NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2005

Story Continues Below

  Annan, along with several council diplomats, stressed that the debate over whether genocide had occurred in Sudan was far less important than taking action to stop the killings, torture, rape and other atrocities in Darfur that were outlined in the commission's report.

"What is vital is that these people are indeed held accountable," Annan said in a statement. "Such grave crimes cannot be committed with impunity. That would be a terrible betrayal of the victims, and of potential future victims in Darfur and elsewhere."

Deciding what to do could expose new rifts within the U.N. Security Council, still battered after fierce debate over handling Saddam Hussein and the fallout from the Iraq war. All agree that Sudan's government and the Janjaweed militia it backed must be dealt with swiftly, but they diverge on how to do it.

Several European nations want the case referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands, as the commission report recommends.

But the United States, an opponent of the court, is pushing for a different approach. In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher rejected any role for the ICC and called for the establishment of a U.N. and African Union tribunal that would be based in Arusha, Tanzania to prosecute alleged perpetrators.

The Bush Administration has long argued that the court could be used for highly politicized prosecutions, including captured American soldiers. Boucher also said the ICC lacks jurisdiction because the crimes committed in Darfur predate its establishment.

Divisive Issue

Another divisive issue is that of sanctions. Boucher said the United States has made clear in consultations with other Council members that it is "time to move toward sanctions" on Darfur - an idea Annan has said should be considered.

But China, which has major oil interests in Sudan, strongly opposes sanctions and insists that the dispute in Darfur be resolved diplomatically.

Diplomats on all sides stressed it was too early to say what the Security Council would do.

Sudan on Tuesday denied the accusations in the report, and a day earlier, Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail claimed a victory of sorts, highlighting that the report did not find genocide had been committed.

Sudan's rebels also criticized the report. The top negotiator for the rebel Sudanese Liberation Army said Monday that there had been genocide in Darfur.

The five-lawyer panel detailed a host of violations, including the government's failure to protect civilians from rebel attack, use of disproportionate force and attacks meant to force people to flee their homes.

It blamed the government for joining in the attacks and for complicity with the Janjaweed militia while accusing rebels of massive violence.

Because the panel did not label the atrocities genocide, nations are not obliged under international law to act. A 1948 U.N. convention defines genocide as a calculated effort to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group in whole or in part, and requires states "to prevent and to punish" the crime.

Even so, there was consensus among many Security Council members that the report's conclusions were sound and showed how urgently action was needed.

In Washington, two Republican members of the U.S. Congress Tuesday urged Annan to resign in protest if the United Nations fails to take aggressive action.

"We cannot wait any longer for credible action in Darfur," said Sen. Sam Brownback. "The time is now for the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, to lead or leave."

Rep. Frank Wolf said he does not blame Annan for the violence in Darfur and called the debate over whether it was genocide "a matter of semantics." He said Annan's resignation could jolt the Security Council into imposing sanctions and taking other steps to pressure the Sudanese government.

"Resigning out of protest is an act of great moral leadership," Wolf said.

Annan, who was resting at home in New York after a trip to Africa over the weekend, wasn't available for comment. But his spokesman, Fred Eckhard, quickly dismissed the idea.

"I think it's wrong to assume that he could somehow force them to take a course of action, and should he not be successful he would be obliged to step down," Eckhard said. "I think that's inconsistent with the (U.N.) charter."

© 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Editor's note: