Okay, every Nigerian already knows that President Goodluck Jonathan has been extra busy these days. The many places abroad that he visits partly account for this. One of them, Chad, had attracted so much controversy that an aide had to mount a podium to refute “bigots”. But this writer is interested in the trip to the United Nations, as well as an issue he raised while he was on the rostrum.
The UN rostrum has always held an attraction for generations of world leaders. That the world sees and hears them better from this spot is one reason. The rostrum has a way of levelling everyone who uses it though, leaving none in doubt as to who’s in charge. Even the US President, Barack Obama, on his way to the rostrum last September, had to look up to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, high on his exalted seat in order to have a handshake. That time, Nigeria’s leader wasn’t missing in action as had been his practice annually since his days as Acting President early 2010, and each of which trip this writer had commented on. In 2014, enough transpired at the UN gathering to attract one’s interest. Or, what of the angle that being the beginning of UN’s 69th General Assembly, the central theme, “Implementing a Transformative Post-2015 Agenda” has the colour of President Jonathan’s reigning Agenda back home?
While the issue of climate change continues to be at the heart of many world leaders’ speeches, African leaders used the opportunity that the UN gathering afforded to touch on a diverse range of issues including Ebola Virus Disease. And of course the UN platform provides an opportunity for both the loved and the hated to talk and get the world to listen. Well, sometimes the hated also lob missiles, like the former Libyan leader, Moammar Gaddafi, often did to the discomfort of Western nations. Last September however, Zimbabwe’s leader, Robert Mugabe, had the role. This platform where everyone can say what they want makes the UN’s rostrum a most important innovation for promoting peace that man has devised yet. Coming to talk in a situation where enemies may otherwise not hear each other’s voice has been part of the initial thinking. And of course, that the Third World War has yet to break out is evidence that the UN is working.
What African leaders said in the course of this last outing is in focus. Mugabe listed diverse approaches to reaching the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, while he shed light on his country’s recently adopted “economic blueprint,” the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation. He said it’s meant to “reflect local conditions.” So, he recommended support for the ownership of means of production that favours the poor who are in the majority,” after which he questioned economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe: “Why, I ask, should Zimbabweans continue to suffer under the American and British yoke of unjustified and unwarranted illegal sanctions? These evil sanctions violate the fundamental principles of the UN Charter and should be condemned by the international community. We once again call for their immediate and unconditional removal.”
As it turned out, he wasn’t the only person to make radical comments from the rostrum. South Africa’s President, Jacob Zuma, also pledged his support to the Cuban people in their struggle against the US blockade. On the Ebola Virus Disease, Zuma said, “We believe that Ebola would have been contained within a few days had it been an outbreak in the developed world.” Liberian President, Eileen Sirleaf, participating via video link from Monrovia, complained that “partners and friends, based on understandable fear, have ostracised us; shipping and airline services have sanctioned us; and the world has taken some time to fully appreciate and adequately respond to the enormity of our tragedy,” she said, lending credence to South Africa’s accusation. Ghanaian leader, John Mahama, however didn’t accuse anyone but stated that, “Ebola is a problem that belongs to the world because it is a disease that knows no boundaries.” Gabon’s President pledged his continued support for countries stricken by Ebola and criticised the disparity in global reaction to the virus. Never mind that his country recently shut out Nigeria’s Golden Eaglets from coming to Gabon for a football match over fear of Ebola, before CAF intervened. Days later, the same leader sent an envoy to President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja, and the matter was allowed to pass. This writer still wonders why such countries misbehave without Abuja dishing out instant reprisals that would get them to think twice before they get rude to Nigeria. This nation should reciprocate in equal measure on such issues, and let negotiations follow thereafter. It’s the way to earn respect.
