|
New Page 3
Positioning for Security Council seat
TONY OKERAFOR
DURING their
recent appearance at the session of the 194 - member U.N. General Assembly in
New York, some African heads of state and government who spoke on the occasion
made what one might call grumbling noises about the need to give the continent
one of the proposed permanent seats on the organisation�s Security Council.
Among the lot of Africa�s leaders who had
come forward to air some view on the issue were the likes of Nigeria�s President
Olusegun Obasanjo, Senegal�s Abdoulayi Wadde and of course, President Thabo
Mbeki of South Africa.
A few weeks since the United Nations�
member states had their presidents, prime ministers, kings and representatives
interact and argue on this and other issues of global importance, the debate
still lingers on, and probably won�t recede, until the commission which the U.N.
Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has set up to look into the subject comes forward
with its recommendations. In fact, the ongoing debates about how many new
members should be added to the Security Council simply won�t end, until, of
course, the very same issues of who has actually come to occupy her seat among
the permanent member-nations has been practicalised.
As was the case back in 1997, Africa is
more than desirous not to be left out. As such, the problem is no longer as to
whether Africa wants to be added to the already known list, which also includes,
and perhaps not exhaustively, the likes of Japan, Germany, India and Brazil. The
real question is this: Will Africa eventually get to be allocated one of the
permanent seats? If the answer is "Yes", then, the follow-up question is: By
what criteria? But, if the answer should be "No", then, we might need to be
clear about a number of other issues, including why there might be doubts about
the continent�s eligibility to be so represented on the most powerful
international institution on earth.
Only a week ago, the minister of
information and national orientation, Chukwuemeka Chikelu, came out once more in
the open to call for Nigeria to be given the one permanent seat which, if at
all, our continent might be allocated when U.N reforms is due to take place.
But, like his boss, President Obasanjo, has severally done in the recent past,
the eloquent information chief had nothing new to back up his case. Even though
he didn�t say it in so many words, but, we all know that one of Nigeria�s
strongest cases is the fact that we�re Africa�s most populous, and to be fair to
this country, Nigeria has responded enthusiastically to virtually every single
U.N peace mission call, from the early 1960�s, when we were granted
independence, to the latest exercises in the likes of Liberia, Cote d�Ivoire and
the Congo Democratic Republic. But, that, it now seems, is neither here nor
there.
Instead, what I think should preoccupy our
leaders right now is to work to convince the rest of the world to support our
bid, and how should we do that? First of all, let�s attempt to clear the main
cobwebs in the African bid. It is this: While we recognise that our continent
needs to be on the council for our voice on global affairs to be stronger and
louder, we must also recognise that the U.N. Security Council, as it is, is and
will remain a body of nations, not a club of the continents. As such, we need
to, and must, remove all those ludicrous suggestions about how Africa can best
be represented on the council; that is, if we want the rest of the international
community to actively support our bid, rather than just paying lip service to
it, until they decide to do their minds� thoughts when we reach the crux of the
matter.
According to Sherlock Holmes, the famous
nineteenth-century detective wizard created by A.C. Doyle, in his book: "The
sign of the four", whenever you�re faced with a problem, "remove all the
impossibilities, and what remains might be the truth". In our own case, I think
we will be doing our council bid a whole world of good if we remove all those
ridiculous suppositions that have been making the rounds since the re-emergence
of the debate. Some people have, for instance, suggested that, rather than
Africa selecting one candidate - country to represent it among the permanent
members, the continent could put forward something resembling a committee or
commission or a single individual person, as opposed to an individual country,
whose decisions or voting pattern at the council will be decided by the A.U. Of
course, I won�t be the only one who has alluded to the abject stupidity of such
a suggestion. No-one will support that, and if it happens to be the sole and
only proposition that our continent can bring up to enhance its bid, there will
not be an African member among the U.N�s veto wielders.
Another suggestion is that African
countries should be allowed to rotate their own permanent membership on the
Security Council. According to the proposal, one African country may occupy the
seat for a one or two-year period, after which another country takes over and
another and another and another, until the cycle is completed. In that way,
every nation on the continent is guaranteed at least one opportunity in half or
full century to exert a veto among the elite group of U.N member-nations.
There are indeed several reasons why every
single member-country of the present group of permanent seat-holders on the
U.N�s power-house won�t even consider such a proposal. What happens, for
example, when it�s the turn of a war-wracked nation, a despotic regime or indeed
a rogue government to take over?
