Africa and the UN - To Stay or To Leave II

The issue of walking away from the U.N. is an isolationist move which will bear more ills than good. In the world we live in, we need more alliances than segregation. When a system is not working as expected it is better to work trying to change it from within. Every member of any team has some leverage he can use in any organization to sway things a certain way. Africa does have that leverage and can use it effectively and in the process make this important institution more viable for the many vulnerable citizens of the world.

Africa indeed has a genuine reason to be wary of the U.N. and Africa’s role in it. The devastating effects of war and the drive to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” Made the U.N. a welcome idea among nations of the world, it cannot be made to lose that relevance. But on that promise, which is part of the U.N. charter, Africa has been failed miserably, so miserable that the Brahimi report was commissioned in 2000 to review U.N. peace keeping missions, a lot of which was in Africa in the 1990s. The report concluded that “the U.N has repeatedly failed to meet the challenge” outlined in its charter.

Africa witnessed devastating conflicts in the 1990s that resulted in the deaths of over a million people partly due to the failures of U.N peacekeeping missions; the notables being Rwanda and Somalia. The mission in Liberia, which started in 2003, is often cited as a success. In fact, the intervention of the Nigerian led ECOWAS force supported by the U.S., as well as President Obasanjo’s team of African diplomats that resulted in Charles Taylor’s relinquishing of power deserve more credit. Africans resolved that conflict through their own efforts. The U.N. facilitated the peaceful transition to elections.

Between 1992 and 1994, there were over 30,000 U.N. peacekeepers deployed in Somalia; the period during which 800,000 Somalis were massacred. This was such a huge failure that President Clinton announced U.S. troop withdrawals followed by a highly restrictive policy of deploying U.S. troops on future U.N. peacekeeping mission. This after 18 U.S. soldiers were  killed, dismembered and dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, 75 injured as well as 25 Pakistani  soldiers killed and another 54 injured. The U.N.’s own Commission of Inquiry set up to investigate that specific peacekeeping mission recommended “the U.N. should refrain from undertaking further peace enforcement actions within the internal conflicts of states.” (Jacobson, 2012). But a body as relevant as the U.N. shouldn't be reduced to just monitoring ceasefires and elections

In spite of such a recommendation, then came the case of the genocide in Rwanda. Prior to the swiftest and most systematic genocide, there was the Arusha Accords signed between the Rwandan government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) that saw an end to a three year civil war and brought much needed stability. Many factors could be cited as to having led to the breakdown of the peace accord and the beginning of the infamous Rwandan genocide. Some of the points raised by international diplomacy and public policy experts included the failure of the U.N. body to give Rwanda a permanent membership on the Security Council amongst other issues. In the 104 days of violence start started after the peace accord broke down, almost 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.  After the massacre started, the U.N. peacekeepers disgracefully abandoned the thousands of civilians who sought refuge in the places the U.N peacekeepers were stationed knowing full well that the militia will kill these vulnerable civilians, which they did. They chose to focus on evacuating their own expatriates, government officials and foreign nationals leaving the Rwandans to fend for themselves.

Two weeks after the massacres started, which the U.N. failed to recognize as genocide, it went ahead to reduce its peacekeeping troops by almost 90 per cent.  This move was, made contrary to the recommendations of Nigeria, the African representative on the Security Council at the time that civilians were in grave danger and that U.N. peacekeepers should be mandated to protect them.

A U.N. commissioned report in December 1999 assessing the organization’s involvement in Rwanda stated that “member states failed Rwanda in deplorable ways; ignoring evidence that genocide was planned, refusing to act once it was underway and finally abandoning the Rwandan people when they most needed protection.”

However one chooses to look at it, it was a lack of will, more than anything else that prevented the U.N. from acting in saving many Rwandan lives. An assessment by the U.N’s own human rights investigator for Rwanda in August 1993 cited the possibility that genocide might occur. That following January, Canadian Lt. Gen.  Dallaire sent a cable warning of the risk of genocide which was received by Kofi Annan but never shared with the Security Council as should be the norm. These two assessments should have been enough to compel the U.N. to act and prevent the genocide from reaching the scale it did in 1994.

There is the current case of U.N peacekeepers sexually abusing women and children in their assigned countries like Congo and Sudan adding to risks of increased HIV/AIDS cases.

Despite some success, the failures of the U.N. are many and cannot be ignored. So Mugabe can be forgiven for taking the stance he took on the U.N. and her role in Africa, but most importantly on the failures of the body to give the African voices the attention they deserve. It is a tragedy that in a body as important as the U.N. non-African voices prevails over African voices on matters regarding Africa.

