African Union Seeks Entry Into UNSC

THE pronouncement of the African Union (AU) at its recent heads of state and government summit is indeed a welcome political development but it raises a list of legitimate questions.

The vehicle for unifying the continent and hopefully, linking it to the global economy is the AU created in 1999, and it replaced the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) which had focused on ending colonial rule and apartheid but was ill-equipped to meet contemporary challenges. The AU is loosely modelled on the European Union (EU), and is committed to economic and political integration on African terms.The 53-member African Union made its case clear with regard to the enlargement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).It is time for a global power game.African leaders spoke loud and clear.Give Africa two permanent seats with full privileges including veto power, and add five more non-permanent seats on the world’s elite political platform, the UNSC.African leaders’ common message reinforced the Millennium UN Summit of September 2000 when world leaders called for “rapid reforms and enlargement of Security Council making it more representative, effective and legitimate in the eyes of everyone”.The race for power, influence and realpolitik in the international system is what matters.Africa’s absence in the UNSC is a matter of history.The continent cannot afford to remain behind this time around.These demands confirm Africa’s confidence in the continued existence of the United Nations and that it remains the most logical instrument for peaceful settlement of international conflicts.The primary function of the UNSC is the maintenance of international peace and security.The UNSC is modelled on a cabinet style, making it flexible to meet at any given time.Under the UN charter, each permanent member is entitled to bring before the Council any issue viewed as having potential to threaten international peace and security.Article 99 empowers the UN Secretary General to summon the UNSC membership to discuss any matter within its legal ambit.This article was famously referred to as ‘Psalm 99’ by former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.This privilege provision has been rarely used by successive Secretaries General due to its complex nature.The AU’s bid for seats in the UNSC and its dream of becoming a superpower in the future is probably the greatest single challenge facing the African leadership after the decolonisation of the continent.It is true that the UN as the ‘world’s government’ needs to reflect today’s realities, recognise future complex challenges, align itself so as it remains relevant, and be geared towards answering post-Cold War questions in the international system.The AU demands sound forceful, but what kind of reforms are we talking about? According to what principles and standards are seats to be allocated? The game has started but the rules are not yet known.PAN-AFRICANISM There is still uncertainty and ambiguity on how Africa’s intended Foreign Policy and Diplomacy will be conducted.Dr Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), a great Pan Africanist, laid a clear vision for a united Africa having a strong single continental government to run the affairs on behalf of all Africans.Making his landmark speech on May 24 1963 at the founding conference of the OAU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, he inspired so many African youth at the time and of course the present generation of political leaders.Addressing his counterparts and others gathered at the historical conference, Dr Nkrumah said “We must unite now or perish”, to put it bluntly – Unite now or sink.He went further to propose for the following:- “A committee to be established on behalf of the Heads of State and Government, a permanent body of officials and experts to work out a machinery for the Union Government of Africa.”Most importantly, as a matter of urgency he strongly suggested a Commission to draw up details for a common Foreign Policy and Diplomacy.Today it is not clear yet what has happened to the original ideals of the African founding fathers.Libyan Leader Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, who came to power in a military coup in 1969, tried almost single-handedly to revive Pan-Africanism, a move seen clearly as a deviation from collective leadership.Libya under Colonel Qaddafi has been known for its ardent rejection of colonialism, apartheid and Zionism.Qaddafi’s endless ambitions in the African Union and his commitment to the pursuit of African ideals had produced a mixed reaction amongst his counterparts.A move described in diplomatic circles as unilateral tendency.He therefore launched a vociferous campaign in favour of Pan-Africanism.His desires for the immediate constitution of the United States of Africa – a single continent ruled by a single government, pledging to provide funding, donations and other contributions – have certainly given meaning to ‘chequebook diplomacy’.Colonel Qaddafi’s extraordinary generosity raised suspicion and left many to wonder as to what he was really up to.Libya has pursued an often unpredictable foreign policy with regard to Africa.Over the last three years, Libya has made a dramatic U-turn in a quest to rejoin the greater international community.DIFFICULTIES AHEAD For argument’s sake, if Africa achieves her UN reform demands say by 2008, what foreign policy should the