The UN Security Council's Resolution S/RES/1593(2005) of 31 March 2005 referred allegations of humanitarian crimes in the Sudan's region of Darfur to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Many critics inside and outside the Sudan disputed the legitimacy of the Resolution while others hailed its endorsement as a step towards eradication of impunity from the global scene.

In my opinion, the issue is not essentially, whether the perpetrators of crimes in Darfur should be brought to justice or no. The government of the Sudan made it clear from last year that the criminals from Janjaweed, rebel groups or other militia perpetrating crimes in Darfur should face justice. Todate, at least 164 of those are held in custody awaiting justice to be done to them. Among the suspects are security, police and other law enforcement agents. The Sudan government pledged that every perpetrator would find justice in accordance with its valid criminal act. The government also rejected that any Sudanese citizen be brought to be judged outside the country, citing Article 11(2) of ICC which states that "If a State becomes a Party to this Statue after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State..". The Republic of the Sudan is not party to the Statute.

The criticism that many in Sudan and outside voice is that Resolution 1593 has made a very serious precedence by exempting the US from the mandate of the ICC. This precedence can be invoked by any country that has the might not to be prosecuted by ICC. In other words, it seems that only those who are not permanent members to the Security Council are subject to the jurisdiction of ICC, no matter they are parties or not. The ICC, by this definition, is made to deal only with the vulnerable poor third worlders. Unless a country is a protégé of a veto-wielding state, it must be subject to the ICC. For this very reason, the State of Israel is notorious of impunity from the UN with a score of more than 250 resolutions issued by the same Security Council since 1967. The reason for the impunity is that the government of the US is in permanent joint venture with Israel to the extent of utilising its veto power to maintain impunity.

It is a known fact that countries such as North Korea, Cuba and Iran have already been targeted by the US administration in the so-called Axis of Evil. It does not take much ingenuity to know that all of them have political orientations not in line with that of the US.

In the African continent, the Republic of Zimbabwe has been subject to US sanctions for reasons many in Africa believe are not genuinely related to issues of violations of human rights, democracy, transparency or accountability. Many Africanists' thinkers believe Zimbabwe has started a line of liberation thinking and militancy that are not endorsed by Britain or the US. This line of policy targets farmers who are essentially white, holders of British passports and members of Common Wealth. The very act of driving them out of Zimbabwe is reminiscent of the ungraceful exodus of Europeans and Asians who were holders of British passports driven out by the late former President of Uganda, Mr. Idi Amin, in the late seventies.

A country is likely to go away with impunity from resolutions of Security Council, provided that it is not classified as Muslim, Arab and, of course, not declared as politically challenging any of the big 5 - veto-wielding states hegemonic attitudes.

The last Arab and Muslim country to face hammer of resolutions was Syria, where a Security Council resolution requested its army to evacuate Lebanon despite the existence of an official agreement between the two governments authorizing that the Syrian army stay in Lebanon for defensive and security purposes.

Another Muslim country, which domestic politics is not in line with the US and may be susceptible to any penalties through producing resolutions from the Security Council, including referral of their citizens to the ICC, is the Islamic Republic of Iran citing allegations of production of atomic energy. Again, Israel manufactured more than 200 atomic bombs. No questions were raised!

The consequences of the Resolution against Sudan, if it leads to the weakening of the Sudanese state and its power to manage the security crisis in Darfur will be very serious. It is a known fact that Sudan borders nine countries; namely Egypt, Libya, Chad, Central African Republic, DRC, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Eritrea. If you cross the Red Sea, it takes just nine hours by a regular diesel-empowered boat to reach the coastal towns of Saudi Arabia. Also, Somalia and the Red Sea Island of Djibouti are not far away from Sudanese coastal borders.

The nightmare scenario that may visit the region from the weakening of the state in Sudan will influence everyone. Many terrorist groups, banditry, smugglers and traffickers in Egypt and Libya will find it an opportunity to start attacks against these countries and find easy trafficking of light and heavy arms through the wide borders. Chad is known of its bandit and lawless groups that may easily cross the borderline between Sudan, Libya and the Central African Republic. The eastern borders between Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sudan are home for many cross-border tribal communities who share every thing. Only papers classify and identify these peoples as Sudanese, Eritreans or Ethiopians. The conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia may be aggravated in the new environment of lawless and banditry. Warlords and traffickers in weapons will find their feast in the chaos that emanates.

The good thing the international community to do is to support the Sudanese judicial system and to capacitate it to continue bringing suspects of crimes in Darfur to justice. Such specialized courts are not new in the recent history of the Sudan. The country witnessed in the early eighties, in the years of the regime of President Ja'afar Numeiri (1969 – 1985) special courts against highway robbers to fight domestic bandits who regularly rob traders and cattle herders in the region of Darfur. In the early days of the government of the National Salvation of President Omar Al Bashir, which emerged in June 1989, the governor of the region of Darfur was Dr. Attayeb I. Mohamed Kheir, the current advisor to the President Omar Al Bashir. He reactivated the role of these special courts to target the phenomenon of the highway robbery, which was rampant in Darfur at the time. He made very significant successes by building capacity and empowering local conflict resolution mechanisms.

One area that the Sudan government may need to effectively address is involving the traditional tribal conflict resolution mechanism in Darfur. Since both the farming and pastoral communities have their recognized tribal and community leaders who have the experience and the social acceptability to solve such problems, there is no good reason why they are not be involved in the peace process.

