|
UN reform debate a power game
By Nelson Chenga
THE worst thing that ever happened to Africa was probably colonialism.
Decades of imperial-rule that subjected the continent to mankind’’s worst slavery condemned Africans to second-class status in a globalising world.
Africa’’s painstaking quest for political and socioeconomic recognition as equal citizens in the so-called global village is ever threatened by the spectre of neo-colonialism.
For instance when the current debate on the reform of the 191-member United Nations gathered momentum, Africa’’s bid for two permanent veto-power wielding seats in the Security Council was eclipsed by a separate bid from a group calling itself the Group of Four, (G4).
The G4 that comprises Brazil, Germany, India and Japan is pushing for four permanent seats in a reformed Security Council.
The G4 propose that the UN Security Council should be expanded from 15 to 25 members, with Africa getting two permanent seats and one non-permanent seat.
The continent would then share one more seat with other developing nations while only one of the permanent seats will have veto power.
But during the African Union (AU) extra-ordinary meetings held in August and early this month (November) in Addis Ababa the majority of African leaders rejected the deal and stuck to their proposal that the UN peace and security organ be expanded to 26 members.
Under the arrangement, Africa would get two permanent veto-wielding seats and two non-permanent seats.
Currently the UN Security Council has five permanent veto-power wielding states and 10 non-permanent members with no veto powers.
The United States of America, Russia, China, Britain and France are the five permanent members of what has become the de facto international legislature and world executive body, though the US always overrides the body’’s mandated status.
But the chance for Africa to rise from the gutter and stand on equal terms with the developed world hangs in the balance.
One crucial question hovers over Africa’’s UN reform proposals: For how long will the Addis Ababa 53-member AU proposal for two veto status seats sustain pressure from within and without Africa?
Each of the G4 members have strong cases to support their bids for seats in the Security Council and they produced a joint statement on the sidelines of the September UN General Assembly meeting in New York.
Reminding the world not to forget Africa, the G4 said: "The Security Council must reflect the realities of the International community in the 21st Century.
"In order for the international community to effectively address the threats and challenges that it presently faces, it is important to reform the UN as a whole."
However, a closer analysis of the G4 members and their reasons for placing bids for the permanent seats in the Security Council reveals that the entire UN reform debate is nothing but a power game.
With all the four bidders claiming to be "natural" candidates for the Security Council their super status credentials completely overshadow poverty-riddled Africa.
Ultimately, Africa, in its entirety could be fighting a losing battle.
For more than a decade now Japan, the world’’s second richest country and the second largest contributor to the UN budget, has been lobbying hard for a permanent seat based on its economic superpower status which makes it a "natural" Security Council contender.
Tokyo’’s bid is even laced with traits of blackmail as the country’’s Liberal Democratic Party even suggested a slash in voluntary support to the UN if Japan fails to get the much-desired seat.
Though viewed with caution by China, intense lobbying in more than 160 UN member states is propelling Japan’’s bid.
The land of the rising sun however faces one challenge.
Its Peace Constitution, drafted after its role in fuelling ‘‘World’’ War II, does not allow it to participate in international civil wars.
If the Japanese bid is accepted, the Peace Constitution has to change.
Germany’’s bid for a Security Council seat is sought as a goodwill gesture for its pro-UN policy and status as the third largest financial contributor to the world body.
But the US has on a number of occasions rebuffed German’’s "natural" bid for a Security Council seat saying an expanded Security Council is not even the UN’’s top priority.
The US has however supported Brazil’’s bid but on the grounds that the Latin American country comes in without veto power.
Brazil is South America’’s largest country in terms of population, economy and land areas making it the "natural" and ideal candidate despite reservations from Mexico and Argentina.
India, a known nuclear power, is the "natural" candidate from Asia because of its size and population, which makes it the world’’s largest democracy and fourth largest economy.
But neighbours Pakistan, long-time foes over Kashmir, are wary of India getting a permanent seat on the Security Council further complicating the joint G4 bid.
However, there is now a whole new twist to the G4 bid. The group has proposed to go into the Security Council without veto rights for 15 years.
The new dimension to the power game naturally places Africa in a very awkward situation after the continent, at the last AU extra-ordinary meeting in Addis Ababa this month, went into the trenches and said its position for full veto seats was non-negotiable.
If all the G4 countries get permanent veto-status seats it means Europe will have three seats, Asia three seats, Americas two and Africa one.
Using the African equation everything virtually remains the same.
Africa, being home to probably the largest number of poverty-stricken, crisis-ridden and economically oppressed people in the world is determined to be heard.
Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi emotionally reminded the rich West when he addressed the July 5th AU summit in Sirte, Libya that "...we are not beggars at the doorsteps of the rich."
But the centuries-long influences of colonial regimes and abject poverty have scarred Africa to the point that it essentially deeply divides the continent.
Cracks in the fragile alliances forged by organisations like the AU are slowly emerging.
The emergence of the G4 has subtly exposed some of the cracks that threaten to downplay Africa’’s genuine need to be heard and recognised as an equal partner in a globalised village.
The G4 factor has seen Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana and Ethiopia breaking ranks to support G4 proposals.
Nigeria says it has dropped the veto rights bid because half a loaf is better than nothing.
"We Africans, in isolation, cannot impose our wish on the 191 members of the UN General Assembly," said Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo.
Faced with a genuine quest to rise out of the quagmire of devastating penury, some countries are in danger of prostituting their nationhood for aid that is normally advanced with conditionalities.
And without any permanent voice in the Security Council that constantly reminds the world of the plight of a quarter of UN members, Africa remains a ‘‘Dark Continent.’’
Meanwhile the African Renaissance is further stifled by bilateral aid that never comes cheap for the poor continent.
Donor countries often attach conditions to their support and the benefactors have naturally swallowed them (conditions) hook line and sinker, whether good or bad.
Multilateral aid from organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, also linked to the world’’s superpowers, is costing developing nations their sovereignty and right to make free choices.
Progressive economists say Africa does not need aid but investment and equal trade opportunities.
The continent simply wants equality and justice to prevail.
This is why Africa requires equal representation on the world body’’s most powerful organ, the Security Council and not token seats as if Africans are less important than the rest of the world.
While the continent has capacity to be an economic powerhouse, its resources are taken away by the rich West mostly in raw form and uneconomically low prices.
African farmers cannot compete with heavily subsidised produce from their western counterparts.
If the UN seats end up jeopardising bilateral and multi-lateral financial and humanitarian support, some African nations may soon backtrack from their stated position.
Back to home
|