AU adopt towards China, India, Iran, Syria, or the USA? Does it mean the AU Chairman convenes a summit every time an issue crops up needing UNSC consideration and resolutions? Or will AU foreign ministers be summoned from time to time to formulate proposals for consideration by the Union Assembly? This would be a costly and ineffective decision-making policy in the international system.Have we been overtaken by contemporary events? In my view these are fundamental questions Africans want to know in the absence of a single continental government with a common foreign policy as championed by Dr Kwame Nkrumah and other like-minded true heroes of Africa.How is the AU going to deal with such difficult dilemmas? The enlargement of the UNSC to allow distribution of seats to major areas such as Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Europe and America may cause discontent and eventually a new type of international conflict might arise if not properly handled.FINANCIAL CONCERNS The AU’s demands are quite clear.However, how to translate these demands into practice is a different ball game altogether.Becoming a member of the UNSC obviously does not only mean privileges; with it comes enormous cost.Do we have the money? If so, where is the money going to come from? The UN budget is covered by assessment of the member states.The assessment depends in an approximate way on the ability to pay.A large number of UN members pay only the minimum, and together it makes up a small fraction of the total.The sub-Saharan African countries, including South Africa, the largest single geographical group, pay less than 0,6 per cent of the budget, while the stronger and more developed states each pay a substantial fraction.The largest contributors are: US 22%, Japan 19,5%, Germany 9,8%, France 6,5%, UK 5,5%, Italy 5,1%.The question is whether the AU has the financial muscle to bring into the UN and where the money is going to come from.Both Japan and Germany aspire to become major players in the enlarged UNSC, basing their argument on their financial strength.Realpolitik and money talk are at play.’The power of the purse’ is vital in the AU’s bid of becoming an elite member in the UNSC.The AU mediated in the widely publicised Darfur (Sudan) conflict; it received praised for its peace initiative and subsequent intervention but quickly handed over its peacekeeping operation and associated responsibilities to the UN citing financial constraints.If you closely examine the AU’s financial woes in the Darfur conflict, you are left to wonder how soon the AU would be able to put its house in order.One can cite an unending list of OAU/ AU initiatives when the continental organisation went broke before getting the job done.POLITICAL CONCERNS The kind of UN reforms and its likely unpredictable outcome is what
everybody is waiting to hear.Firstly, one needs to explore the Africa/ UN historical relations before unpacking the question of UNSC reforms.Ambassador John Bolton, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who is well known for his tough talk, last year told the UN in no uncertain terms: “reform now or die”.A typically proud American citizen talking with confidence backed up by authority and power.Some theorists expressed fears that such rhetoric signalled the beginning of the ‘Boltonisation’ of the UN.If the UN dies it means an end to his lucrative job, but he appeared less worried about it as he would have taken up a new job in the ‘New World Government’ – the USA.International organisations are widely accused that they appear only to be accountable to diplomats and international lawyers.The UN suffers from the perennial perception that it is answerable primary to its own bureaucracy.Today the US is known as the only superpower and a dominant player in the international system.Surely Bolton was not reflecting the kind of UN reforms Africa hopes to see realised.The US calls for increased UN management accountability and by all means avoiding future Oil-for-food Programme scandals; the US wants tightened senior UN staff accountability as the leading financial contributor to the UN budget.Having learnt hard lessons from the 2003 Iraq War, the US had its international reputation tarnished, although the Bush Administration dismissed complaints that it had invaded Iraq without the express authorisation of the UNSC.The US is also looking at how it can use the UN reforms to push ‘smoothen’ its national agenda through without much hassle.This is, however, not the first time the US has suffered a major blow through UN electoral vote.The UN mirrored the increasing antagonistic Cold War competition between the US and USSR.The US tried by all means to use its position as the leader of the dominant western majority in the UN to turn the organisation in the direction of its own preferred foreign-policy goals.It was not always easy for the US to achieve its UN dominance, especially as the decolonisation process unfolded and the US found itself on the defence along with the European allies (most of which had been colonial powers) in the face of a hostile ‘Third World’ coalition with the Soviet Union typically aligned.DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’ DOMINANCE IN THE UNGA In 1975 the coalition succeeded in passing a UNGA resolution over vigorous US protest that branded, Zionism ‘a form of racism and racial discrimination’.Frustrated like today’s Bolton, the vote outraged Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassador to the UN, who lashed out vehemently against “the tyranny of the UN’s new majority”.In the years that followed, US attitudes towards the UN and many of its specialised agencies ranged from circumspection to outright hostility.The Carter Administration withdrew from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to protest what is regarded as the organisation’s anti-western bias.The Reagan Administration followed by withdrawing from the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).The United Kingdom and Singapore also followed the pullout, showing sympathy for the US.The Reagan Administration’s multilateralism also found expression in its indifference to attach on the world count and its decision to selectively withhold funds for various UN activities.Out of frustration, US diplomats in New York continued their onslaught firing ‘missiles’ at the UN’s specialised agencies and accusing them of being highly politicised, incompetent and mismanaged.In response to this development, the Soviet Union chose to protest the UN policies and operations it found inimical to its interest.This clearly reflects the Cold War actions.Recently the US assumed the rotating UNSC chairmanship, Ambassador Bolton publicly acknowledged US support for Japan’s bid of becoming a member in the enlarged UNSC, a move that puzzled China, which enjoys veto power.The US dismissed the current practice of UN staff recruitment based on geographical consideration as contained in the UN charter; it further wants a clear UN position on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the global fight against terrorism.ANALYSIS OF AU DEMANDS Given these developments, the AU should have taken a twin bargaining approach, primarily to call for the expanded mandate of the UNGA rather than only focusing on representational and structural changes to the existing UNSC.Had the AU taken a two-pronged approach, it would be able to enhance efficiency, democratic decision-making and accountability and achieve a power balance in these two important organs of the political UN decision-making system.Seeking entry into the elite UNSC is fine and well.The AU should have recognised the political significance of the expanded mandate of UNGA and to work towards a consensus based UN.The AU’s 53 member states and like-minded developing states occupy a special place and dominant role in the present UNGA.This strategy has the potential to deliver better results for developing countries.The excessive power concentration in the hands of few nations (UNSC) may lead to a total marginalisation of UNGA and eventually render it as irrelevant.The central point is really about the veto powers.As they say, old habits die hard.The five permanent members – China, France, US, UK and Russia – still have a crucial role to play in achieving the intended UN reforms.When the USSR disintegrated around 1989/90, consensus was reached by Permanent members to offer Russia the seat previously occupied by Soviet Union in the UNSC.Any change to the structure or membership of the UNSC needs the full blessing of current five permanent members who have veto powers.Africa should therefore invent a strategy; produce a formidable and practical formula to go around this matter.It is very difficult to comprehend the rationale behind the AU’s demand for two permanent seats.The demand is nothing other than a bargaining strategy.The AU has a mandate on behalf of 850 million people and its ambitions for two permanent seats with full privileges including veto powers is a starting point rather than a destination.One can only assume that it is an excellent bargaining strategy for settling for a single seat in the end although this cannot be guaranteed.The one man, one vote principle might be applied in anticipation of the AU becoming a single state in the future.There is no single member state of the AU with the right to enjoy such a seat.Practically achievable? Only time will tell and at what cost it would be realised.The central point is, how big is the AU purse? The AU must demonstrate its readiness to mobilise necessary funds, and release such funds in the interest of diplomatic investment and its dream of becoming a superpower in the future.China was a founder member of the UN way back in 1945 and the world’s populous country.China has the fastest growing economy in the world and is currently undergoing what has been described as a second industrial revolution.Some analysts believe that China may emerge as post-Cold War superpower with its population estimated at 1.3 billion.China has not expressed the desire for an additional seat in the enlarged UNSC.Given this reality, China has only one permanent seat in the UNSC.The same argument could be made for France and Britain, both key member states of the EU and permanent members of the UNSC.Surprisingly, each took a different stance on the 2003 Iraq War led by the US, exposing the lack of a common EU foreign policy.Under the UN Charter, the UNGA is authorised to debate and pass resolution on any matter under the sun.In rare circumstances when the UNSC is sharply divided and unable to act, the UNGA can intervene and consider issues pertaining to international peace and security.At present, developing countries dominate the affairs in the UNGA, just imagine if the UNGA was given teeth to bite – it would have given Africa extra political mileage in the international system.It would also bring about a power balance in the UN decision-making system.Strengthening the already too p
