Voting Closes on Friday August 08,2008 08:00:00 (GMT)
Current number of votes:
25
Resolution 017: Should Sudan’s president be arrested on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur?
On July 14 in an unprecedented move, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicted Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity and two counts of murder. It is the first time a sitting head of state has been accused of genocide, the most serious criminal charges any court can bring.
The charges against the Sudanese president stem from the atrocities and violence that have occurred in Darfur. The prosecutor, Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced the indictment, saying Mr. al-Bashir implemented a plan to destroy three main ethinic groups in Darfur, the Fur, the Masalit, and the Zaghawa, to use government soldiers and Arab militias to kill 35,000 “outright”.
Some analysts have predicted that the indictment could pressure Mr. Bashir to move towards peace in the hopes of compelling the UN Security Council to suspend court action, citing that the peace process has otherwise been stalled in the past few months. There is however rising alarm among diplomats that the charges could undermine attempts to find political solutions in Darfur and push Mr. Bashir to jeopardize the vast peacekeeping efforts already taking place in the region. The president of the African Union has warned of a power vacuum and “widespread anarchy” with the passage of the indictment. Recently, 130 non-essential UN civilians were withdrawn because of an increase in violence and an attack against peacekeepers in which seven died and nineteen were wounded.
The Vote: Should Sudan’s president be arrested on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur?
Approve (Yes, he should be arrested)
Reject (No, he should not be arrested)
The text of the resolution in Spanish is available here
The text of the resolution in Portuguese is available here
Resolution 016: Should Israel reopen its border crossing points into Gaza?
On June 19 a ceasefire was brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian group in control of the Gaza Strip. The ceasefire was designed to last six months and to prevent any further escalation of violence between the two sides. The current agreement could be seen as an important stepping-stone toward a more elaborate and long lasting peace treaty.
In violation of the ceasefire, on June 25 the Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad launched a new round of rocket attacks on Israeli territory. Backed by Syria and Iran, the group claims it was retaliating to the Israeli killing of an Islamic Jihad commander in the West Bank city of Nablus. Despite condemning the attack, Hamas has refused to stop local militias from smuggling arms from Egypt, claiming that this is outside its authority as a government. Israel responded by closing its crossing points into Gaza, allowing the passage of diplomats, journalists, and medical supplies into only one of the three previous border points.
Israeli and Hamas authorities claim that the ceasefire is still currently holding, although according to a UN source there have been multiple violations on both sides. Since closing its border, Israel has allowed a delivery of fuel for Gaza’s only power station to cross, but not humanitarian and commercial goods. It states that the crossing points will only be open once the rocket attacks have completely ended, as agreed upon in the treaty. Hamas claims that this act is itself a violation of the agreement.
The Vote: Should Israel reopen its border crossing points into Gaza?
Approve (Israel should open its border crossings)
Reject (Israel should keep its borders closed)
Translation of the resolution into Portuguese is available here
Translation of the resolution into Spanish is available here
Translation of the resolution into Russian is available here
