Friday, December 20, 2019

Anglophone Crisis: the role Sébastien Nadot really plays

I have been reflecting ever since on France's empty chair policy at the Security Council and its consequences, and on its consequences in terms of maneuvers. Well:

1) The USA has held the presidency of the Security Council since December 1, for a term of one month. The mandate therefore ends on January 1, 2020, and we add the holidays that subtract a week. During this important mandate for us, the Cameroon file is shaken by the USA on the table of discussions, and the principle of a resolution requesting a commission of inquiry is put on the table, supported by, England, but also , Belgium, and outside, the Netherlands, etc. Note that January 1, 2020, it will be over, and we will move to another presidency, perhaps and probably other files. Absent France therefore makes real debate impossible, which is obviously a political maneuver. 

2) France, absent during this December session, under the presidency of the USA, will therefore very procedurally be able to simply put other files on the agenda, and we would therefore move on to something else. Only, here comes into play the question of Sebastien Nadot, a question which has not received a written answer as it should in parliamentary procedure in the French National Assembly - and I had the question for a month - and that he asked in plenary as an oral question, in his absolute solitude and in front of the laughter of the people around him, who were doing something else squarely, Assembly which nevertheless has a France-Cameroon Friendship Group itself silent. 

3) What Nadot wants is effectively a commission of inquiry, like the USA, so will France be silent on this question in January 2020 when she occupies her empty chair? The gravity of the US request is clear, and legible, I think, in the results of the Sudan commission of inquiry, which says that it could not determine whether there was genocide in Darfur, and refers to another court to do so: Very specifically to the ICC. In other words, the UN commission of inquiry does not establish if there is genocide, and refers to the ICC to establish if acts of genocide were committed by members of the government and others, and this 'on a case-by-case basis' - it is written in the text of the UN Sudan commission! 'We have case by case basis.

4) The UN does not decide whether there is genocide or not, it is not its statutory function, but that of a court - the ICC, 'on a case-by-case basis.' It makes sense. In this case, Sebastien Nadot is either a) closing the exit door from France and therefore making his empty chair policy at the Security Council with passage to something else from January 1, 2020 impossible, or else b ) to give France an honorable way out in this bloody case, by allowing it to respond therefore in January with the approval of a commission of inquiry into Cameroon, which enabled a commission to do its work, as in Sudan for example to establish that there is no genocide, and, as in Sudan yet, to refer for case by case of genocidal acts, to the ICC.