owerful UNSC may severely marginalise the UNGA.FIRST AU PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE(S) TO THE UN Who would represent the AU at New York is a million-dollar question; it is going to deliver a magic outcome.What makes this question interesting is the fact that we have not yet achieved the cessation of national boundaries in Africa.Africans cannot wait to claim their continental passport.Able retired heads of state and government, foreign ministers or well-known diplomats would probably be strong contenders for becoming AU permanent representative(s).Another interesting factor would be the nationality and geo-political consideration.The fact that we are all Africans won’t play a significant role in the nomination process; it would be overshadowed by prominent considerations.A country’s profile may be a decisive factor as well.Vital and legitimate questions would definitely be asked, such as a country’s democratic and economic credentials in view of New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) requirements.Recently, Sudan was denied the rotating AU chairmanship after influential NGOs mounted a co-ordinated campaign, fiercely lobbied powerful international actors and exerted pressure on Khartoum not to occupy an influential position.Lobbyists not only questioned Sudan’s democratic credentials but accused Africa’s largest country of poor human rights records.Its neighbour Chad also raised questions of Sudan’s suitability of assuming AU chairmanship.Based on these arguments, the Republic of Congo took over the AU chairmanship.Imagine if these were the actual selections for AU permanent representative(s) – it would definitely deliver the unimaginable and unpredictable outcomes.Clearly we have also witnessed OAU/AU divisions based on colonial ideology and geo-political consideration in past summits.In this day and age, why should Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone come to play when dealing with major continental decisions? From Ghana’s national independence in 1957 to that of Africa’s last colony, Namibia, in 1990 and the fall of apartheid in South-Africa in 1994, certainly we have come a long way.Our leaders and their parents are Africans and I mean Africans, none of them is English or French.We need to reject all attempts to divide African peoples according to the language of their colonial masters.The historical importance played by African countries themselves in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) cannot be underestimated in any way.Developing countries, mainly African, have played a dominant role in the UNGA by debating pertinent political issues which had shaped world public opinion.PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT AND AU’S BID FOR UNSC SEATS In terms of the AU Constitutive Act, the newly created Pan-African Parliament (PAP) has been given only limited roles, a move clearly undermining the traditional role of a ‘parliament’.At present PAP lacks essential oversight functions and the power of a purse (budget); it was instead given consultative and advisory authority.In the context of broader AU governance arrangements and Africa’s quest for becoming a member of the UNSC, PAP must be given proper responsibilities, establish its credibility and relevance under a democratic environment.The time for parliamentary diplomacy is now.There is no ground for delaying any further PAP’s unique role.The members in PAP must popularise Africa’s bid for higher power, deployed as envoys to key areas of the world in view of the need to sensitise their constituents and their counterparts across the oceans on this contemporary subject.PAP must fight for its integrity and dignity.PAP must claim its legislative authority to approve AU budget.The enlightenment of the African people should top PAP’s priority.UN PEACEKEEPING REFORMS Take for instance peacekeeping.UN reforms are ongoing although some operational difficulties could be viewed as unforeseen.The UN currently operates 18 peacekeeping missions around the world staffed by about 80 000 UN troops, this trend clearly overstretched the world body.Generally there have been remarkable UN peacekeeping improvements in many parts of the globe after the debacle in places such as Somalia and Rwanda The latter clearly represent a total international failure, leaving about 800 000 Africans known to have died in the 1994 genocide, the worst human failure in recent history.Since then the world has witnessed significant improvement with respect to peacekeeping planning, military capabilities, rapid deployment and stand-by support.If you take the recently concluded United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), this peacekeeping operation had been hailed by the international community as a great success.No wonder, it was led by an African UN force commander seeking an African solution.Lieutenant-General Opande (Kenya) is a competent career soldier with a wealth of peacekeeping experience.During Namibia’s transition to Independence in 1989/1990, General Opande also served as UNTAG deputy commander under Lieutenant General Dewan Prem Chand (India).The AU has got a lot of work to do – it needs to sharpen its lobbying capacity, spread its strong message across the oceans of the world.Drastic steps must be taken to solve its financial crisis.As the world watches how things unfold, Africa must push for genuine reforms and guard against cosmetic UN reforms.