This writer is not by any means suggesting
or insinuating that, come 2010 or 2057 or such other time in the near or distant
future, the African continent wouldn�t have become a much more stable, secure,
democratic or richer place. No! not so. One is only saying, and in this case,
reiterating, that no country, whether from Europe, South America, Africa or
Asia, which is not, as at today in the good books of the five veto-wielders we
have on the present council set-up will make it into the elite club. Short and
simple.
In other words, we have returned, even
though through the backdoor, to the point that we�ve been making all along,
right from the first stanza of this discussion, that permanent seats on the
U.N�s Security Council are what they are - permanent: And as such, those who
find themselves on it, are meant to hold it and not to rotate it. To that
effect, no-one expects that the charter creating the council will be modified or
amended to include any such proposals, which, in any case, is indicative or can
be taken as having emanated from a continent that can�t or won�t see the wisdom
in putting its own house in order.
What are we then left with, as a result?
We�re left with the only real likelihood: Namely, that an African country, among
many or several that have put themselves on the table, will be invited by the
rest to sit on the council. I don�t believe that the U.N will be content to
allow, as some people are calling for, the African Union, A.U, or such other
continental body to take up the unenviable task of selecting or electing one
African country to represent us on the council. However, that is not to say that
any particular African country which finds itself enjoying the backing of the
majority of A.U member-states, whenever and how ever the selection process is
conducted, won�t stand the best chance of succeeding with its bid.
On a final note, let�s try to address the
much more controversial question of who should occupy the single spot which
Africa is likely to get, if things go well. Back in 1997, we had a number of
seemingly high profile bids from countries, such as, Nigeria and South Africa,
followed by Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, and even Ethiopia. The truth is: Not
one of them was a real bid, in the actual sense. Today is a much more serious
scenario. However, one could say, with due respect to both the Nigerian and
South African bids, if that�s what they are, that a country like Egypt, if it
puts its name forward this time around, will definitely win the backing of the
Arab and Moslem World, within or outside of Africa. The Americans, the British,
the Russians and the rest of them on the Security Council will also, most likely
look with some favour upon the Egyptian bid, not just because it�s the most
populous Arab country, but more importantly because Egypt has helped the West
and the rest of the world, if one may say so, by working and acting as a key
voice or force of moderation, and a highly-respected one at that, in the Arab
World. Politically, also, Egypt has been one of the most stable countries in
Africa, the Arab Fraternity and the wider Third World.
But, having said that, I�ll find it hard
not to believe that any African bidder, which include Nigeria and South Africa
is the one with the best chance of going through. Some people are predicting
that it may eventually turn out to be a straight fight between the two
sub-Saharan African countries, and they may well be right.
Given that one is Nigerian, it will be
much easier for anyone to understand, and perhaps be less critical of, my
preference that the seat should go to our country. But, first and foremost, I
think it�s only ideal at this juncture to admonish those who argue that, because
our nation is a land still unable to feed itself, we have no business wanting to
sit among the movers and the shakers of our earth. It�s nonsense! absolute
rubbish! because even the Chinese, by the time Taiwan started representing them
on the Security Council, were nowhere near where they are today, economically
and politically speaking.
In any case, Nigeria is not only the
world�s tenth most populous nation, but, its goodwill, political clouts, plus
its human and material resources, have, especially in recent years, been a
central and positive force behind conflict resolution within and outside the
African continent. Let anyone attempt to contest that. Unlike was the case back
in 1997, our country�s bid should be boosted, not in a small way, by the
new-found democratic credentials - a democracy far larger than any other
throughout the continent.
However, the only real challenge to the
country�s rather high standing will come from South Africa. The fact is, Africa,
if at all, will be given one, not two, permanent seats; and if the African
candidacy has to be decided between both nations, then, you can expect politics,
and a lot of it, to come into play. My worry though is that our government, or
the people who operate it, may lose out ultimately in the dynamics of the game.
Some people are arguing, although not without some justice, that South Africa,
more than we do, can claim to have a much more entrenched democratic set-up. For
now, and perhaps for a long time to come, the multi-racial country, i.e South
Africa, is the most developed economy on the continent. Whether we like it or
not, the political situation there is much more stable, and I�ve often heard
some Western politicians say it, in a clear deference to the South Africans,
that it�s they, not us, who have the best chance of sustaining democracy, the
best chance of staying politically stable and united, and best-placed to impart
more on neighbours, the continent and the wider international community. Maybe,
at the end of the day, it will be boiling down to which of these two African
giants, Nigeria and South Africa, would find the diplomatic resource, and the
goodwill of course, required to garner enough support behind its own bid.
� Concluded.
|
