Calls for Security Council reforms deserve support
By Editor
Fri 11 Oct. 2013, 14:00 CAT
Last year, presidents Michael Sata of Zambia and Jacob Zuma of South Africa went to the United Nations general assembly and demanded for Africa to have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. We found their demand justifiable and deserving support.
This year again, the two African presidents have gone to the United Nations general assembly with the same demand but probably in different words.
Stressing the desire for Africa to have two member seats representations at the United Nations Security Council and two non-member seats, President Sata said:
"The United Nations boasts of an all-inclusive multi-lateralism process, but this is obviously lacking when it comes to the Security Council. The effectiveness of this organ should be manifested in its adaptation to the prevailing global realities of international peace and security and the legitimacy realised through an all-inclusive process."
Putting forward his demand this year, President Zuma said: "We cannot remain beholden indefinitely to the will of an unrepresentative minority on most important issues of international peace and security. There has been too much talk about the need for reform, with too little action. We would like to challenge the Assembly today: let us set ourselves the target to celebrate the 70th anniversary of United Nations in 2015 with a reformed, more inclusive, democratic and representative United Nations Security Council."
Like last year, we this year also support the demands of our two presidents and we strongly feel they are justified and deserve support.
But again, as we stated last year, this shouldn't be a substitute for renewing the United Nations system.
A package of measures is needed to renew the United Nations system. The issue of reforming the United Nations, its associated agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions - notably the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund - should be placed firmly on the world agenda, even if there are very different interests and proposals in play.
We hope the North, and in particular the United States, will not be allowed to continue dictating what happens to the United Nations system in the name of efficiency and cost-cutting. We say this because what the world desperately needs are more effective and more democratic international institutions able to play their full part not only in peace-keeping but in managing and developing a more just world economy.
What is at stake is the very nature and direction of the United Nations if it is not to be emasculated, but rather strengthened. The role of the United Nations in the 21st century has to be different, changes are needed.
The United Nations was founded immediately after a terrible war against Nazism, in which unexpected alliances were formed among forces with disparate ideological tendencies, bent on fighting that terrible evil threatening humanity. That war claimed 50 million lives. Several of the main countries at war emerged victorious, and in conjunction with other less powerful nations, they founded this institution.
Actually, nearly all the African countries were colonies or semi-colonies, and the majority of countries who are United Nations members today were not independent either. Now, we are living in a completely new situation. We cannot really speak today of a United Nations system. We do not have a United Nations system. What we actually have is a system of domination over almost every country in the world by a small number of powerful nations, which under the aegis of the United States - the most powerful nation of all - decide everything on our planet.
With so much at stake, it is essential that developing countries, including African countries, now act as the protagonist to change the direction and content of the debate on United Nations reform. What the South was able to do in the 1960s and 1970s in terms of shaping the international debate, inspired in the first place by just very few countries, can and must be done again.
The South also has the proven capacity to exercise intellectual leadership and to provide new directions for the United Nations, both in terms of policies and institutions. Collectively, developing countries have the strength to counter the onslaught on the United Nations and to put forward their own proposals for wide-ranging reforms to strengthen the organisation, so that it becomes a genuinely multilateral and democratic body in the service of all.
The preoccupations of the peoples of the South also find an echo in the concerns of large numbers of people in the North. There are many other common interests between the South and the North and worldwide problems of mutual concern such as financial instability, unemployment and the increasing social disparities and tensions, environmental degradation, HIV and AIDS, drug addiction and narcotics trafficking, inner-city problems and growing delinquency and marginalisation.
Indeed, large sectors of the North's population can also claim that they too suffer from failed development in their own societies, which is also aggravated by the more rapid pace of globalisation.
By taking a clear stand and speaking out on these issues, the South is likely also to mobilise the interest and support of progressive and internationalist opinion in the North, which may in turn be able to exert greater pressure on North governments to take a more positive, forward-looking approach to the matter of United Nations reform.
As Kofi Annan, a former secretary general of the United Nations, once observed, "we all need an effective United Nations - one that reflects the world we live in today and can meet the challenges we will face tomorrow… we are in a new era, we need a new United Nations. Let's make it happen".
It is therefore our collective duty to struggle for the establishment of such a United Nations. And our demands for a better, more just United Nations should not begin and end with Africa getting a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
To achieve this, the unity of all South countries is absolutely necessary. The challenges that we face under the current setup of the United Nations are common to us all, regardless of political concepts, systems of government, philosophical convictions. The approach to these vital questions affecting us and the solutions we seek can and should be shared. We should also rise above the local controversies that sometimes turn us into enemies because of old disputes or intrigues, ambitions or the machinations of the North.
Generally speaking, what we see of the United Nations today are the product of the system of domination and colonial control that subjugated us for centuries. We should therefore struggle tenaciously to promote the closest possible unity among the South countries. We must not allow anybody or anything to divide us.
Reform of the United Nations and its associated agencies and institutions is a prerequisite for our countries' progress.
There is no possible substitute for this world organisation, which includes all states. We therefore need to struggle to increase the prestige, authority and role of the United Nations and its specialised agencies and institutions; to give them our solid support as a majority in the struggle for peace and security of all peoples, for a fair international order and for a solution to the tragic problem of underdevelopment that adversely affects the vast majority of countries.
The existence of such an organisation as the United Nations, with growing solidity, influence and power, is increasingly indispensable for the future of the world.
It is therefore very important that as we demand that Africa has a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, we should not lose sight of the fact that what is most needed and more important is a package of measures to renew the United Nations system. In a reformed United Nations, a permanent seat may not even be necessary because power within the United Nations may be shared and exercised in a totally different way.
Labels: JACOB ZUMA, MICHAEL SATA, SECURITY COUNCIL, UN
Read more...
(TALKZIMBABWE) Nothing to discuss on Zimbabwe: SA tells the UN
This article was written by Our reporter on 13 August, at 13 : 33 PM
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) can no longer exclude the 54 African states, South African International Relations Minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane said on Monday.
“Africans have a very clear position; we are saying there will be no change without us. The 70 percent of the issues that go to the Security Council are about us, so it cannot continue to be without us.”
Nkoana-Mashabane was addressing a joint press briefing with visiting president of the 67th session of the UN General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, in Pretoria.
The former Serbian foreign affairs minister concurred with Nkoana-Mashabane.