* Fluksman Samuehl is a former Member of Parliament and Karas Regional Councillor.He is currently studying towards a Master’s Degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Lancaster in the UK.The AU is loosely modelled on the European Union (EU), and is committed to economic and political integration on African terms.The 53-member African Union made its case clear with regard to the enlargement of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).It is time for a global power game.African leaders spoke loud and clear.Give Africa two permanent seats with full privileges including veto power, and add five more non-permanent seats on the world’s elite political platform, the UNSC.African leaders’ common message reinforced the Millennium UN Summit of September 2000 when world leaders called for “rapid reforms and enlargement of Security Council making it more representative, effective and legitimate in the eyes of everyone”.The race for power, influence and realpolitik in the international system is what matters.Africa’s absence in the UNSC is a matter of history.The continent cannot afford to remain behind this time around.These demands confirm Africa’s confidence in the continued existence of the United Nations and that it remains the most logical instrument for peaceful settlement of international conflicts.The primary function of the UNSC is the maintenance of international peace and security.The UNSC is modelled on a cabinet style, making it flexible to meet at any given time.Under the UN charter, each permanent member is entitled to bring before the Council any issue viewed as having potential to threaten international peace and security.Article 99 empowers the UN Secretary General to summon the UNSC membership to discuss any matter within its legal ambit.This article was famously referred to as ‘Psalm 99’ by former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali.This privilege provision has been rarely used by successive Secretaries General due to its complex nature.The AU’s bid for seats in the UNSC and its dream of becoming a superpower in the future is probably the greatest single challenge facing the African leadership after the decolonisation of the continent.It is true that the UN as the ‘world’s government’ needs to reflect today’s realities, recognise future complex challenges, align itself so as it remains relevant, and be geared towards answering post-Cold War questions in the international system.The AU demands sound forceful, but what kind of reforms are we talking about? According to what principles and standards are seats to be allocated? The game has started but the rules are not yet known.PAN-AFRICANISM There is still uncertainty and ambiguity on how Africa’s intended Foreign Policy and Diplomacy will be conducted.Dr Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), a
great Pan Africanist, laid a clear vision for a united Africa having a strong single continental government to run the affairs on behalf of all Africans.Making his landmark speech on May 24 1963 at the founding conference of the OAU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, he inspired so many African youth at the time and of course the present generation of political leaders.Addressing his counterparts and others gathered at the historical conference, Dr Nkrumah said “We must unite now or perish”, to put it bluntly – Unite now or sink.He went further to propose for the following:- “A committee to be established on behalf of the Heads of State and Government, a permanent body of officials and experts to work out a machinery for the Union Government of Africa.”Most importantly, as a matter of urgency he strongly suggested a Commission to draw up details for a common Foreign Policy and Diplomacy.Today it is not clear yet what has happened to the original ideals of the African founding fathers.Libyan Leader Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, who came to power in a military coup in 1969, tried almost single-handedly to revive Pan-Africanism, a move seen clearly as a deviation from collective leadership.Libya under Colonel Qaddafi has been known for its ardent rejection of colonialism, apartheid and Zionism.Qaddafi’s endless ambitions in the African Union and his commitment to the pursuit of African ideals had produced a mixed reaction amongst his counterparts.A move described in diplomatic circles as unilateral tendency.He therefore launched a vociferous campaign in favour of Pan-Africanism.His desires for the immediate constitution of the United States of Africa – a single continent ruled by a single government, pledging to provide funding, donations and other contributions – have certainly given meaning to ‘chequebook diplomacy’.Colonel Qaddafi’s extraordinary generosity raised suspicion and left many to wonder as to what he was really up to.Libya has pursued an often unpredictable foreign policy with regard to Africa.Over the last three years, Libya has made a dramatic U-turn in a quest to rejoin the greater international community.DIFFICULTIES AHEAD For argument’s sake, if Africa achieves her UN reform demands say by 2008, what foreign policy should the AU adopt towards China, India, Iran, Syria, or the USA? Does it mean the AU Chairman convenes a summit every time an issue crops up needing UNSC consideration and resolutions? Or will AU foreign ministers be summoned from time to time to formulate proposals for