would attach to all Heads of State in transit between the arrival point in the United States and the U.N. Headquarters, Haq said, “It is basically a question based on a speculative question, so I wouldn’t go further on that realm of speculation.”

“Regarding the issue of immunity, that is covered in a number of treaties including the Vienna Conventions, and I would just refer you to those,” he said.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com

The United States has rarely, if ever, denied a visa to a head of state seeking to visit the United Nations to address the 193-member General Assembly, the highest policy making body in the organisation.

But it did so last November, prompting Sudan to register a strong protest before the U.N.’s legal committee: a protest that went unsung and unnoticed."Washington believes it can deny visas whenever it chooses to do so and most governments, fearful of negative consequences, remain silent and do not make a fuss." -- James A. Paul

Hassan Ali, a senior Sudanese diplomat, told delegates, “The democratically-elected president of Sudan, Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, had been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the General Assembly because the host country, the United States, had denied him a visa, in violation of the U.N.-U.S. Headquarters Agreement.”

Furthermore, he complained, the host country also applied arbitrary pressures on foreign missions, “depending on how close a country’s foreign policy is to that of the United States.”

“It was a great and deliberate violation of the Headquarters Agreement,” he said, also pointing to the closing of bank accounts of foreign missions and diplomats as another violation.

“Those missions have now been without bank accounts for some three years,” he added.

The refusal of a visa to the Sudanese president was also a political landmine because al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

But does the United States have a right to implicitly act on an ICC ruling when Washington is not a party to the Rome Statute that created the ICC?

“Good question,” said John Quigley, professor emeritus of international law at Ohio State University.

“As you suggest, the U.S. had no obligations under the Rome Statute,” he told IPS.

So the question would not arise of Washington having an obligation that might conflict with the obligation to grant a visa to a representative of a U.N. member state, he added.

It would be harder if the United States were a party to the Rome Statute.

Sudanese President Omer Hassan Al Bashir addresses a ceremony marking the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on Jan. 9, 2009. The refusal of his visa was also a political landmine because al-Bashir has been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Credit: UN Photo/Tim McKulka

“Even then, the two obligations might not conflict. That is, the U.S. would have an obligation to let him in. Once he is in, the U.S. would have an obligation to turn him over to the ICC,” said Quigley, author of ‘The Ruses of War: American Interventionism Since World War II’.

The U.S. decision last week to deny a visa to the Iranian envoy-in-waiting, Hamid Aboutalebi, has been challenged as a violation of the Headquarters Agreement – even though Washington got away scot-free after barring the Sudanese president from the General Assembly last year.

James A. Paul, who served for over 19 years as executive director of the Global Policy Forum, told IPS the U.S. government was in clear violation of international law and practice.

This includes violations of specific international agreements such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, and particularly the U.N. Headquarters Agreement, entered into by the U.S. and the U.N. in 1947 and unanimously ratified by Congress.

This particular violation of visa denial is one of many such violations, some of which get lots of attention and some of which don’t, he said.

“My guess is that there have been hundreds of cases in which the U.S. has refused entry visas for various reasons. There are also hundreds of other cases of violation of the agreement in other ways,” said Paul, who has kept close track of the politics of the United Nations for nearly two decades.

In response to the U.S. refusal to grant a visa to Palestine leader Yassir Arafat in 1988, he said, the General Assembly had to move its meeting to Geneva at huge expense and inconvenience.

“That case made headlines, but most do not,” said Paul.

Take, for example, the U.S. refusal to grant an entry visa to a senior Argentine diplomat who had been accredited to participate with the Brazilian team on the U.N. Security Council in 2010.

“Washington took this step presumably because it wanted to block regional coordination on the Council – a totally illegitimate reason,” Paul said, adding there was no argument the person involved represented a security threat.

“So I think we can say that Washington believes it can deny visas whenever it chooses to do so and most governments, fearful of negative consequences, remain silent and do not make a fuss,” he added.

Quigley told IPS he saw no exception for security, terrorism and foreign policy in the Headquarters Agreement.

The resolutions by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives to bar the Iranian envoy, are irrelevant, he said.

“What matters is the text of the Headquarters Agreement. If domestic legislation was adopted that purported to reserve rights to the U.S. that are not expressed in the Headquarters Agreement, the domestic legislation does not allow the U.S. to evade its obligations,” said Quigley.