Regarding the just-ended elections in Zimbabwe, Jeremic said he would expect an update on the situation from the South African authorities.
“I am sure the situation in Zimbabwe is one of the important things (on the agenda). I don’t know where I can get a better affirmation, outside Zimbabwe, than here in South Africa,” he said.
However, Nkoana-Mashabane said there were no updates on Zimbabwe to update the UN top official about.
“There is absolutely nothing new to discuss on Zimbabwe. The parties that did not win the election have approached the highest court in Zimbabwe.
“We will all wait for the outcome of the court process. All the observer missions have said the elections were peaceful and free. We have already made our own national statement on the elections in Zimbabwe,” she said.
President Jacob Zuma has since congratulated Robert Mugabe on his re-election as president of Zimbabwe following the disputed July 31 polls.
“President Zuma urges all political parties in Zimbabwe to accept the outcome of the elections as election observers reported it to be an expression of the will of the people.
“(He) also encourages the people of Zimbabwe to seize this opportunity to collectively contribute towards building their country driven by a common desire for peace, stability and prosperity,” Zuma said in a statement issued by the department of international relations.
Labels: MAITE NKOANA-MASHABANE, SECURITY COUNCIL, SOUTH AFRICA
Read more...
(NEWZIMBABWE) US fumes after Mugabe compares Gaddafi slaying to Stevens
COMMENT - I'm sorry, however who is sinking to a new low?
(NEWZIMBABWE) US fumes after Mugabe compares Gaddafi slaying to Stevens
On the attack ... Mugabe addressing the UN on Wednesday
27/09/2012 00:00:00
by Sandra Nyaira I VOA
THE United States has accused President Robert Mugabe of "sinking to a new low" by comparing the recent death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens to that of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
President Mugabe opened his address to the UN General Assembly in New York Wednesday by comparing the death of Stevens to that of Gaddafi, killed by Libyan rebels a year ago.
"The death of Gaddafi must be seen in the same tragic manner as the death of Chris Stevens. We condemn both of them," Mugabe told world leaders.
"As we in spirit join the United States in condemning that death, shall the United States also join us in condemning that barbaric death of the Head of State of Libya - Gaddafi? It was a loss, a great loss to Africa, a tragic loss to Africa," he said.
Responding, spokeswoman Erin Pelton for the U.S. mission to the United Nations described Mugabe’s comments as a “ridiculous and abhorrent comparison that we reject in the strongest terms.”
"(Mugabe) cynically chose to compare the best of us with the worst of us, a ridiculous and abhorrent comparison that we reject in the strongest terms," said Pelton.
[Perhaps they will start to condemn the murder of Africans in Libya, which they facilitated. The US Bush Administration has many times more blood on it's hands than the Zimbabwean government accused of, even in the most inflated numbers. - MrK]
"Ambassador Stevens represented the finest of America and spent his life connecting people, not dividing them. Even for President Mugabe, this is a new low."
[Hot air. - MrK]
Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11 in what the United States has called a "terrorist" attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, an eastern Libyan city that was the hub for the Libyan rebel movement that toppled Gaddafi last year with the assistance of NATO air strikes.
In his speech, President Mugabe also joined fellow African leaders in calling for the reform of the United Nations Security Council which he accused of wielding "an insatiable appetite for war".
Mugabe said: "Zimbabwe stands by Africa's demand for two permanent seats complete with a veto, if the veto is to be retained, plus two additional non-permanent seats, as clearly articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration.
"For how long will the international community continue to ignore the aspirations of a whole continent of 54 countries? We shall not be bought-off with empty promises, nor shall we accept some cosmetic tinkering of the Security Council disguised as reform.
"It is indeed a travesty of justice that the African continent, which accounts for almost a third of the membership represented in this august Assembly, has no permanent representation in the Security Council. Is this good governance? Is this democracy? And, is this justice?"
President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria and Jacob Zuma of South Africa also called for immediate reforms at the UN so that Africa can have a say on the international arena.
U.S. spokeswoman Pelton said Mugabe should have taken advantage of his allocated time at the General Assembly to inform the world how he intends to bring Zimbabwe back from the brink after years of what she said was Zanu PF misrule.
Mugabe revealed Wednesday his desire to call for national elections at the end of March 2013.
http://talkzimbabwe.com/video-president-mugabe-addresses-un-67th-session/
Labels: ROBERT MUGABE, SECURITY COUNCIL, UN, WAR CRIMES
Read more...
Text of Zuma's speech at Security Council Debate
12/01/2012 00:00:00
by Jacob Zuma
Speech by South African President Jacob Zuma during the UN Security Summit Debate in New York on January 12, 2012. Zuma slams western powers for bombing Libya and makes a case for a permanent African seat on the UN Security Council
Your Excellency, the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon,
Your Excellencies Ministers and Permanent Representatives,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me take this opportunity to thank you for participating in this important debate on the relationship between the UN and Regional Organisations and in particular the African Union.
Your presence here, Excellencies, bears testimony to the significance you attach to this matter and indeed to the African continent.
Allow me also to express my appreciation to the Secretary General of the UN for his report on this debate.
I would also like to thank him for his personal commitment to the strengthening of the relationship between the UN and the African Union.
When the founders of the United Nations drafted the UN Charter they had the foresight and vision to enshrine in it provisions that encourage cooperation between the UN and Regional Organisations in the maintenance of international peace and security.
More than six decades ago when the Charter was drafted there was no practical example of how this cooperation would be structured and executed.
However, Chapter VIII of the Charter was ground-breaking in that inspite of the fact that there were no Regional Organisations at the time, it provided for flexibility in cases where such regional organisations would be established.
As you are aware, most African countries were still under colonial rule when the United Nations was formed in 1945. Our concerns, issues and voices were not considered.
The absence of African countries at the time of the formation of the UN, is reflected in the fact that not a single African country is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
This is despite the fact that on average, about 70% of agenda items of the UN Security Council concern Africa. It is a huge continent that has 54 member states, representing more than one billion people.
The failure of representation, on a permanent basis, of such a big part of the globe in an important body such as the UN Security Council, points to the necessity and urgency for the fundamental reform of the United Nations Security Council so that it can become more representative and legitimate.
