Obama team careful in Sudan minefield

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, center, attends a graduation ceremony at an air force academy near Khartoum, Sudan, Wednesday, March 4, 2009. (AP Photo/Abd Raouf)

by Frank James

It was about as straightforward as a question can get: does President Barack Obama support the arrest warrant against Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir issued by the International Criminal Court for the inhumanity visited upon civilians in the Darfur region.

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibb's answer was, at best, bent. He didn't say yes; he didn't say no.

Here's his exchange with a reporter:

Q Does the President support the arrest warrant issued today against President Bashir of Sudan? And how is the administration planning for the possibility of retaliation as a result of this against Darfurians, a possible collapse of the peace in the south, and international workers in Sudan?

MR. GIBBS: Let me -- without getting specifically into this, the White House believes that those who have committed atrocities should be held accountable; that as this process moves forward, that we would urge restraint on the part of all parties, including the government of Sudan; that further violence against civilian Sudanese or foreign interests is to be avoided and won't be tolerated. The President and this White House are determined to support the pursuit of an immediate cease-fire and long-term peace in the region. Obviously there are many efforts that are ongoing in the region to help those that have been displaced, and the President believes those efforts should and must continue.

Q So he does support the ICC's --

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to go farther than what I just said.

The ICC's arrest warrant was historic in that it was the first against a sitting head of state. And since he has presided over the victimization of tens of thousands of people in Darfur, Bashir seems to many to have legitimately earned this dubious honor.

But it was pretty clear from the White House response the decision was made to say as little as possible so as not to antagonize Bashir since that could result in Americans, Western aid workers and innocent civilians in Darfur incurring Bashir's wrath. Not that it won't happen anyway. But the Obama Administration clearly didn't want to give Bashir and his allies one more reason to lash out.

Such concerns weren't misplaced. Bashir greeted reports of the indictment with defiance, telling the jurists at the ICC that they could "eat" the indictment.

Gordon Duguid, the State Department briefer, also stayed away from directly commenting on Bashir's indictment by the court at the Hague. But through his answer to reporters' questions, it was evident that U.S. policymakers were aiming at not inflaming the situation.

Here's a transcript of Duguid's briefing. Note how careful Duguid is, like a a surgeon working around a delicate organ:

MR. DUGUID: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to read a statement to begin this morning's briefing.

"The United States is strongly committed to the pursuit of peace in Sudan and believes those who have committed atrocities should be held accountable for their crimes. We urge the government of Sudan, armed rebel groups and all other concerned parties to exercise restraint in responding to the ICC arrest warrant that was issued today and to ensure the safety and security of vulnerable Sudanese populations, international civilians and peacekeepers on the ground.

"The United States will continue to support efforts to ease the suffering of the Sudanese people and to promote a just and durable peace.

"We remain committed to the full implementation of the comprehensive peace agreement that brought an end to the conflict between north and south Sudan.

"We will also continue to support the U.N.-AU mediator Basoli's efforts to achieve a permanent cessation of hostilities and a political settlement that will end the humanitarian crisis and bring a lasting peace to Darfur."

With that, I shall take your questions.

Q Are there any American personnel still in Darfur? What's the situation at the embassy? Are there any concerns that even though you're not a member of the ICC, that there might be some kind of a disturbance around your facilities?

MR. DUGUID: I checked just before coming out, so my information is as recent as I could have it, that the embassy was open and functioning, that all American citizens were safe and accounted for. There had been protests in Khartoum, but there has been no violence that I am aware of at this particular point.

Q And in terms of Americans who might be in Darfur --

MR. DUGUID: In Darfur, I'll have to check on that for you. I don't have those particular figures, if we have anybody on the ground at the moment.

Q Apparently all of the international NGOs have been called in and asked to leave. Do you have anything on that?

MR. DUGUID: I don't. That would be something that the U.N. perhaps had organized. I don't have any information on it. Our embassy is, as I said, open, and our people are at work.

Yes?