Presidents of Madagascar and Tunisia worried about climate change in their own addresses to the UN, enumerating the serious things they had been doing about this back home. As for Nigeria’s leader, he was diverse in the issues he touched. Unlike Mugabe, he wasn’t expected to be radical in his speech, and he didn’t disappoint. He had concentrated on issues that would score Nigeria some high points, instead: “While Africa, and in particular, West Africa battles conflicts and terrorism with progressive results, the region is now being devastated by the outbreak of deadly EVD,” he had said. “While Nigeria was able to respond effectively, to control the spread of the disease, the situation in Liberia and Sierra Leone requires sustainable collective global action to contain. Through the concerted efforts of our health care professionals, the WHO, our international partners, we have been able to contain the EVD and we can confidently say that Nigeria is today Ebola-free.” He got a round of applause on that.
“And let me repeat very clearly, that Nigeria is Ebola-free,” he had added, and a louder round of applause had followed. He didn’t leave out an update on the Boko Haram insurgency, after which he canvassed, as every African leader would, for the reform of the UN Security Council, adding that 2015 is a peculiar year for the UNSC because it will turn 70. “The failure of unanimity of action by the Security Council over pressing challenges to global peace and security in Syria, Iraq, the conflict in Ukraine, the renewed aggression between Israel and Palestine, have strengthened the case for the reform of the Security Council,” he said. So, “today’s challenges can only be resolved by a Security Council whose working method engenders transparency, inclusivity, and common ownership through equitable representation of all regions in the decision making process of the Council.”
“And let me repeat very clearly, that Nigeria is Ebola-free,” he had added, and a louder round of applause had followed. He didn’t leave out an update on the Boko Haram insurgency, after which he canvassed, as every African leader would, for the reform of the UN Security Council, adding that 2015 is a peculiar year for the UNSC because it will turn 70. “The failure of unanimity of action by the Security Council over pressing challenges to global peace and security in Syria, Iraq, the conflict in Ukraine, the renewed aggression between Israel and Palestine, have strengthened the case for the reform of the Security Council,” he said. So, “today’s challenges can only be resolved by a Security Council whose working method engenders transparency, inclusivity, and common ownership through equitable representation of all regions in the decision making process of the Council.”
This last part has always made this writer wonder how Africa would organise itself if the UNSC reforms were to happen. When Africa is offered a permanent seat, which country will get it remains a contentious issue. Nigeria lays claim, and of course it deserves it. South African leadership doesn’t hide its desire too, while the North African Arabs have every justification to stake a claim. Could such unresolved issues in the call for the reform of the UNSC be the reasons why the Big Five countries in the UNSC have been cautious about any major reform of the apparatus? Yes, Presidents Jonathan and Zuma have played down the angle of any contention for the permanent seat between their two countries. But everyone knows it’s there. In any case, it doesn’t look like, with the contemporary global order, the Big Five will simply point to a country and give it the permanent seat. The matter may come down to a wider joint decision in one form or the other.
Nevertheless, unless Nigeria comes up with a magic and beats South Africa on important indexes (what with Nigeria having to buy arms from South Africa?), the manner that country is invited to meetings of world’s big boys while Nigeria is sometimes ignored already shows who’s better favoured. It’s part of the reason this writer feels that with this unresolved rivalry of a seat, a permanent seat for Africa on the Security Council should be given to the Africa Union as a bloc. Then, each region on the continent should produce a country that sits on behalf of the AU on a five-year rotational basis. This means it’s the AU that’s the permanent member of the Security Council, while which country occupies the seat in a five-year cycle is left an internal matter for the continent to concern itself with.
Nevertheless, unless Nigeria comes up with a magic and beats South Africa on important indexes (what with Nigeria having to buy arms from South Africa?), the manner that country is invited to meetings of world’s big boys while Nigeria is sometimes ignored already shows who’s better favoured. It’s part of the reason this writer feels that with this unresolved rivalry of a seat, a permanent seat for Africa on the Security Council should be given to the Africa Union as a bloc. Then, each region on the continent should produce a country that sits on behalf of the AU on a five-year rotational basis. This means it’s the AU that’s the permanent member of the Security Council, while which country occupies the seat in a five-year cycle is left an internal matter for the continent to concern itself with.
No comments:
Post a Comment