This body, which believes and preaches the culture of democracy and the will of the majority, which is the key element in a democratic system, cannot at the same time, in some of its key and decisive structures, practice something that contradicts the purposes and the principles of its founding Charter.
The African Union, the successor to the OAU, was established a decade ago to coordinate and spearhead the continent's efforts towards development and common security.
Through its peace and security organs, the African Union has contributed immensely to the improvement of peace and security as well as in promoting democracy and the respect for human rights in Africa.
The AU has also sought to give practical meaning to the vision of the UN Charter on cooperation with regional organisations.
Your Excellencies,
We are mindful of the fact that the UN Charter gives the UN Security Council the primary mandate and the responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, including in the African continent.
At the same time, we are of the view that cognisance should be given to the fact that the Chapter encourages cooperation with regional bodies such as the AU in carrying out the UN mandate in line with the spirit of subsidiarity.
It is our view that close cooperation with regional bodies has advantages.
Regional bodies are closer to the situation, are familiar with the issues and often understand the dynamics of the conflict.
Neighbouring countries also often bear the burden and consequences of conflict in their neighbourhood.
It is for this very reason that we support the principle of complementarity between the AU and the UN and their respective Security Councils.
We are pleased with the cooperation that has existed between the AU and the UN since the AU's formation ten years ago. The adoption of Resolution 1809 in particular was a significant development in strengthening our cooperation.
This positive experience has laid a firm foundation for further enhancing and strengthening the strategic relationship between the AU and the UN.
Critical to building a stronger relationship will be to avoid the situation such as that which transpired during the conflict in Libya last year.
As everybody is aware, the AU developed a political roadmap that would have assisted in resolving the political conflict in that country.
The AU's plan was completely ignored in favour of bombing Libya by NATO forces.
The consequences of actions that were carried out in Libya in the name of the UN Security Council have spilled over into other countries in the region. A problem which was confined to one country, Libya, has now grown to be a regional problem.
Your Excellencies it is the view of the AU that the 1973 Resolution of the UN Security Council was largely abused in some specific respects.
The lesson we should draw from the Libyan experience is that greater political coherence and a common vision between the AU and the UN are critical in the resolution of African conflicts.
The views of the African Union must be listened to if we are to strengthen our relationship and prevent further conflict.
We now need the UN, AU and the League of Arab States to work together to assist the Libyan people to resolve the situation they find themselves in.
It is also important that those who implement the decisions of the UN Security Council interpret its decisions correctly.
They should also be held accountable for the actions they take in implementing the Security Council binding mandates.
Unless we take that serious view, the UN Security Council will be undermined and will lose credibility and respect in the eyes of the world.
Excellencies,
Africa can also prosper and stability be maintained if we also avoid what happened during the Cold War. We must never forget to take lessons from history.
As you are aware, a lot of destabilisation and conflict in the continent was condoned and sometimes actively supported by protagonists in the Cold War because the conflict furthered their interests.
This should never be allowed to happen again. Africa must not be a playground for furthering the interests of other regions ever again.
It is important to underline this point so that conflicts in Africa become manageable. They will be manageable if they are not promoted or aided from outside the continent.
Your Excellencies,
We have gained insight and understanding from the experience of cooperation between the AU and the UN in the past decade in addressing matters of peace and security.
Based on this experience we wish to make the following proposals for strengthening the strategic cooperation between the two bodies.
Firstly, we are of the strong view that there is a need for greater strategic political coherence between the two organisations in the resolution, prevention and management of conflicts in Africa.
In this respect the relationship between the UN Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council are of critical significance.
Mechanisms have to be found to avoid duplications and divergent points of departure in terms of the approach.
We therefore believe that we should institutionalise the relationship between the two Councils if our common objective of maintaining international peace and security is to be maintained.
In this regard, aligning our collective policies, strategies and mechanisms for conflict prevention, mediation and resolution in Africa is paramount.
Secondly, we should consider the possibility of developing and defining modalities for cooperation and decision-making between the two institutions.
This will assist in ensuring uniformity, consistency and certainty when the two institutions are pursuing a common objective.
We believe that this proposal will particularly assist in addressing the challenge of how the UNSC reacts to requests, suggestions and proposals by the AU Peace and Security Council.
Thirdly, we are convinced that a clear division of labour will be crucial to the success of the strategic partnership between the two organisations.
This has to take into account the different competencies, capacities and comparative advantages of the two bodies.
Finally, the issue of capacity building and sustainable resource allocations remain a fundamental challenge. This is something that the AU needs to discuss with the UN to explore solutions.
Excellencies,
The African Continent has in the past decade demonstrated sufficiently, the political will and commitment to rid the continent of all conflicts and wars.
We are working hard to move the continent forward to a sustainable path of socio-economic development and prosperity.
We know that we have the support of the UN on that path.
We would once again like to reiterate that for the African Continent, the strengthening of the strategic relationship between the AU and UN is critical if we are to rid our continent of the scourge of conflicts that has scarred Africa for decades.
Excellencies,
Last weekend the African National Congress, the oldest liberation movement in the African continent, celebrated 100 years of existence.
We wish to once again thank the United Nations and its members for the support that they provided to the people of South Africa during the struggle for liberation.
The UN declared apartheid a crime against humanity, and by doing so, put enormous pressure on the apartheid regime and its supporters. On this centenary year, we extend our deepest gratitude to the UN for supporting freedom, peace, human rights and justice in our country.
We also thank the UN Secretary General for the recent High-level Symposium on South Africa's Contribution to the Fight Against Racism and Xenophobia, held here at the UN Headquarters last September.
We pledge to continue our dedication and commitment to human rights, peace, democracy and justice so that the support of countless men and women here at the UN Headquarters can prove to have not been in vain.
In this respect, partnership with the International Community and the United Nations in particular is critical.
Excellencies,
I wish the Council well in this debate.
I thank you.
Labels: JACOB ZUMA, LIBYA, NATO, SECURITY COUNCIL, UN
Read more...
COMMENT - Former President Thabo Mbeki, on the precedent set by the illegal invasion of Libya, and the outright lies told by the likes of Susan Rice to make that happen.
International law and the future of Africa
07/11/2011 00:00:00
by Thabo Mbeki
Adress by the former South African President Thabo Mbeki to the Annual General Meeting of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, Sun City, November 5, 2011:
Chairperson,
Distinguished delegates:
I would like to thank the Law Society of the Northern Provinces for giving me the honour to address its AGM this morning.