“As I read the legislation adopted by Congress, it gives grounds for denial of a visa, but it is still up to the president to decide the grounds exist, so it is not Congress that is denying a visa to a particular person.”

The president should properly regard the Headquarters Agreement as his guide, added Quigley.

The U.S. has accused Aboutalebi of being involved in the 1979 forcible takeover of the U.S. embassy and its diplomatic personnel in Tehran.

But the Iranian says he was only a translator and negotiator between the hostages and the hostage takers – and that he was not even in Tehran when the embassy was physically taken over by a group called the Muslim Students.

Quigley said, “I can see that there might be some validity to the view that the U.S. and Iran should work this out, but at this point the U.S. has denied and does not seem inclined to reconsider.”

That being the case, it is the U.N. that is the injured party under the Headquarters Agreement. It should not be up to Iran to take the initiative to take action on the matter, he argued.

Paul told IPS some diplomats face restrictions as to where they can live and where in the U.S. they can travel.

There have been many complaints about U.S. banking restrictions having serious negative consequences for delegations, who sometimes cannot pay their bills as a result.

Finally, of course, there is the scandal of spying on U.N. staff and on delegations.

“When you put all this together, you have a stark picture of disregard for the norms of diplomacy and the letter of international agreements. It is a sad story,” he added.

Desmond Tutu, the Archbishop emeritus of Capetown and one of the world's most renowned human rights activists. UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 10 2013 (IPS)

South Africa’s Desmond Tutu, the 1984 Nobel Peace prize laureate, has launched a global campaign to stop African nations from abandoning the Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC).

Sudan and Kenya, whose political leaders are accused of war crimes and genocide, are leading the movement against the ICC and have already threatened to pull out of the tribunal."The Archbishop's campaign is a stark warning against Africa choosing impunity over justice." -- Alice Jay of Avaaz

Tutu, the Archbishop emeritus of Capetown and one of the world’s most renowned human rights activists, has appealed to leaders of South Africa and Nigeria, two of the most powerful countries in Africa, “to stop Sudan and Kenya from trying to drag Africa out of the ICC”.

The campaign has been launched in collaboration with Avaaz, a global civic organisation, described as one of largest online activist networks.

The 54-member African Union, which has demanded the ICC drop the case against Kenya’s leadership, will be meeting in Addis Ababa over the weekend to discuss, among other things, the role of Africa in the ICC.

Several African countries, including Uganda, Rwanda and Ethiopia, have criticised and opposed the upcoming trials of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto, on charges of crimes against humanity in the 2007-2008 post-election violence that reportedly left over a thousand people dead.

In an email to over 26 million members of Avaaz, and responding to charges the ICC is a Western witch-hunt because most of its investigations have taken place in Africa, Tutu said, “I do not buy the spin the ICC has an anti-African bias. No.”

African leaders who abuse power, he argued, must be held to account for their victims.

“And I am on record saying there are certain former Western leaders, among others, who should join them,” he added.

The largest group of ICC members (31 out of 122) are from Africa and the majority of cases being investigated are in Africa, including Sudan, Uganda, Libya, Kenya, Cote d’Ivoire, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Elise Keppler, associate director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch (HRW), told IPS Tutu is sending a key message on the importance of African governments supporting the ICC as a crucial court of last resort.

This is a message activists across Africa have been sending to their governments this week – as represented by a letter to foreign ministers signed by more than 150 groups from more than 35 African countries sent in advance of the African Union summit, she said.

William R. Pace, convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), told IPS Tutu and Avaaz are raising awareness that some African leaders are “promoting a great injustice in the name of justice.”

“These is little danger that these anti-ICC leaders can kill the ICC, but they could do serious damage to the Court, but mostly to their own reputations, to the truth that the ICC is a major achievement of Africa, and most sadly they can do damage to the hopes and lives of the millions of African victims of crimes against humanity,” he added.

The outpouring of support for international justice and the ICC by civil society and by African leaders like Tutu and former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan “is a greater story than tired, old tale of heads of government supporting impunity over accountability”, said Pace, a steering committee member of the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP).

Alice Jay, campaign director of Avaaz, said, “The Archbishop’s campaign is a stark warning against Africa choosing impunity over justice.”

She said that in Congo, Liberia and Cote d’Ivoire, the ICC has brought hope to thousands persecuted by armies, militias and madmen.

“Hundreds of thousands of people are now calling on South Africa and Nigeria to lead the continent to save the ICC,” she added.

