Sudan's Bashir cancels plan to attend U.N. assembly: U.N. official

UNITED NATIONS Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:23am EDT

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir addresses a crowd in North Khartoum, June 8, 2013. REUTERS/Stringer

President Omar Hassan al-Bashir addresses a crowd in North Khartoum, June 8, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Stringer

Related Topics

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir will not attend the U.N. General Assembly, a U.N. official said on Thursday, as the Sudanese leader faced protests over fuel subsidy cuts at home.

Despite an outstanding warrant for his arrest from the International Criminal Court, Bashir had said on Sunday he planned to attend the U.N. General Assembly and had already booked a hotel in New York.

Protests broke out in Khartoum and other Sudanese cities over higher fuel prices on Monday. Six people were killed on Wednesday during clashes with security forces and Sudan's internet was cut off on the third day of unrest.

A U.N. official told Reuters by email Bashir would not after all be coming to New York, giving no further details.

Washington has led calls for Bashir to face international justice over bloodshed in the now decade-old conflict in Sudan's Darfur region and the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. had previously called Bashir's intention to travel to New York "deplorable".

A U.S. official had said on Wednesday that a decision on Bashir's visa request had not yet been made.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; Writing by Alexander Dziadosz; editing by Patrick Graham)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
Arnleif wrote:
I am sure the US call for Bashir to face “international justice” do not involve the international criminal court ICC.

The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. By May 2002, the Bush Administration “unsigned” the Rome Satute. The U.S. threatened to use military force if US. nationals were held at the Hague and continued the effort to pressure many countries to sign agreements not to surrender US. citizens to the ICC. The Obama administration has as their predecessors publicly stated that US officials can not be charged with genocide.

In November 2007, French prosecutors refused to press charges against former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for torture and other alleged crimes committed during the course of the US invasion of Iraq, on the grounds that heads of state enjoyed official immunity under customary international law, and they further claimed that the immunity exists after the official has left office…

The US is a state that has since 2000 engaged and participated in numerous wars and dozens of covert military operations. A state which it takes literally an hour just to read up the dates of all its military operations conducted without UN authorization. This is a state that calls for someone else to face “international justice”?

Why not the South Sudan, they both have committed the same crimes. Well, the oblivious reason is that South Sudan is under US protection from genocide charges, which is just one of a long list.

The even longer list, are the charges of international crimes committed by countries like US, Britain and France put forward by all the victims of these countries countless military operations in the recent decades. These charges are simply dismissed and ignored by the western countries, because they consider them self above international law. The fact to the mater is that the western countries with the US in lead, is the power center in a world ruled not by justice, but by force and power.

If China were to call for Israel to face “international justice”, then it would probably not be radical to assume that Reuters among most western media would reticule it, and be quick to point out that China have not signed the ICC agreements. Of course nor have Israel.

What kind of educated person takes a call from the US for someone to face “international justice” serious? A indoctrinated educated person?

Sep 26, 2013 6:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Pictures