As you know, I suffer from the great deficiency that I am not a lawyer. However I took the decision to speak to you on what I consider to be the important subject of “International law and the future of Africa”.
I elected to address this topic because I am convinced that the legal community in our country, such as yourselves, and in Africa as a whole, has an urgent obligation to use its enormous talents to defend the inalienable right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination and thus affirm t he inviolability of an important principle of international law.
I hope that what I will say later will explain why, in all humility, I decided to place this challenge at your feet.
Last year we celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the historic “Declaration on the Granting of independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.
Among other things, the Declaration says:
“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
For the colonised, the Declaration constituted an important step forward in terms of expanding the corpus of international law to the extent that it decreed that “all peoples have the right to self-determination”.
This proposition had been raised earlier in the context of the Second World War, when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston adopted “The Atlantic Charter” in 1941, which served as the precursor to the UN Charter.
In this context they said they “deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world” and went on to say that:
“they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”; and,
“they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.”
And yet the UN Charter which came into force in October 1945 suggested that the colonial powers could continue to hold onto their colonies. This was despite the fact that its Article 1, spells out that one of “The Purposes of the United Nations” is: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…”
In its Article 73 the UN Charter says: “Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end…
“(agree) to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement.”
To this extent the UN Charter gave legitimacy to continued colonial rule, of course with the proviso that the colonial powers would chaperone their wards towards self-government. It is self-evident that this was done at the insistence of the then colonial powers, principally the United Kingdom and France.
To the contrary, the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” made the peremptory determination that:
“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
“Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”
It goes without saying that the eradication of colonialism, apartheid and white minority rule is one of the great and historic achievements of the period since the end of the Second World War.
As an expression of this development, we too, as South Africans, won the rights “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”
I am certain that all of us present here at this AGM, other South Africans and all Africans throughout our Continent, place a high value on these rights and would defend them with our very lives.
Chairperson:
I have spoken as I have because of troubling developments which suggest, ominously, that Africa’s right to self-determination, so unequivocally confirmed in the “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”, and entrenched as an important part of international law, is under threat.
In hindsight, it would seem to me that we made a serious error as Africans when we paid virtually no attention to a particular and pernicious thesis advanced by various individuals in the countries of the North, and specifically the UK, arguing for the re-colonisation of Africa.
In a 2002 article on “The Post-Modern State”, the British diplomat and then adviser to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who now occupies an important position in the EU Commission, Robert Cooper, said that one of the “main characteristics of the post-modern world” is achieving “security (that) is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.”
He went on to say:
“Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment…
“All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth - all of this seems eminently desirable.
“What is needed, then, is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.”
This view was echoed by Bruce Anderson, columnist of The Independent (London), in a June 2, 2003 article, in which he wrote:
"Africa is a beautiful continent, full of potential and attractive people who deserve so much more than the way in which they are forced to live, and die. Yet it is not clear that the continent can generate its own salvation. It may be necessary to devise a form of neo-imperialism, in which Britain, the U.S. and the other beneficent nations would recruit local leaders and give them guidance to move towards free markets, the rule of law and - ultimately - some viable local version of democracy, while removing them from office in the event of backsliding."
On April 19, 2008 The Times (London) published an article by Matthew Parris entitled ‘The new scramble for Africa begins’, in which he said:
“Fifty years ago the decolonisation of Africa began. The next half-century may see the continent recolonised. But the new imperialism will be less benign. Great powers aren't interested in administering wild places any more, still less in settling them: just raping them. Black gangster governments sponsored by self-interested Asian or Western powers could become the central story in 21st-century African history.”
Writing in the New Statesman magazine published on 15 January 2001, another British commentator, Richard Gott, writing to oppose this “new imperialism”, said:
“What Africa really needs, Maier, (in his book This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis), seems to suggest, is the advice of a new generation of foreign missionaries, imbued with the new, secular religion of good governance and human rights. Men such as Maier himself and R W Johnson would fit the bill admirably. Other contemporary witnesses, the innumerable representatives of the non-governmental and humanitarian organisations that clog the airwaves and pollute the outside world's coverage of African affairs with their endless one-sided accounts of tragedy and disaster, echo the same message.
“With the reporting and analysis of today's Africa in the hands of such people, it is not surprising that public opinion is often confused and disarmed when governments embark on neo-colonial interventions. The new missionaries are much like the old ones, an advance guard preparing the way for military and economic conquest.”
I am certain that all of us will not hesitate to denounce these arguments in favour of “a new kind of imperialism”, “a form of neo-imperialism”, “neo-colonial interventions” as constituting a direct and unacceptable challenge to international law, and equally repugnant justification for the repudiation of the solemn “Declaration on the Granting of Independence…”
In the passages we have quoted from his article, Robert Cooper says ‘the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world - a world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth…’
In essence he is arguing that the mighty and powerful should use their might to determine the shape and content of ‘the new world order’, positioning themselves as the global but unelected law-givers, giving practical expression to the undemocratic and brutal principle and practice that ‘might is right’.
As South Africans we waged a protracted and costly struggle among other things to assert the primacy of the rule of law and to establish a law-governed society founded on respect for justice in all its forms. In this regard we sought to liberate ourselves from arbitrary rule and injustice and therefore the ineluctably negative consequences of the implementation of the principle that ‘might is right’.
I am certain that all other genuine liberation struggles elsewhere in Africa also sought to achieve the very same outcomes.
It therefore stands to reason that in our own country we have a fundamental obligation to defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, at the same time as we defend and advance the rule of law, and the attendant justice, in the ordering of the system of international relations, especially as it relates to Africa’s interactions with the rest of the international community.
It is in this context that I have raised the important matter of defending and safeguarding the right of the peoples of Africa to self-determination, and your tasks in this regard, as an important and vibrant segment of our country’s and Continent’s legal community.
On September 14 – 16, 2005, a World Summit Meeting of the UN General Assembly took place at the New York Headquarters of the UN and, inter alia, adopted important decisions about what has come to be known as “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P).
As part of its “Outcome”, the Summit Meeting said:
“Recognising the need for universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at both the national and international levels, we: Reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law, which is essential for peaceful coexistence and cooperation among States.”