consideration by the Union Assembly? This would be a costly and ineffective decision-making policy in the international system.Have we been overtaken by contemporary events? In my view these are fundamental questions Africans want to know in the absence of a single continental government with a common foreign policy as championed by Dr Kwame Nkrumah and other like-minded true heroes of Africa.How is the AU going to deal with such difficult dilemmas? The enlargement of the UNSC to allow distribution of seats to major areas such as Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Europe and America may cause discontent and eventually a new type of international conflict might arise if not properly handled. FINANCIAL CONCERNS The AU’s demands are quite clear.However, how to translate these demands into practice is a different ball game altogether.Becoming a member of the UNSC obviously does not only mean privileges; with it comes enormous cost.Do we have the money? If so, where is the money going to come from? The UN budget is covered by assessment of the member states.The assessment depends in an approximate way on the ability to pay.A large number of UN members pay only the minimum, and together it makes up a small fraction of the total.The sub-Saharan African countries, including South Africa, the largest single geographical group, pay less than 0,6 per cent of the budget, while the stronger and more developed states each pay a substantial fraction.The largest contributors are: US 22%, Japan 19,5%, Germany 9,8%, France 6,5%, UK 5,5%, Italy 5,1%.The question is whether the AU has the financial muscle to bring into the UN and where the money is going to come from.Both Japan and Germany aspire to become major players in the enlarged UNSC, basing their argument on their financial strength.Realpolitik and money talk are at play.’The power of the purse’ is vital in the AU’s bid of becoming an elite member in the UNSC.The AU mediated in the widely publicised Darfur (Sudan) conflict; it received praised for its peace initiative and subsequent intervention but quickly handed over its peacekeeping operation and associated responsibilities to the UN citing financial constraints.If you closely examine the AU’s financial woes in the Darfur conflict, you are left to wonder how soon the AU would be able to put its house in order.One can cite an unending list of OAU/ AU initiatives when the continental organisation went broke before getting the job done.POLITICAL CONCERNS The kind of UN reforms and its likely unpredictable outcome is what everybody is waiting to hear.Firstly, one needs to explore the Africa/ UN historical relations before unpacking the question of UNSC reforms.Ambassador John Bolton, US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, who is well known for his tough talk, last year told the UN in no uncertain terms: “reform now or die”.A typically proud American citizen talking with confidence backed up by authority and power.Some theorists expressed fears that such rhetoric signalled the beginning of the ‘Boltonisation’ of the UN.If the UN dies it means an end to his lucrative job, but he appeared less worried about it as he would have taken up a new job in the ‘New World Government’ – the USA.International organisations are widely accused that they appear only to be accountable to diplomats and international lawyers.The UN suffers from the perennial perception that it is answerable primary to its own bureaucracy.Today the US is known as the only superpower and a dominant player in the international system.Surely Bolton was not reflecting the kind of UN reforms Africa hopes to see realised.The US calls for increased UN management accountability and by all means avoiding future Oil-for-food Programme scandals; the US wants tightened senior UN staff accountability as the leading financial contributor to the UN budget.Having learnt hard lessons from the 2003 Iraq War, the US had its international reputation tarnished, although the Bush Administration dismissed complaints that it had invaded Iraq without the express authorisation of the UNSC.The US is also looking at how it can use the UN reforms to push ‘smoothen’ its national agenda through without much hassle.This is, however, not the first time the US has suffered a major blow through UN electoral vote.The UN mirrored the increasing antagonistic Cold War competition between the US and USSR.The US tried by all means to use its position as the leader of the dominant western majority in the UN to turn the organisation in the direction of its own preferred foreign-policy goals.It was not always easy for the US to achieve its UN dominance, especially as the decolonisation process unfolded and the US found itself on the defence along with the European allies (most of which had been colonial powers) in the face of a hostile ‘Third World’ coalition with the Soviet Union typically aligned.DEVELOPING COUNTRIES’ DOMINANCE IN THE UNGA In 1975 the coalition succeeded in passing a UNGA resolution over vigorous US protest that branded, Zionism ‘a form of racism and racial discrimination’.Frustrated like today’s Bolton, the vote outraged Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US ambassador to the UN, who lashed out vehemently against “the tyranny of the UN’s new majority”.In the years that followed, US attitudes towards the UN and many of its specialised agencies ranged from circumspection to outright hostility.The Carter Administration withdrew from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to protest what is regarded as the organisation’s anti-western bias.The Reagan Administration followed by withdrawing from the United Nations Education, Scienti
