adminLovemore Ranga Mataire Senior Features Writer
Commonly referred to as the Ezulwini Consensus, the African Union called for the General Assembly to be strengthened for it to play its proper role as the most representative and democratic body within the UN system and as the parliament of the world.
AFRICAN Heads of State have religiously attended the United Nations General Assembly, mainly because it is the only platform where they can highlight to the world pertinent issues affecting the developing world.
During the decocolonising period in the 1960s, a variety of factors coalesced to give the impression that UN membership facilitated the ability of the first generation of African leaders to assume greater control over their international relations.
Historically, UN membership provided African leaders with an important forum to promote African views on a variety of international issues, such as the decolonisation agenda, opposition to apartheid South Africa, the promotion of socio-economic development, the need for disarmament and attention to regional security.
One of the seminal speeches by an African leader in the early years of African independence was delivered by the then Ethiopian leader Emperor Haile Selassie, who highlighted the need to dismantle racism and colonialism for world peace to be achieved.
In the current epoch, the UN provides a unique forum for high level diplomatic interactions. Financially unable to maintain embassies throughout the continent, let alone throughout the world, African diplomats take advantage of the fact that almost all countries maintain a permanent mission in New York to carry out the daily business of diplomacy.
Besides presenting a unique forum for diplomacy, which in itself enhances better understanding of nations, the presence of UN agencies in most African countries was also perceived as critical to the fulfilment of the development goals, especially during the formative years of independence as the agencies provided a source of hope for the impoverished countries who lacked both the expertise and resources to implement programmes pursued by each of these agencies.
However, the post-Cold War era presented a completely different scenario where a segment of the African leadership and intellectuals began to question the noble existence of the UN its increased involvement in a variety of largely ethnic based conflicts such as in Sierra Leone, Somalia and Rwanda.
The cornerstone of the African sentiment over the UN’s interventionist thrust emanates from the observed actions of certain member states like the United States and other Western nations that seem to take the international body as their poodle and an instrument to perpetuate their own malignant interests. There is an observable trend by the powerful nations to downplay international norms of sovereignty and non-intervention to justify their intrusion into member states by emphasising issues to do with human rights and democracy.
It is within the context of this intrusiveness that most African leaders expressed shock when the then UN secretary general Boutros Boutros Ghali said something to the effect that: “The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed; its theory was never matched by reality.”
African Heads of State felt that the fragility of their new nation-states would not be able to withstand any uninvited militaristic intrusions into their internal affairs especially when such incursions had UN blessings. They strongly felt that regional blocs were better placed to deal with any conflict arising within their sphere of influence. In light of this uninvited intrusion, the African Union came up with a common position on March 8, 2005 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, where they tabled various recommendations regarding the operations of both the General Assembly and the Security Council.
Commonly referred to as the Ezulwini Consensus, the African Union called for the General Assembly to be strengthened for it to play its proper role as the most representative and democratic body within the UN system and as the parliament of the world. The inter-governmental nature of the General Assembly should be preserved to ensure that it remains essentially a forum for inter-governmental dialogue.
The African Union also proposed that measures be undertaken to enhance the effectiveness of the General Assembly, including its role in maintaining international peace and security, and to ensure the implementation of its decisions.
On the Secretariat, the African Union called for a more professional and well-trained Secretariat whose skills and experiences were adapted to the tasks at hand, especially recommendation 96 (e) — the provision that the General Secretariat should be provided with Sixty (60) new posts, or any other number required in critical areas, for the purpose of improving efficiency. Africa expects that a significant number of Africans would be recruited at middle and high managerial levels especially in the peacekeeping and political affairs departments. Africa also proposes the idea of a second deputy Secretary-General as one that may create a new layer of bureaucracy.
On the Security Council, the African Union proposed that since most of Africa was not represented when the organisation was formed in 1945 and also in 1963 when the first reform was effected, it must be noted that Africa is now in a better position to influence reforms by maintaining her unity of purpose especially in the context of the Harare Declaration which has made significant impact on the world community and has thus been fairly reflected in the proposed UN Security Council reforms.
Some of the recommendations contained in the Harare Declaration of 1991 include the fact that Africa must be represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ in matters relating to international peace and security.
In the case of the African bloc, full representation in the Security Council means not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership including the right of veto and five non-permanent seats.
Even though Africa is opposed in principle to the veto, it is of the view that so long as it exists, and as a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council.
It is also proposed that the African Union should be responsible for the selection of Africa’s representatives in the Security Council.
The question of the criteria for the selection of African members of the Security Council should be a matter for the AU to determine, taking into consideration the representative nature and capacity of those chosen.
Africa’s position is informed by the fact that a series of UN sponsored military interventions in Somalia from 1992-1995 serve as one of the most notable examples of the body’s increasingly interventionist role in African politics and society.
At its peak, the UN military operation included over 38 000 troops from 20 countries, and led to the effective occupation of southern and central Somalia. This operation was carried out without any official invitation from any Somali authority; it was not surprising that even the warring parties in that country shared a mutual hatred and suspicion of the UN military operation mainly dominated by the United States.
It seems as though the Americans have learnt very little from the Somali debacle during Operation Restore Hope of 1992 where they incurred serious casualties in one of the fiercest battles. The only lesson they have learnt is to move away from direct and conventional warfare to covet operations as was the case in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya where they were instrumental in fomenting the so-called Arab Spring.
Over the years, it has come to the realisation of most African leaders that the most likely successor to post-colonial sovereignty is neo-liberal vassalage in which Western powers assume direct and open-ended control over their administrations, security and economic policies under the banner of UN and various donors.
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to realise that African interests would not be served in a world governed by the UN proconsuls, US marines and World Bank economists who do not have the slightest appreciation of the socio-political and economic dynamics prevailing in individual African states.
It is also critical to note that from time to time, America has used its veto power in the Security Council and its influential financial muscle to squash any debate or decisions that are at variance with its own national interests.
It is fair to say that most if not all of the world conflicts today from Asia (Russia and Ukraine), the Middle East (Palestine and Israel) and in Africa (the so-called Arab Spring) America has had a hand in them.
In light of these developments, there is clearly adequate groundswell within the international arena for UN member states to call for urgent reform of the world body so that it continues to serve its purpose of maintaining peace and mediating conflicts in the world.
It is also fundamental that member states especially those from Africa must call for the enlargement of the Security Council to reflect the demographic reality prevailing on the continent. Without adequate and fundamental reforms, the UN risks becoming a moribund organisation suspiciously viewed by less powerful nations as nothing but an instrument for bringing into line countries seen to challenge powerful nation’s parochial interests.
Online Reporter