What threatens Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is precisely the contemporary disrespect for “the purposes and principles of the (UN) Charter and international law and to an international order based on the rule of law and international law”, directly contrary to the decisions of the 2005 World Summit Meeting.
In the period since the end of the Second World War the world community of nations has built a corpus of international law precisely to avoid the catastrophe of lawlessness imposed by Nazism, which, among other things, led to the criminal murder of six million Jews, the death of twenty million Soviet citizens, and massive destruction of the accumulated wealth of nations.
As you know, in this regard the UN Charter contains important provisions of international law relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. The 2005 World Summit Meeting to which we have referred, which addressed the so-called Right to Protect, expanded the peace-making obligations of the international community.
Article 24 of the UN Charter says: “In discharging these duties (for the maintenance of international peace and security), the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specific powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XII.
“The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration.”
For its part, the 2005 Summit Meeting resolved that:
“The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.”
The critical and essential point I am making is that the UN Security Council understood and accepted that its own actions had to be conducted as prescribed by international law. This relates both to the task to maintain international peace and security as provided for in the UN Charter and the ‘responsibility to protect’ as defined by the 2005 World Summit Meeting.
In other words, the UN Security Council itself could only carry out its work, and demand acceptance of its decisions by the world community of nations, including the General Assembly to which it has to report, if it respected the rule of law and established international law, as these relate to its own decisions and operations.
Part of what has obliged us to ring the alarm bells about the threat to Africa’s hard-won right to self-determination is the concrete reality that in the aftermath of the disappearance of the Soviet Union, and therefore the end of the Cold War, the UN Security Council has been open to abuse with regard to respect for the rule of law and international law in terms of its decisions and actions.
It seems obvious that a few powerful countries seek to turn the Security Council into an instrument in their hands, to be used by them to pursue their selfish interests, determined to behave according to the principle and practice that ‘might is right’.
The outstanding, but not only, exemplar in this regard is what has happened during the greater part of this year relating to Libya.
Before saying anything else about this issue, I must state this categorically that those who have sought to manufacture a particular outcome out of the conflict in Libya have propagated a poisonous canard aimed at discrediting African and AU opposition to the Libyan debacle on the basis that the AU and the rest of us had been bought by Colonel Gadaffi with petro-dollars, and therefore felt obliged to defend his continued misrule.
For example, as part of this offensive, relying on all known means of disinformation, the argument is advanced that Gadaffi’s Libya had supported the ANC during the difficult struggle to defeat the apartheid regime.
The incontrovertible fact is that during this whole period, Libya did not give the ANC even one cent, did not train even one of our military combatants, and did not supply us with even one bullet. This is because Gadaffi’s Libya made the determination that the ANC was little more than an instrument of Zionist Israel, because we had among our leaders such outstanding patriots as the late Joe Slovo.
Libya came to extend assistance to the ANC after 1990, when it realised that the ANC was a genuine representative of the overwhelming majority of our people.
Similarly, the false assertion has been made that the AU depended on Libyan money to ensure its survival. This is yet another fabrication.
The UN Security Council adopted the infamous Resolution 1973 on Libya on March 17, which imposed a ‘no-fly zone’ and authorised various Member States (NATO) “to take all necessary measures…to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya…”
The Resolution said nothing about ‘regime change’. However the fact of the matter is that the NATO actions had everything to do with the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
And indeed in a 15 April, 2011 joint letter, Presidents Obama and Sarkozy and Prime Minister Cameron had openly declared their intention to achieve this goal.
In this letter they said: “Our duty and our mandate under Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Gaddafi by force.”
And yet in the same letter they said: “But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Gadaffi in power…There is a pathway to peace that promises new hope for the people of Libya: a future without Gaddafi…Colonel Gadaffi must go, and go for good.”
And indeed, as leaders of NATO they ensured that this objective was achieved, directly contrary to what the Security Council Resolution said. And yet the UN Security Council has said nothing about what was a clear violation of international law.
A week before Resolution 1973 was approved, the AU Peace and Security Council adopted a roadmap for the negotiated resolution of the conflict in Libya and conveyed this to the UN Security Council, as prescribed under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.
To all intents and purposes the Security Council ignored the AU decision and later blocked the AU Panel on Libya from flying into the country to begin the process of mediating a peaceful resolution of the conflict in that country.
This was despite the fact that Resolution 1973 itself said the Security Council supports the “efforts (of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General) to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis” in Libya.
The Resolution also noted the decision of the AU PSC “to send its ad-hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution.”
Libya is an African country. In addition to this, in terms of international peace and security, the conflict in that country has impacted and will continue to impact directly and negatively on a number of African countries.
Despite this, the Security Council, in violation of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, which provides for cooperation between the Security Council and regional bodies, chose completely to ignore the African Union, preferring to accord a Chapter VIII status to the League of Arab States, simply because the League had called for the establishment of a ‘no-fly zone’.
Resolutions 1970 and 1973 of the Security Council imposed an arms embargo on Libya. The latter Resolution also specifically excluded “a foreign occupation of any form or any part of Libyan territory” and deplored and demanded an end to what it called “the continuing flow of mercenaries” into Libya.
And yet it is now known that Member States involved in the NATO operation sent weapons to the NTC rebel forces and deployed military and other personnel inside Libya to support these forces.
Again this was in violation of international law, and yet the UN Security Council did nothing to stop it.
The armed uprising in Libya started one week after the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations. This can only mean that preparations had taken place before hand to effect a military uprising. In its resolutions the Security Council says nothing about this.
In this regard, in a Report on Libya issued on June 6 this year, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said:
“Much Western media coverage has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the (Libyan) regime’s security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no real security challenge. This version would appear to ignore evidence that the protest movement exhibited a violent aspect from very early on…
“Likewise, there are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything remotely warranting use of the term “genocide”. That said, the repression was real enough, and its brutality shocked even Libyans. It may also have backfired, prompting a growing number of people to take to the streets.”
It is clear that the beginning of the peaceful demonstrations in Libya served as a signal to various Western countries to intervene to effect ‘regime change’, as clearly explained by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron in the joint letter we have cited.
These countries then used the Security Council to authorise their intervention under the guise of the so-called ‘right-to-protect’.
Thus the ‘right-to-protect’ was abused and international law was violated to enable some of the major world powers to help determine the future of an African country. In this context all measures were taken to deny our Continent the possibility to help resolve the Libyan conflict without the death of many people and the massive destruction of property, and on the basis of the democratic transformation of that country.