In the southern border of the Sudan, Uganda is extending its efforts to comprehensive peace settlement through the mediation of Ms Betty Bigombe to find a resolution to the 18-year old conflict in the northern part of the country with the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) under the leadership of Mr. Joseph Kony. The realization of peace in southern Sudan is a strong catalyst to the peace in Uganda. In order for peace to be realized here, the effective involvement of the Sudan is to be solicited. Sudan has entered into bilateral cross-border security arrangements with Uganda whereby joint forces from the armed forces of both countries may target rebel groups active on the borderline between the two countries. The capacity of the Sudan shall not be weakened in order to perform its peace and security responsibilities towards its southern neighbor. Unfortunately, the provisions of the Security Council Resolution 1593 will not help the country to fully cooperate with Uganda.

Meanwhile, if the rebel groups in Uganda itself are perceived as just a bunch of criminals who have no other reason than to rape, kidnap and enslave, and for such they are just awaiting to be caught to be prosecuted by the ICC, no peaceful resolution to the conflict will be expeditiously reached. This statement shall not be understood as plea for impunity. John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group sees that the current ceasefire proposal with Uganda and the LRA lacks "necessary levels of good faith and confidence". He believes that a comprehensive settlement "should involve security and livelihood guarantees for the LRA"[1]. What is needed here is good timing and careful weighing of benefits and costs. The African conflict resolution techniques shall come from the African unique values and circumstances that African people believe in and live with. Many solutions that may work in Europe or elsewhere may not necessarily work in Africa due to its unique values and different nature of realpolitik.

It may be beneficial to look at the Colombian experience in conflict resolutions, which provides some carrots. The Auto Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) were given guarantees to adhere to peaceful resolution, whereby the rebels demobilize in return of comprehensive amnesty. The experiences in El Salvador and Guatemala can be a good guide for Africa.

The challenge before the AU is to convince the international community that it is serious and can find a resolution to African conflicts. The resolution of the 50-year old conflict in southern Sudan is a good signal. Cote d'Ivoire is following slowly but surely. The Ugandan conflict may follow suit. Therefore, what is required is that the AU be given chance, trust and the necessary needed resources.

From what I gather, the impact of Resolution 1593 on the peaceful resolution of conflict in Sudan, including Darfur, will be as follows: The peace agreements signed in Nairobi on 9 January 2005 between the Sudan government and the SPLM may suffer from hurdles in execution due to the weakening of sovereignty of the government and fragility of its capacity to fully operate in areas of security such as in Darfur.

• The rebel movements in Darfur may find it opportune not to enter into any binding agreements with a government viewed as criminal in line with the said resolution of the Security Council and hence no peace in Darfur.
• Those inside Sudan who are essentially against implementation of the peace agreements in both the South and Darfur may try to exploit the situation for calling for further restrictions on the democratization process underway and by calling for mobilization to forcing peace in Darfur under the pretexts of interference in the internal affairs of the country.
• The belief that the African Union (AU) will help Sudan by finding an African resolution to its problems will be questioned and the Resolution, if applied, would constitute a blow to the credibility of the AU Peace and Security Council, which started dispatching troops into Darfur which mandate is to be extended to include protection of civilians.
• The Resolution constitutes serious marginalization of the AU and hampers its ability to address hard issues in the continent, especially when the Nigerian draft resolution presented before the Security Council, calling for referral of the issue of the crimes in Darfur to the AU organs and to the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, was simply ignored.
• The Resolution casts thick shades of doubt on the UN reformation campaign underway; where many believe that it must start by democratization from top to bottom, not vice versa. Addressing the structure and powers of the Security Council shall be priority. It is important to restrict the use of veto powers to specific issues and to strengthen the role of the General Assembly to be viewed as the Parliament of the World rather than a talking club.
• Many countries, particularly in the third world, may think twice before becoming party to the ICC, citing the sorrowful precedence with the Sudan.
• The peace efforts to find a peaceful comprehensive resolution with the LRA in Uganda may be adversely influenced.
• Regional peace and security may suffer from the vulnerability of the state of the government of the Sudan under the provisions of the Resolution.

In view of this, the African Union has a chance to reassert its role in the African continent by invoking Chapter VIII of the UN Charter (Regional Arrangements) to resist the illegitimacy of the Resolution against an AU member state.

Since Sudan is not party to the ICC, there is no reason that a resolution be carefully tailored to force its citizens to be prosecuted by the ICC. The irony is that the same resolution includes a paragraph exempting from prosecution another country that is notorious of its war crimes and crimes against humanity and of gross disregard to human rights.

The Report of the Secretary General on Darfur, published on 4 March 2005 (Report S/2005/140), stated that: ".. there have been fewer clashes in Darfur between the Government and armed movements in February 2005 than in the previous two months..". This constitutes recognition of the steps taken by the government of the Sudan regarding maintenance of peace and security in Darfur.

What is astonishing is the timing of the Resolution. If circumstances are improving, the international community shall make sure that an end be put to the conflict through peaceful political resolution. There is no guarantee that prosecution before settlement of conflict will be in favor of the hundred of thousand of Darfurians suffering in refugee and displaced camps.

The Resolution is a political settlement between the US and the EU after the rifts caused by the invasion of Iraq rather than a settlement of the conflict. The conflict in Darfur is still there pending a political settlement. The real victims of the Resolution are the people of the Sudan, the African Union, and the Third World. Therefore, the logical response of the AU, its member countries and third worlders in general must involve the will and persistence not to relinquish their ownership to the issue of African conflicts and their resolutions.