fic and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).The United Kingdom and Singapore also followed the pullout, showing sympathy for the US.The Reagan Administration’s multilateralism also found expression in its indifference to attach on the world count and its decision to selectively withhold funds for various UN activities.Out of frustration, US diplomats in New York continued their onslaught firing ‘missiles’ at the UN’s specialised agencies and accusing them of being highly politicised, incompetent and mismanaged.In response to this development, the Soviet Union chose to protest the UN policies and operations it found inimical to its interest.This clearly reflects the Cold War actions.Recently the US assumed the rotating UNSC chairmanship, Ambassador Bolton publicly acknowledged US support for Japan’s bid of becoming a member in the enlarged UNSC, a move that puzzled China, which enjoys veto power.The US dismissed the current practice of UN staff recruitment based on geographical consideration as contained in the UN charter; it further wants a clear UN position on proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the global fight against terrorism.ANALYSIS OF AU DEMANDS Given these developments, the AU should have taken a twin bargaining approach, primarily to call for the expanded mandate of the UNGA rather than only focusing on representational and structural changes to the existing UNSC.Had the AU taken a two-pronged approach, it would be able to enhance efficiency, democratic decision-making and accountability and achieve a power balance in these two important organs of the political UN decision-making system.Seeking entry into the elite UNSC is fine and well.The AU should have recognised the political significance of the expanded mandate of UNGA and to work towards a consensus based UN.The AU’s 53 member states and like-minded developing states occupy a special place and dominant role in the present UNGA.This strategy has the potential to deliver better results for developing countries.The excessive power concentration in the hands of few nations (UNSC) may lead to a total marginalisation of UNGA and eventually render it as irrelevant.The central point is really about the veto powers.As they say, old habits die hard.The five permanent members – China, France, US, UK and Russia – still have a crucial role to play in achieving the intended UN reforms.When the USSR disintegrated around 1989/90, consensus was reached by Permanent members to offer Russia the seat previously occupied by Soviet Union in the UNSC.Any change to the structure or membership of the UNSC needs the full blessing of current five permanent members who have veto powers.Africa should therefore invent a strategy; produce a formidable and practical formula to go around this matter.It is very difficult to comprehend the rationale behind the AU’s demand for two permanent seats.The demand is nothing other than a bargaining strategy.The AU has a mandate on behalf of 850 million people and its ambitions for two permanent seats with full privileges including veto powers is a starting point rather than a destination.One can only assume that it is an excellent bargaining strategy for settling for a single seat in the end although this cannot be guaranteed.The one man, one vote principle might be applied in anticipation of the AU becoming a single state in the future.There is no single member state of the AU with the right to enjoy such a seat.Practically achievable? Only time will tell and at what cost it would be realised.The central point is, how big is the AU purse? The AU must demonstrate its readiness to mobilise necessary funds, and release such funds in the interest of diplomatic investment and its dream of becoming a superpower in the future.China was a founder member of the UN way back in 1945 and the world’s populous country.China has the fastest growing economy in the world and is currently undergoing what has been described as a second industrial revolution.Some analysts believe that China may emerge as post-Cold War superpower with its population estimated at 1.3 billion.China has not expressed the desire for an additional seat in the enlarged UNSC.Given this reality, China has only one permanent seat in the UNSC.The same argument could be made for France and Britain, both key member states of the EU and permanent members of the UNSC.Surprisingly, each took a different stance on the 2003 Iraq War led by the US, exposing the lack of a common EU foreign policy.Under the UN Charter, the UNGA is authorised to debate and pass resolution on any matter under the sun.In rare circumstances when the UNSC is sharply divided and unable to act, the UNGA can intervene and consider issues pertaining to international peace and security.At present, developing countries dominate the affairs in the UNGA, just imagine if the UNGA was given teeth to bite – it would have given Africa extra political mileage in the international system.It would also bring about a power balance in the UN decision-making system.Strengthening the already too powerful UNSC may severely marginalise the UNGA.FIRST AU PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE(S) TO THE UN Who would represent the AU at New York is a