It is clear to many on our Continent that what has happened in Libya has established a very dangerous precedent. The question has therefore been raised – which African country will be next?
As Africans we have a continuing responsibility to protect our right to self-determination as well as a duty to work together to resolve our problems, fully cognisant of the inter-dependence of our countries and the fact that we share a common destiny.
In this regard, to protect that right to self-determination, it seems obvious that we must engage in a sustained struggle to ensure respect for international law and the rule of law in the system of international relations. This must include ensuring that the UN Security Council itself respects international law, which prescribes the rule of law.
I therefore return to the appeal I made at the beginning, that you should use your considerable talents to join this struggle so that indeed, as Africans, we have the possibility “freely (to) determine (our) political status and freely (to) pursue (our) economic, social and cultural development.”
I hope that you will find some space in your busy schedules to reflect and act on this important matter.
Thank you.
Labels: COLONIALISM, GLOBALISATION, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS REPORT GROUP, LIBYA, NEOCOLONIALISM, SECURITY COUNCIL, THABO MBEKI, UN
Read more...
Call for UN Security Council reform
Wednesday, 26 October 2011 00:00
Herald Reporters
FOREIGN Affairs Minister Simbarashe Mumbengegwi yesterday called for the urgent reform of the United Nations Security Council to make it more democratic and accountable to the 194 member states that constitute the UN General Assembly.
Speaking at the 66th anniversary of the United Nations, Minister Mumbengegwi said Zimbabwe, Africa and the rest of the developing world were clamouring for reform of the UN system.
"The loudest calls are for the reform of the UN Security Council. The UN Charter provides it with the important role of maintaining international peace and security. Its decisions under Chapter V11 of the charter are binding on all UN member states. Yet its composition and methods of work are extremely opaque and undemocratic," he said.
Minister Mumbengegwi said although Africa was the largest single group at the United Nations, it had no representation among the veto power-wielding members of the UN Security Council. On the contrary a number of small countries in Europe wielded the veto power in the Security Council, he said.
"There is absolutely no justification for this injustice. We have noted with great concern how these same countries have consistently abused this important institution to settle bilateral political scores, which have no bearing whatsoever to international peace and security," Minister Mumbengegwi said.
He said the Libyan situation represented another gross abuse of the UN Security Council. Resolution 1973 was passed to protect civilians but in the hands of Nato and the Western powers, it was turned into an instrument of brutal destruction of lives, property and infrastructure, he said.
Minister Mumbengegwi said the past nine months had witnessed the systematic conquest of Libya by Nato, culminating in their capture and brutal extra judicial killing of the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi last week.
"The same fate befell his children, colleagues and many Libyans in total violation of international law as provided for under the various statutes of the UN," he said.
Additionally, Minister Mumbengegwi said regime change was never provided for in the UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
"The past nine months have demonstrated how a few countries with their air force in the air and their special forces on the ground can easily treat the Security Council and its resolutions with utter contempt and render that important organ of the UN totally impotent.
"Although other important members of the Security Council protested at the abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973, they could do nothing to stop the abuse since any effort to do so would have been vetoed by those in Nato who wield the veto power.
"Remember Iraq? What has happened in Libya must stand as an example to all members of the UN that Chapter V11 resolutions must never be loosely worded to allow a group of greedy countries to destroy member state for their selfish ends," he said.
Minister Mumbengegwi also criticised the dubious methods used by the Western countries to secure the nine votes required to impose Chapter V11 sanctions on Zimbabwe. He, however, thanked China and Russia for their principled stand in casting their double veto to stop a possible catastrophe in Zimbabwe.
Minister Mumbengegwi thanked the UN and its various agencies for carrying out various developmental projects in the country.
He said the UNDP and other UN agencies would always do well since they respected the sovereignty of the countries they operated in.
UN Day is celebrated on the 24th of October every year.
The global theme for this year's celebration is "UN Works for You" and the particular theme for Zimbabwe is "Sustainable Development Towards Achieving the Millennium Development Goals".
Labels: SECURITY COUNCIL, SIMBARASHE MUMBENGEGWI, UN
Read more...
Tsvangirai’s secret UN plan unveiled
Posted by By Brett Mashingaidze at 28 May, at 02 : 26 AM Print
MDC-T leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, this week made a secret visit to the central African state of Gabon. Tsvangirai’s visit, which was not state-sanctioned, was aboard a private jet last week.
There is no active diplomatic connection between Gabon and Zimbabwe, despite the fact that long-serving Gabonese President Omar Bongo, enjoyed cordial relations with President Mugabe – as members of the African Union.
Omar Bongo was succeeded by his son, Ali Bongo, in August 2009, getting formally sworn in on October 16 after resolution to disputed elections. Until now, the last contact between Zimbabwe and Gabon was in 2007 in Portugal, in the context of the EU-Africa Summit when the late President sought Zimbabwe’s support for the candidature of Jean Ping as Chairman of the African Union Commission.
In February 2008, Ping succeeded Alpha Konare as AU Commission Chairman, with the support of Zimbabwe.
Tsvangirai’s visit attracted suspicion as he did not report the outcome of that meeting or its details to Cabinet, but there is speculation that he is trying to ‘buy’ the influence of that country at the UN Security Council.
Gabon, alongside South Africa and Nigeria, represents the African sub-continent in the United Nations Security Council.
Both Gabon and Nigeria won the right to represent Africa in the powerful world body when Libya was President of the General Assembly, but they went on to support Resolution 1973 which legitimised the Nato assault on Libya.
Against this background, the MDC-T leader’s visit there attracted suspicion and concern in Zimbabwe.
Tsvangirai never shared with the media, Cabinet or the Council of Ministers what he visit was for.
That suggests that whatever it is he transacted in Gabon must have been very classified.
GABON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
Tsvangirai’s visit has to be read on the backdrop of Gabon’s membership at the UN Security Council and France’s presidency of that UN body.
France, which is said to be leading the “recolonisation” of Africa, assumed the presidency of the UN Security Council, taking over from Colombia. This presidency lasts one month.
President Nicholas Sarkozy, it has been suggested in Zanu-PF quarters in Zimbabwe, will try and push a UN resolution on sending UN observers and possibly peace-keepers to Zimbabwe at the next elections before that country’s presidency at the UN Security Council is over.
