|
The world at the mercy of a cunning fox
Political Editor Munyaradzi Huni
DEVELOPMENTS that took place
in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, last week when African leaders met during
the extraordinary African Union Summit were sad and unfortunate, but expected.
Cry Africa, cry!
After agreeing just last month to push for the United
Nations Security Council to be expanded to 26 seats, with six new permanent
veto-wielding seats, of which two would be reserved for Africa; and five new
non-permanent seats, of which two would also be for Africa, African leaders were
confronted with a new scenario in Addis Ababa.
Some African countries
had entered into a compromise deal with the Group of Four, comprising Brazil,
Germany, India and Japan, for Africa to drop its demand for veto power. The G4
has also been lobbying for permanent seats on the Council.
Due to this
compromise deal, Africa is definitely not going to speak with one voice when the
time to discuss UN reforms comes although the compromise deal was rejected.
It really was a sad development, but this is what Africa has become. The
continent has become so cheap that within a month, money changes hands, oil
changes hands, diamonds change hands and before Africa gets to the bottom of the
story, the enemy sneaks in and causes havoc.
There is more bad news on
the way. Reports say Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa are the leading candidates
for the two seats that Africa hopes to get on the Council, but other reports say
Angola, Kenya and Algeria are not happy with the three leading candidates.
Of course, democracy allows each and every country to nominate
candidates of its choice, but knowing Africa, such divisions are avenues for the
enemy to sneak in.
The bad news doesn’t end there. The US has already
rejected a draft resolution for the radical changes to the Security Council.
Reports say the US has already concluded that the UN General Assembly is too
divided on the issue to vote for such a move.
And now hear this. China,
yes, China has agreed to work with the US to block the plan to add new permanent
members to the Council. China’s ambassador to the UN, Wang Guangya, is not
making their deal with the US a secret.
The ambassador says China is
against Japan’s move to get a permanent seat on the Council as his country
prefers seeing more developing countries on the Council.
On the other
hand, the US supports Japan’s bid, but only wants "two or so" additions to the
Council. This is quite an interesting scenario that is set to cause serious
problems when the UN meets in September to consider the reforms.
Whatever happens, Africa should get what it wants and for that to happen
events that took place in Addis Ababa should be avoided at all costs.
But can Africa ever be united? Can the African Union ever speak with one
voice? Who controls the African Union, anyway?
The answers to these
questions paint a grim picture. The situation that Africa is in is just too
delicate and too precarious. Let’s rewind a bit.
When the Darfur crisis
in Sudan erupted, the African Union was in a dilemma. There was no money to fund
the peacekeeping forces that were supposed to be sent to Sudan. The UN
Secretary- General, Mr Kofi Annan, almost lost his voice appealing for
well-wishers to donate money to the AU.
Nigeria, Tanzania and Botswana
had pledged to provide troops to the AU while South Africa had agreed to provide
logistical support, but there were no funds to pay the troops that would be
deployed in Darfur.
And guess who came to the African Union’s rescue —
it’s the European Union that provided US$125 million and the US that provided
US$300 million. Never mind that the majority of wars in Africa are caused by the
West in search of the continent’s oil, land and minerals.
The story here
is that the AU got financial assistance from the EU and the US. Now the big
questions is — if the African Union can’t fund its operations and it gets money
from organisations or countries that are also the sources of Africa’s problems,
is it an independent Union?
And if the African Union relies on begging,
should anyone be surprised by developments that took place in Ethiopia? And does
anyone expect Africa to speak with one voice when the UN reforms are debated?
Maybe I am too pessimistic but the situation is not looking good for the AU and
Africa.
After making Africa poor, the cunning foxes in the West are now
going a step further. They are controlling Africa using remote control. They
dangled Nepad and poor Africa is now busy trying to make it appear as if Nepad
is a creation of the AU.
The British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, in
February last year thought of taking things a bit further.
He formed his
own African club that he calls the Commission for Africa that he says is meant
to seek "strong action for a strong and prosperous Africa". Through this
Commission, Mr Blair has made lots of promises to Africa, but the sad reality is
that nothing has changed on the ground.
He has even recruited some
learned African brothers and sisters to this club and these brothers and sisters
are doing a good job for him. Zimbabwe recently had one of the sisters,
Professor Anna Tibaijuka, as its visitors.
The good sister came wearing
the UN cap as the special envoy of Mr Annan and just as her real master, Mr
Blair, had ordered, she produced a report condemning the country’s Operation
Restore Order.
For those who thought the good sister was here by
accident, here is what may dispel the notion. After having it too good in
Blair’s Commission, Prof Tibaijuka had this to say about her master: "I think of
Prime Minister Blair as an activist, and a friend of Africans — especially as he
is keen to make 2005 the Year of Africa."
Make whatever conclusions from
her statement.
But the issue of this African sister, who has crossed the
floor and was brought here under the UN, raises interesting questions. Did she
come to Zimbabwe under the UN or under the UK or the US?
If she came
under the UK and the US, as her report clearly shows, who is the UN? Who
controls the UN and to whose benefit?
Maybe figures may assist in
getting a clear understanding of how things are run at the UN.
According
to the 2002 UN budget, these are the top 10 contributors to the international
body:
Country Contribution Percentage to budget
US US$283,1
million 22,0 percent
Japan U$218,4 million 19,7 percent
Germany
US$109,3 million 10,0 percent
France US$72,4 million 6,5 percent
UK US$62 million 5,6 percent
Italy US$56,7 million 5,0 percent
Canada US$28,6 million 2,5 percent
Spain US$28,2 million 2,3
percent
Brazil US$23,2 million 2,0 percent
Republic of Korea
US$20,7 million 1,9 percent
Now, if the US contributes about 22 percent
of the total UN budget, what will stop it from invading Iraq without the mandate
of the international body?
What will stop the US from reducing Iraq to
ashes and then after that call the UN to chip in with assistance to rebuild that
same country?
What will stop the US from using the UN to destabilise the
world? To an extent it is true that the US is the UN. Africa should not allow
the US to be the AU.
And it is also true that the UN is a business
venture for the US because statistics show that US companies are consistently
the largest sellers of goods and services to the UN. In 2001, companies from the
US earned US$216 million through procurement done by the UN Headquarters in New
York.
When one country controls global politics, then that’s a recipe
for disaster and the US is doing everything around the world to prove this
point. This is the reason why the UN needs serious reform and this is the reason
why Africa has to speak with one voice. Unfortunately, time is fast running out.
|
