Is the U.S. Ready to Assist on Darfur?
Howard Salter
February 12, 2008
In June 2005, President Bush officially declared the situation in Darfur to be genocide, and the U.S. government has repeatedly called on the government of Sudan to cooperate fully with the Darfur investigation launched by the International Criminal Court (ICC). But does this necessarily mark a turning point in the relationship between the United States and the ICC? The Bush administration has, in the past, sought to distance itself from the Court and actively prevent ICC jurisdiction over Americans. Even now, when the Bush administration's stated objectives regarding Darfur coincide with those of the ICC and it has formally established a channel for assisting the Court, it is unclear to what extent the U.S. will provide tangible support in the form of intelligence and logistical assistance.
Recent statements by U.S. officials mark a clear divergence between U.S. practice and policy towards the Court. In 2005, the Bush administration did not veto U.N. Security Council Resolution 1593, which referred the Darfur situation to the ICC. Following the vote, the U.S. ambassador said the resolution established an accountability mechanism for the perpetrators of crimes and atrocities in Darfur. In 2007, John B. Bellinger, legal adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State, said that while Washington is not necessarily "warming" to the Court, it does share common "goals of accountability in crimes against humanity, particularly in Darfur" -- and that "within the bounds of U.S. law, there would be authority to provide assistance to the ICC." These statements echoed then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's assertion that "because we don't want to see impunity for any of these actors, we stand ready to assist." These statements suggest that the U.S. is now prepared to cautiously engage with the Court when it would serve American national interests in a particular situation.
At the same time, over the last five years 60 to 70 percent of Americans have consistently supported the ICC, with a sharp spike following the Darfur referral by the Security Council. A recent poll by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that, across political-party and religious lines, a firm majority of Americans support a cooperative U.S. global engagement, working through multilateral channels in tandem with international institutions and legal frameworks. Religious groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals and the Reformed Judaism Movement, have also supported the ICC in relation to Darfur. As John Pendergrast, co-founder of the ENOUGH Campaign and a senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, says "Faith based groups have put Darfur on the political map through their unyielding demand for US action commensurate with its rhetoric."
This public support highlights the disconnect between the opinions of everyday Americans and their elected officials in Congress. While there is a perceptible softening of the rhetoric in Washington, there has yet to be a concrete offer of support. However, evidence that the groundwork is being laid in Washington continues to emerge. Ultimately, this softening may demonstrate a shift in practice away from the continuing U.S. policy of "isolating and ignoring" the Court, to borrow the words of former U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. and anti-ICC crusader John Bolton.
Recent statements by U.S. officials mark a clear divergence between U.S. practice and policy towards the Court. In 2005, the Bush administration did not veto U.N. Security Council Resolution 1593, which referred the Darfur situation to the ICC. Following the vote, the U.S. ambassador said the resolution established an accountability mechanism for the perpetrators of crimes and atrocities in Darfur. In 2007, John B. Bellinger, legal adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State, said that while Washington is not necessarily "warming" to the Court, it does share common "goals of accountability in crimes against humanity, particularly in Darfur" -- and that "within the bounds of U.S. law, there would be authority to provide assistance to the ICC." These statements echoed then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick's assertion that "because we don't want to see impunity for any of these actors, we stand ready to assist." These statements suggest that the U.S. is now prepared to cautiously engage with the Court when it would serve American national interests in a particular situation.
At the same time, over the last five years 60 to 70 percent of Americans have consistently supported the ICC, with a sharp spike following the Darfur referral by the Security Council. A recent poll by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) found that, across political-party and religious lines, a firm majority of Americans support a cooperative U.S. global engagement, working through multilateral channels in tandem with international institutions and legal frameworks. Religious groups, including the National Association of Evangelicals and the Reformed Judaism Movement, have also supported the ICC in relation to Darfur. As John Pendergrast, co-founder of the ENOUGH Campaign and a senior adviser to the International Crisis Group, says "Faith based groups have put Darfur on the political map through their unyielding demand for US action commensurate with its rhetoric."
This public support highlights the disconnect between the opinions of everyday Americans and their elected officials in Congress. While there is a perceptible softening of the rhetoric in Washington, there has yet to be a concrete offer of support. However, evidence that the groundwork is being laid in Washington continues to emerge. Ultimately, this softening may demonstrate a shift in practice away from the continuing U.S. policy of "isolating and ignoring" the Court, to borrow the words of former U.S. permanent representative to the U.N. and anti-ICC crusader John Bolton.