Elections are likely to be held at the end of this year.
A UN Security Council resolution will require the support of non-permanent members, Gabon, Nigeria and South Africa; among others.
Tsvangirai flew from South Africa to Gabon. There is speculation that his next destination will be Nigeria at some point in the coming weeks to lobby this country to support a resolution on the country.
Tsvangira’s offensive in Sadc failed to materialise so he is looking to the UN Security Council for support.
Sadc failed to send him an invite at the last Summit in Windhoek, and all hopes that the Sadc region would censure Zimbabwe crumbled.
Labels: GABON, MORGAN TSVANGIRAI, NEOCOLONIALISM, SECURITY COUNCIL, UN
Read more...
Caesar Zvayi: Libya: Case for UN Security Council reform
Tuesday, 22 March 2011 23:03
There could be no greater call for the reform of the UN system than the West's flagrant violation of international laws in Libya . . . The irony of the rushed involvement in Libya and the blind eye that is turned to the excesses of the Zionist regime in Israel could not be more apparent.
MANY years ago, during the days of slavery and colonial conquest, white settler brigands were a law unto themselves. An indigene could be accused of any crime and promptly lynched by mobs that paid scant regard to due process or human decency.
I need some convincing that this era is really over judging by the West's barbaric bombardment of Libya in clear violation of international law and constructive engagement.
It was evident from the start that the westerners wanted to get into Libya so bad they were just looking for a way to justify their planned lynching of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his people.
They did not have to look further than the United Nations Security Council - their private club - to which lesser mortals are welcome as short-term visitors without much of a say in the deliberations by virtue of lacking the muscle called the veto.
With the notable exception of China and Russia; the other veto-wielding countries Britain, France and the US - the sabre-rattling trio - were eager to taste Libyan blood.
They sought support for a UN Security Council resolution calling for the setting up of a no-fly zone over Libya and hoodwinked the other members of the Security Council that they were only after a no-fly zone to safeguard the lives of civilians they claimed were at the mercy of Gaddafi's war machine.
The resolution, UNSC Resolution 1973 specifically welcomed the appointment of the UN special envoy Abdel-Elah Mohamed Al-Khatib and called for a ceasefire, stressed the need to find a solution to the conflict through the UN envoy, and demanded that the Libyan government fulfil its obligations respecting humanitarian law.
All of which tallied with the position taken by the African Union, through its Peace and Security Council that met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, which proposed the setting up of a panel of African leaders to evaluate the situation in Libya and specifically eschewed western intervention.
Where it mentions the no-fly zone, the UN resolution is quite clear that the secretary general must inform the Security Council of any actions taken in support of the no-fly zone.
The rest of the resolution covers the arms embargo, the asset freeze and the appointment of a panel of experts to monitor the implementation of the resolution and implications for international law.
Nowhere is there a provision for the bombing of Libya.
Armed with that resolution which they intentionally over-extended the three musketeers - Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy - mobilised their airforces to bomb Libya with Ban ki-Moon, the UN secretary general out at sea without a compass so to speak.
What was clear here was that the westerners were determined to venture into Libya at all costs and did not care whether it was with or without a UN-mandate.
They feel they are in charge of the UN and can pretty much do whatever they want as the UN is just a paper tiger they can twist into all kinds of shapes.
There could be no greater call for the reform of the UN system than the West's flagrant violation of international law in Libya. The double standards are quite shocking to say the least.
The westerners felt duty-bound to intervene in Libya on the back of their media reports that Gaddafi was using warplanes on civilians, reports that were probably concocted given the synergy between the western media's editorial policies and Anglo-Saxon foreign policies.
The irony of the rushed involvement in Libya and the blind eye that is turned to the excesses of the Zionist regime in Israel could not be more apparent.
Palestinians have been killed like flies since the Zionist State was established in 1948, ironically the same year the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made and apartheid was declared in occupied South Africa.
No no-fly zone was proposed over Israel when the Zionist regime blockaded Gaza, a blockade that exists to this day at the cost of thousands of lives since 2007.
No no-fly zone was proposed when Israel bombed innocent civilians in Gaza with banned weapons like cluster and phosphorous bombs killing well over 1 000 civilians in 2009.
No no-fly zone was proposed when the Israelis pummelled Gaza and Lebanon despite the fact that the blockade - that covers land, air, and sea - has been criticised by the UN Secretary-General, the UN Human Rights Council and other human rights organisations. The reason is simple, the blockade was officially supported by the US and no one dares stare the bully in the eye because the West controls the levers of noise and power in the UN system which they manipulate for their selfish ends.
If there is one thing the Libyan debacle has shown us it is the urgent need to reform the UN Security Council that is currently used as a private club by the victorious allies of the second Anglo-Saxon war, the so-called World War II.
The only way to stop the abuse of the weak by the militarily strong is to democratise the UN so that all nations great and small become trully equal as espoused by the UN Charter.
Uncle Sam, given his wanton aggression against the weak, has shown that he is not a suitable host for an organisation like the UN sworn to ‘‘saving the world from the scourge of war''.
There is need to move the headquarters to a neutral country like Switzerland that does not even have a standing army.
The developing world needs seats in the Security Council complete with veto powers to checkmate the depredations of the traditional warmongers.
The same goes for the cowardly African Union, the founding fathers of the Organisation of African Unity must be turning in their graves. When will this organisation justify its existence? It risks going the way of the cowardly Arab League the longer it leaves Libya at the mercy of western warmongers.
caesar.zvayi@zimpapers.co.zw
Labels: CAESAR ZVAYI, SECURITY COUNCIL, UN
Read more...
COMMENT - What's the difference between Susan Rice and Condi Rice?
US envoy says UN sanctions should target Gbagbo
ABIDJAN, CôTE D'IVOIRE Jan 10 2011 14:04
The UN Security Council should consider expanding sanctions on Côte d'Ivoire to target Laurent Gbagbo, who has refused to resign as president after a disputed election, the US envoy to the United Nations said on Thursday.
US Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking to reporters after a closed-door council meeting on Sudan, said the United States, European Union and others have imposed travel bans and asset freezes on Gbagbo and those close to him in recent days.
Under pressure
"We think that kind of pressure is warranted given the continued refusal to accept and act on the will of the Ivorian people," she said.