million-dollar question; it is going to deliver a magic outcome.What makes this question interesting is the fact that we have not yet achieved the cessation of national boundaries in Africa.Africans cannot wait to claim their continental passport.Able retired heads of state and government, foreign ministers or well-known diplomats would probably be strong contenders for becoming AU permanent representative(s).Another interesting factor would be the nationality and geo-political consideration.The fact that we are all Africans won’t play a significant role in the nomination process; it would be overshadowed by prominent considerations.A country’s profile may be a decisive factor as well.Vital and legitimate questions would definitely be asked, such as a country’s democratic and economic credentials in view of New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) requirements.Recently, Sudan was denied the rotating AU chairmanship after influential NGOs mounted a co-ordinated campaign, fiercely lobbied powerful international actors and exerted pressure on Khartoum not to occupy an influential position.Lobbyists not only questioned Sudan’s democratic credentials but accused Africa’s largest country of poor human rights records.Its neighbour Chad also raised questions of Sudan’s suitability of assuming AU chairmanship.Based on these arguments, the Republic of Congo took over the AU chairmanship.Imagine if these were the actual selections for AU permanent representative(s) – it would definitely deliver the unimaginable and unpredictable outcomes.Clearly we have also witnessed OAU/AU divisions based on colonial ideology and geo-political consideration in past summits.In this day and age, why should Anglophone, Francophone and Lusophone come to play when dealing with major continental decisions? From Ghana’s national independence in 1957 to that of Africa’s last colony, Namibia, in 1990 and the fall of apartheid in South-Africa in 1994, certainly we have come a long way.Our leaders and their parents are Africans and I mean Africans, none of them is English or French.We need to reject all attempts to divide African peoples according to the language of their colonial masters.The historical importance played by African countries themselves in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) cannot be underestimated in any way.Developing countries, mainly African, have played a dominant role in the UNGA by debating pertinent political issues which had shaped world public opinion. PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT AND AU’S BID FOR UNSC SEATS In terms of the AU Constitutive Act, the newly created Pan-African Parliament (PAP) has been given only limited roles, a move clearly undermining the traditional role of a ‘parliament’.At present PAP lacks essential oversight functions and the power of a purse (budget); it was instead given consultative and advisory authority.In the context of broader AU governance arrangements and Africa’s quest for becoming a member o
f the UNSC, PAP must be given proper responsibilities, establish its credibility and relevance under a democratic environment.The time for parliamentary diplomacy is now.There is no ground for delaying any further PAP’s unique role.The members in PAP must popularise Africa’s bid for higher power, deployed as envoys to key areas of the world in view of the need to sensitise their constituents and their counterparts across the oceans on this contemporary subject.PAP must fight for its integrity and dignity.PAP must claim its legislative authority to approve AU budget.The enlightenment of the African people should top PAP’s priority.UN PEACEKEEPING REFORMS Take for instance peacekeeping.UN reforms are ongoing although some operational difficulties could be viewed as unforeseen.The UN currently operates 18 peacekeeping missions around the world staffed by about 80 000 UN troops, this trend clearly overstretched the world body.Generally there have been remarkable UN peacekeeping improvements in many parts of the globe after the debacle in places such as Somalia and Rwanda The latter clearly represent a total international failure, leaving about 800 000 Africans known to have died in the 1994 genocide, the worst human failure in recent history.Since then the world has witnessed significant improvement with respect to peacekeeping planning, military capabilities, rapid deployment and stand-by support.If you take the recently concluded United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), this peacekeeping operation had been hailed by the international community as a great success.No wonder, it was led by an African UN force commander seeking an African solution.Lieutenant-General Opande (Kenya) is a competent career soldier with a wealth of peacekeeping experience.During Namibia’s transition to Independence in 1989/1990, General Opande also served as UNTAG deputy commander under Lieutenant General Dewan Prem Chand (India).The AU has got a lot of work to do – it needs to sharpen its lobbying capacity, spread its strong message across the oceans of the world.Drastic steps must be taken to solve its financial crisis.As the world watches how things unfold, Africa must push for genuine reforms and guard against cosmetic UN reforms.* Fluksman Samuehl is a former Member of Parliament and Karas Regional Councillor.He is currently studying towards a Master’s Degree in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Lancaster in the UK.