Far from being anti-African, Tutu said, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, vice-president and five of its judges are Africans and its interventions have saved countless lives in Africa.

“Those who fear being prosecuted by the ICC should not be allowed to lead Africa by the nose,” he added.

Asked about charges of anti-African bias, HRW’s Keppler told IPS that claims the ICC is targeting Africa are simply not based in fact. She said the majority of the court’s investigations came about because African governments asked the ICC to get involved. Two more came from Security Council referrals, she said.

The ICC’s office of the prosecutor acted on its own initiative in only one case – Kenya – and only after Kenya failed to pursue justice domestically.

That’s not to say there are no problems with the reach of justice, she said, pointing out that currently “some powerful governments are able to ensure that they can evade accountability before international courts by not joining the ICC or using their veto power at the Security Council to only refer certain situations to the ICC”.

The lack of referral of Syria to the ICC is case in point. Both Russia and China, two permanent members of the Security Council, have threatened to use their vetoes against any attempts to involve the ICC in Syria.

“But that should be impetus to governments African and non-African to call out double standards in the application of justice and press for justice to be possible wherever the most serious crimes are committed, not cripple the only permanent court with authority to try grave crimes,” said Keppler.

Sudan’s beleaguered president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who threatened to visit the United Nations despite an arrest warrant for war crimes, has backed out at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour.

Sudanese President Omer Hassan Al Bashir addresses a ceremony marking the fourth anniversary of the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2009. Credit: UN Photo/Tim McKulka

Although he was listed as a speaker Thursday, ahead of President Christopher Loeak of the Marshall Islands and immediately after Croatian President Dr. Ivo Josipovic, al-Bashir decided to skip the high-level debate of the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) which has attracted world leaders from 193 member states.

Asked to confirm the president’s absence, U.N. Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq told IPS that Sudan had informed U.N. protocol that President al-Bashir will not attend the General Assembly sessions.

Jose Luis Diaz, head of the U.N. office of Amnesty International, told IPS he was not really surprised that al-Bashir had finally “dropped the charade of coming to the United Nations”.

“I hope the revulsion caused by the announcement of his intention to attend the UNGA is translated by responsible states into real efforts to apprehend him and send him to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague,” he said.

Under the 1947 U.N.-U.S. Headquarters Agreement Act, the United States, in its capacity as host country to the world body, is obligated to allow state representatives to attend meetings at the United Nations.

But the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), a global network of civil society organisations working to strengthen international cooperation with ICC, has urged the United Nations to review its policies.

CICC convenor William Pace pointed out that major international organisations such as the African Union (AU), the Organisation of American States (OAS) and the European Union (EU) do not allow the participation of representatives of governments that are not considered legitimate – specifically those representing governments resulting from military coups.

“The United Nations should follow these principles and not allow the participation of representatives who are fugitives from international justice,” he added.

Any such decision, however, has to be taken by the General Assembly since Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is not empowered to bar representatives from any member states from participating in U.N. meetings.

Asked about the proposed visit, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers told reporters last week she had seen published reports that al-Bashir intends to travel to New York.

“President al-Bashir, as you know, stands accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC,” she said. Such a trip “would be deplorable, cynical and hugely inappropriate”.

“We would suggest that given that he is under those charges, and that the ICC has indicted him, again, on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity charges that it would be more appropriate for him to present himself to the ICC and travel to The Hague.”

After learning of al-Bashir’s intent to attend the General Assembly, civil society members of the CICC immediately took action, exploring all possible legal avenues to block the visit and calling for all parties involved – the U.S., the U.N. and all member states – to bar his attendance or arrest him, CICC said in a statement released Thursday.

Ambassador Tiina Intelmann, president of the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, reminded ICC member states over whose territory Al-Bashir’s flight path might take him of their obligations to arrest him, as well as the obligations of all member states to cooperate with the court’s investigation in Darfur.

Pace said al-Bashir should be standing in front of ICC judges in The Hague, not circulating among world leaders at the U.N. He added that al-Bashir’s decision not to attend the General Assembly comes immediately after a trip to Nigeria for an AU health summit “which saw him unexpectedly leave after less than 24 hours in the country”.

“Civil society had encouraged Nigeria to arrest al-Bashir or bar his entry, and the Nigerian Coalition for the ICC filed a petition in the Nigerian courts seeking to compel his arrest,” Pace said.