"In the case of the UN, we have a sanctions regime that exists on Cote d'Ivoire and to the extent that this remains stalled, I think we are obliged to look at whether it needs to be augmented and invigorated," Rice added.
"I think it's time to begin to discuss that seriously."
Gbagbo, who has ruled Côte d'Ivoire since 2000, has clung to power and ordered UN forces out of the country. The world body, which has 10 000 soldiers and police in Côte d'Ivoire, rejected Gbagbo's order to leave and called on Wednesday for an extra 1 000 to 2 000 peacekeepers.
The United Nations says Gbagbo's rival Alassane Ouattara won the November 28 election and recognses him as the country's legitimate president. Ggagbo's camp rejects the UN-certified results of the vote and insists Ouattara lost.
Some 210 people have been killed since the dispute started, according to the United Nations, rekindling divisions in the country that have festered since a 2002-03 civil war.
UN Security Council sanctions have been in place since 2004 and include an arms embargo, travel bans, asset freezes and restrictions on the export of Ivorian diamonds to prevent so-called blood diamonds from reaching international markets.
- Reuters
Labels: IVORY COAST, NEOCOLONIALISM, SECURITY COUNCIL, SUSAN RICE
Read more...
Mugabe sounds populist notes at UN
by AFP/Staff Reporter
25/09/2010 00:00:00
PRESIDENT Robert Mugabe has demanded that Africa get permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council. Mugabe told the UN General Assembly on Friday that the continent should be given two permanent seats, which bring the power of veto over resolutions, on the body.
"It is completely unacceptable that Africa remains the only continent without permanent representation in the council. That historical injustice must be corrected," he said.
"We therefore urge member states, including those that have vested interests in maintaining the status quo, to give due and fair consideration to Africa's legitimate demand for two permanent seats, with full powers of veto, plus two additional non-permanent seats.
"Africa's plea for justice cannot continue to be ignored. We all have an obligation to make the council more representative, more democratic and more accountable."
The Security Council currently has just five permanent members - the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. Ten other members are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly, with five replaced every year.
The non-permanent members are chosen by regional groups before being confirmed by the assembly. The African bloc chooses three members; the Latin America and the Caribbean, Asian, and Western European and Others blocs choose two members each; and the Eastern European bloc chooses one member. One delegate from an "Arab country" is chosen alternately from the Asian or African bloc.
Other nations - including Japan, Sierra Leone, Cameroon and Democratic Republic of Congo - have also used the UN General Assembly gathering this week to call for reform of the Security Council.
"No one continent should have an exclusive monopoly over membership of the Security Council. There is no justification for a discriminatory allocation of seats, nor can we debate and endlessly ignore the realities of our rapidly changing global circumstances," Ernest Bai Koroma, Sierra Leone's president, said on Thursday.
Mugabe condemned Western nations on the Security Council as "hypocrites" for wanting to maintain the status quo.
"Why are the developed Western countries, especially those permanent members with the veto, resisting the democratisation of the United Nations organs, especially the Security Council?
"Aren't they the ones who talk glibly about democracy in regard to our developing countries. Or are they sanctimonious hypocrites whose actions contradict their sermons to us?"
Mugabe has come under fire from Western nations over his actions at home. The European Union and the US have imposed financial sanctions on the president and dozens of associates for nearly a decade since a violent re-election campaign.
Mugabe called for an end to sanctions on Zimbabwe in his speech on Friday.
"The people of Zimbabwe should, like every other sovereign state, be left to freely chart their own destiny," he said.
Mugabe also took up populist themes – calling for an end on “ruinous” United States sanctions against Cuba, and demanding that Israel respects UN resolutions on Palestine.
“Every year, this august body adopts a resolution on ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States on Cuba. To this date, that resolution has gone unheeded by the US and the result has been the continued suffering of the people of Cuba,” Mugabe said.
“Zimbabwe joins the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and other well-meaning countries which call for the immediate lifting of this ruinous embargo.”
Zimbabwe, he said, has “concerns” on the continued stalemate in the Middle East peace process.
He added: “It is unacceptable that decades on, peace continues to elude that part of the world. We call upon all parties involved, particularly Israel, to respect the relevant resolutions passed by the United Nations.
“It is our sincere hope that current negotiations underway will be inclusive and eventually lead to the cherished goal of a sovereign state of Palestine, thus ending decades of suffering for the Palestinian people.”
Labels: ROBERT MUGABE, SECURITY COUNCIL, UN
Read more...
‘Security Council reform imperative’
Herald Reporter
The United Nations today commemorates 64 years of existence with Zimbabwe reiterating its calls for the total transformation of the Security Council for the successful implementation of its global mandate of maintaining peace and security.
Speaking at the official UN Day commemorations in Harare yesterday, multilateral affairs head of division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Godfrey Magwenzi, said the organisation was born out of a universally shared necessity to promote and guarantee peace and security across the globe.
"As we celebrate the 64th anniversary of the UN, Zimbabwe — like most developing countries — looks forward with optimism at the on going reforms of the UN systems, specifically the reform of the Security Country.
"The Security Council has manifested several deficiencies under its current composition and methods of work.
"Given the realities and needs of the post-war global situation, it has been deemed unrepresentative and undemocratic, resulting in calls for its reform in particular so it can accommodate marginalised continents, Africa included.
"The reform of the Security Council is imperative to ensure the successful implementation of its global mandate of maintaining international peace and security," he said.
Mr Magwenzi said Zimbabwe stood by the Ezulwini Consensus, which represents Africa’s position on Security Council reform.
"That position is now a matter of public knowledge and essentially seeks two permanent and five non-permanent Security Council seats for Africa."
He said Africa maintained that any reforms should see to it that all permanent members either had or did not have veto power.
Acting UN country representative Dr Peter Salama said the global body was encouraged by the positive developments in Zimbabwe.
"We are being called upon to align ourselves with the priorities of the inclusive Government from the constitutional process to the long-term revitalisation of the social sectors in health, water and sanitation, education, social welfare and agricultural sectors of which Zimbabweans were once rightfully very proud," he said.
Dr Salama restated the UN’s commitment and solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe.
He said Zimbabwe currently stood at a historic crossroads that needed a "bold and effective" UN more than ever.
Labels: SECURITY COUNCIL, UN
Read more...