Q Since the United States is not a signatory to the ICC, if for some reason President Bashir were to be on U.S. soil, would the U.S. be under any obligation to arrest him and turn him over to international authorities?

MR. DUGUID: That's a speculative question. I don't expect President Bashir to be here any time soon, so I'll defer that question until that actually happens.

Q Well, it's not a speculative question. Forget about Bashir. If the ICC issues an arrest warrant for someone who then turns up on U.S. soil, what's --

MR. DUGUID: The United States expects all parties to the conflicting Darfur to cooperate fully with the ICC and its prosecutor as called upon by the relevant U.N. Security Council resolution.

The question of whether or not someone charged by the ICC shows up on U.S. soil, what is the U.S. response for that, I'll have to ask our lawyers to provide me with a -- (an answer ?).

Q Can you? Because I don't know if there is any obligation at all, but it's not incredibly hypothetical to think that Bashir might come to the United States. I mean, a lot of world leaders go to the U.N.

MR. DUGUID: The U.N. would be a different case, as the diplomatic organization there --

Q They would have -- they would have to land at an airport on U.S. soil.

MR. DUGUID: They also have special arrangements for them. Let's ask the lawyers to get us an answer on this so we're not speculating.

Yes.

Q I heard you in your statements that you remain committed to the process, but I didn't hear you say that you welcomed this step by the ICC. Can you say whether you do or not?

MR. DUGUID: Well, what the United States does is we expect all parties in Darfur to cooperate with this. We want to see an end to the violence in Darfur. We want to see an end to the violence in Sudan. And we want to see those who have committed atrocities held accountable for their actions and their crimes.

Q But would you count President Bashir among those?

MR. DUGUID: We would refer you to what the ICC has said, what the international community said, what we have supported in the U.N. on Sudan. And it is evident that the government of Sudan has the brunt of the responsibility for what has happened in Darfur, and he is the head of that government.

Q So you would welcome President Bashir being taken to The Hague and put on trial?

MR. DUGUID: We would welcome an end to the conflict and violence in Darfur and a peaceful resolution to the differences between the conflicting parties.

Q So is this a helpful step, then, for --

MR. DUGUID: This is a -- this is -- can be a helpful step. We will see how it proceeds from here.

Q What is the status, though, of U.S. -- of diplomatic contact with President Bashir at all?

Do you still -- obviously you still recognize him as the head of state, but you know, will U.S. diplomats meet with Bashir if the opportunity arises?

MR. DUGUID: We already carefully consider contact with the Sudanese government officials, based on a need to try and help resolve the crisis. For example, the United States does not maintain full diplomatic relations with Sudan. We only have a charge in place at the embassy.

But because we take the court's actions very seriously, any official contacts with President Bashir would have to be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis, very mindful of the indictment.

Q Well, I know this is a new administration, but the Bush administration had called the atrocities in Darfur "genocide" and --

MR. DUGUID: And I think you'll find that Ambassador Rice did so just a few moments ago in the U.N.

Q Okay. So I mean, if you could -- you know, just to pick up where Kirit was about whether you welcome this decision, and what cooperation did the United States have with the court in providing information to get the indictment?

MR. DUGUID: This was taken by the ICC, to which we are not party and not signatory. Therefore, I am stating what our position is. Things that then run from the ICC's own train of events I have to refer you to the ICC.

Q Well, but I mean, were you -- did you cooperate with the court? Did you provide the court information? You've always said that even though you're not a party to the court, you can still cooperate with the court on --

MR. DUGUID: I'm not at liberty to discuss whatever diplomatic communication we may have had with the court. We do see this as a step that the Sudanese government should take seriously and respond to in a positive manner in order to try and end the violence in Darfur.

Yes?

Q And whether or not you cooperate with the court, do the -- does the United States have independent evidence that Bashir and his aides have committed war crimes?

MR. DUGUID: As it's now a matter for a court, I think I should refrain from making a statement on what might influence that court's decisions.