Giving the highest platform at the United Nations to a man who has arrest warrants issued accusing him of committing the most heinous crimes against humanity would be an insult to the Charter, to the United Nations, to the secretary-general, to the Security Council and to the international community, declared Pace.

Activists claim that more than one hundred people have been killed and thousands injured during demonstrations in Sudan following the removal of fuel subsidies.

Protests have been raging in Khartoum, Maddani, the second city 200 km south of the capital, Port Sudan on the Red Sea coast and various other locations since the government lifted the subsidies Monday.

Palls of black smoke are now commonplace above the city skylines. Protesters have targeted petrol stations, police stations and checkpoints. Roads have been blocked with burning vehicles, including the road to Khartoum airport. Government officials have condemned the protests as “premeditated sabotage”.

As tensions have risen, foreign embassies and companies have been put on alert, with many closing non-essential offices and cultural organisations, while their workers have been advised to stay home.

The U.S. Embassy in Khartoum has appealed for calm. In a statement it said: “We call on all sides not to resort to force and to respect civil liberties and the right to peaceful assembly,” and regretted “reports of serious injuries and attacks on property during demonstrations which turned violent”.

In the Khartoum suburb of Omdurman, the security forces have shot into the crowds from armoured vehicles and helicopters have been flying over.  Victims of the violence have been killed by gunshot wounds to the head and chest.

Meanwhile, there are reports that elements of the Sudan Armed Forces are refusing to carry out orders from President Omar al-Bashir to control the situation on the streets.

Some protesters have targeted offices of the NCP ruling party, while others have gathered outside companies belonging to senior NCP members, such as the Steam soda factory. In many cases the police and agents of the National Intelligence Security Services (NISS) have tried to break up the demonstrations using extreme force.

Activists denounced that opposition party leaders were arrested before the fuel subsidies were lifted, in an attempt to prevent them from organising protests. Since then thousands of demonstrators have been taken into custody by the police and NISS.

However, the protesters remain defiant. Hafiz Ismail, an economist and commentator, told IPS: “The protesters will make the government change its policies – policies which will kill the people slowly.”

Commenting on government claims that the lifting of subsidies would help revitalise the Sudanese economy, he said: “They are lying and disrespecting the Sudanese people. Besides these measures won’t affect the rich but will only harm the poor.”

Hoyida Mohamed, 24, from Omdurman, told IPS she protested through the night, to fight the fuel price hikes and call for the government to resign. “The new policies will make our lives, which are already hard, impossible. Now we don’t have a chance to go to the university or get treatment when we get sick. We want this government out. Our lives have become very hard under this regime.”

Rishan Oshi, an activist who has participated in the demonstrations from the start, told IPS she was protesting against the government’s “disrespect for the Sudanese people. They want to fill their pockets from our wage packets

“The price increases are incredibly unjust. The people who are protesting are ordinary people and don’t belong to any political parties. I considered it like a revolution of the downtrodden and the hungry.”

The majority of the population in Sudan is poor.

Meanwhile, Internet services have been shut down in what seemed like an official attempt to stifle coverage of the protests. The Committee to Protect Journalist (CPJ) has appealed for an end to the block. “There is no justification for any government to cut off the Internet’s vital flow of information, which journalists and citizens alike rely upon,” said CPJ Middle East and North Africa Programme Coordinator Sherif Mansour.

The government has taken a hand in the way the protests have been reported. The Al-Ayam, Al-Qarar and Al-Youm al-Tali newspapers purportedly changed reports on the demonstrations following pressure from the Sudanese security forces. The Sudanese Journalists Network called for a strike, starting Thursday.

Fuel prices rose by more than 90 percent since the subsidies were lifted. And the annual inflation rate, which previously stood at 50 percent, is expected to climb to 100 percent.

This is the second time fuel subsidies have been cut since South Sudan became an independent nation in 2011, resulting in the loss of 75 percent of Sudan’s oil reserves.

Some economists have proposed alternatives to price increases to make good the shortfall, including cutting state workers’ salaries, fighting corruption, and reinvesting in agriculture.

Ismail said the government should enter into dialogue with opposition parties in order to address the country’s economic difficulties.

He said the government should seek political reconciliation, and argued that the removal of subsidies is “ineffective…These are short-sighted policies. It’s like treating cancer with Panadol (the painkiller paracetamol).”

The demonstrations are expected to continue over the next few days.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, accused of war crimes and genocide in the politically-troubled Darfur region, is apparently planning to visit New York and address the U.N. General Assembly next week.