If you are tempted to argue that African leaders need to get their collective acts together in order to be heard or respected, the fact that their various countries are accepted as members of the U.N. counters that position. If they are not good enough to be listened to, then they shouldn’t be accepted in the organization. Which ties back with Mugabe’s point that reforms are needed at the U.N to reflect Africa’s representation as viable.

But in typical fashion, since Mugabe has been labelled a tyrant and undemocratic, that suffices for him not to be heard and his message, regardless of its relevance can be ignored. A typical case of shooting the messenger

Bob Marley’s famous line that “How long shall they kill our prophets, while we stand aside and look…” can be relevant in the case of dealing with Mugabe.

Despite what is being portrayed in the media, Mugabe command respect among his peers, but most importantly, a vast majority of ordinary Africans and people of African descent view him as a hero, a defiant hero who has Africa’s interest at heart. A view not shared by Africa’s so called intellectual class. In many cases, with the exception of a few, most of their assessment of African affairs are viewed as extensions of imperialist views.

Africa and the UN - To Stay or To Leave?

"We will fight a fight for our own identity, our own integrity and personality as Africans, We are Africans. If we decide, as we shall certainly do so one of these days, that down with the United Nations, ...we can't continue to be artificial members of it. If the United Nations is to survive, we have to be equal members of it." (Mugabe, 36th AU Summit, 2016)

Like in typical African fashion, the grandfather has spoken words laced with wisdom, wisdom addressed to his family of youngsters he may not get to meet again trying to instill a sense of pride and dignity in them to fight the course of their motherland.

Unfortunately for us, when Mugabe speaks, it is a case of shooting the messenger, in the process his message gets lost amidst arguments of whether that was the right occasion to say some of the things he said, or whether he shouldn't more focused on the governance issues on the continent. Some even suggesting that he should die and leave us alone already. It seems his detractors, those determined to see him reduced to no more than an old senile man and his ramblings, are winning. They have succeeded in making our minds up for us about Mugabe, at least some of us. Tragic!

Mugabe is certainly no saint, points alluded to in an earlier post; just like no political leader in our modern world is. He is one of those people you cannot sit on the fence for, you either love him or hate him. Whatever side you're on, let's not fall victim to discarding his message in its entirety because he spoke them. Africa is at a crossroads, as is indeed the world at large. We can use every perspective we can get to help shape the future of the continent.

Africa's problems and challenges are numerous, but in the mind of the so called intelligentsia, with their Eurocentric perspective needless to say, none of it has anything to do with the West or the institutions they fund and their relationship with Africa. Where a case is established that in fact such institutions pose a challenge to Africa's progress economically or otherwise, the suggestion the same intellectual class comes up with is that let Africa take care of its leadership and governance problems first before shifting the blame outside. And sadly, they are the ones given the platform to shape the views of the word on Africa and African affairs. As always, there is that exception to any rule, a lot of the intellectual class is speaking for the Africans and the unfair dealings Africa gets with the West.

What about the proposition that Africa leaves the United Nations? Will there be consequences for leaving? Certainly; is it an extreme proposition? Probably. Is the African Union functional enough to be an effective alternative? Likely not. But does that change the fact that Africa and her interests are dealt a bad hand at the UN with hardly a voice that gets listened to? Unless there is reform as proposed, that fact will remain. As a global body, all members, regardless of economic, political, or military status should have equal say on world affairs. But as he pointed out, that sadly is not the case.

A lot of his counterparts probably giggled at the idea of a UN exit, and should some agree and make the move, they'll be hung out to dry. Remember Sankara and his proposal for a refusal to pay IMF and World Bank debt with their exorbitant interests? He knew that "If [he] go it alone, they will come after [him], so it can only be done together." Why, because the economic situation in Africa was so dire that we cannot afford those huge loan repayment terms. He stated that "They will not die if we do not repay, but our people will die if we pay that loan." Meaning taking that much money out of an already broken economy for debt servicing will deprive the poor masses of much needed economic booster. What happened to him for proposing such ideas needs no further elaboration.

Truth is, Mugabe is sick and tired of the same game being played on Africans and that some Africans agree to be used as pawns in that game of self-destruction. He has been in the struggle for Africa's liberation longer than any on that platform. He knows the game being played and we can't seem to see things from his perspective. At the very least, we can give him the respect he deserves as a hero for the struggle of the dignity of the African people. He may have used the wrong formula sometimes, but who doesn't make mistakes? The younger generation of Africans and people of African descent see in him a hero worth celebrating in so many respects. One or two flaws here and there wouldn't be enough to cast a dark shadow on his long struggle for a dignified Africa.

That much we owe him.

The bigger question is, can Africa afford such a move?