The proposed visit has triggered outrage among human rights groups and has been rebuffed by the United States."The last thing the U.N. needs is a visit by an ICC fugitive.” - HRW's Elise Keppler

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague “invited the competent U.S. authorities to arrest Omar al-Bashir and surrender him to the Court, in the event he enters their territory.”

The ICC reminded the United States of the two outstanding arrest warrants issued on Mar. 4, 2009 and July 12, 2010 against al-Bashir for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

On Mar. 6, 2009 and Jul. 21, 2010, the ICC Registry transmitted requests for al-Bashir’s arrest and surrender to all U.N. Security Council members that are not states parties to the Rome Statue, including the United States.

The Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC), a global network of civilsociety organisations working to strengthen international cooperation with the ICC, said it is “seriously concerned” by reports that al-Bashir has applied for a visa to attend the 68th session of the General Assembly which begins next Tuesday.

The speakers on opening day include U.S. President Barack Obama.

Al-Bashir is not on the official list released by the United Nations, which is expected to update it to reflect changes, if any.

A Third World diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS that to the best of his knowledge, the United States cannot refuse a visa to a visiting head of government or a visiting delegation because the U.S.-U.N. headquarters agreement calls for the facilitation of delegates participating in U.N. meetings in New York.

Sudanese President Omer Hassan A. al-Bashir at United Nations Headquarters in New York in 2006. Credit: UN Photo/Erin Siegal

William Pace, convenor of the CICC, said while the 1947 U.N. Headquarters Agreement requires the U.S. government to cooperate in the attendance of representatives of governments, the U.S. government did assist in the transfer of fugitive Bosco Ntaganda from the Democratic Republic of Congo to the ICC in The Hague earlier this year.

Asked for a clarification, U.N. Associate Spokesperson Farhan Haq told IPS, “The question of whether the United States is to grant President al-Bashir a visa to allow him to attend the General Debate [of the General Assembly] is, first and foremost, a matter for the United States to determine, consistent with the applicable rules of international law.”

He acknowledged that al-Bashir is subject to an arrest warrant issued by the ICC. “The secretary-general would therefore urge him to cooperate fully with the ICC, consistent with Security Council resolution 1593 (2005), by surrendering himself to the ICC,” Haq said.

Pace said, “If al-Bashir comes to the U.N., the Coalition will monitor very closely that U.N. officials and governments respect the principles of ‘non-essential contact’ with persons subject to international arrest warrants for the worst crimes against humanity.”

Asked about the proposed visit, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Powers told reporters she had seen published reports that al-Bashir intends to travel to New York.

“President al-Bashir, as you know, stands accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC,” she said. Such a trip “would be deplorable, cynical and hugely inappropriate”.

“We would suggest that given that he is under those charges, and that the ICC has indicted him, again, on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity charges, that it would be more appropriate for him to present himself to the ICC and travel to The Hague.”

Jose Luis Diaz, head of the U.N. office of Amnesty International, told IPS, “We’re looking at the different legal issues involved, which are seemingly complex.”

Still, he said, “it would be outrageous for al-Bashir to come to the U.N. to thumb his nose at the international community and essentially mock the victims of the crimes committed in Darfur.”

He said there are two ICC arrest warrants outstanding. And as the president of the Assembly of ICC States Parties said, should al-Bashir transit through a state party on his way to New York, that country has the obligation to arrest and surrender him to the ICC.

“What’s more, Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) urges all states and concerned regional and other international organisations to cooperate fully with the court, including in sending suspects to The Hague,” said Diaz.

Elise Keppler, associate director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, told IPS, “This is an unprecedented situation that raises a range of legal issues. If al-Bashir turns up at the U.N. General Assembly, it will be a brazen challenge to Security Council efforts to promote justice for crimes in Darfur. The last thing the U.N. needs is a visit by an ICC fugitive.”

Notably, a number of states have avoided possible visits by al-Bashir to their countries by encouraging him to send other Sudanese officials and making clear he is not welcome, and also sometimes rescheduling, cancelling or relocating meetings, said Keppler.

Pace said members of the Coalition are exploring all legal measures that could be taken by the U.N., the ICC states parties and the U.S. government to secure the arrest and transfer of President al-Bashir to the ICC.

The Coalition will also assist in organising political protests if al-Bashir attends the U.N. General Assembly, he added.