There has been much talk about the absence of Africa in the permanent seats of the Security Council of the United Nations. Countries like India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, would naturally be looking at the opportunity to join this permanent club of powerful nations. Because they can claim to be demographically, economically, and politically powerful. No doubt.
The irony of it is that those who could decide to walk the talk, right now if they wanted, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the President of America and everyone else who occasionally used the argument to please an important African audience, have all been saying out loud that indeed Africa should be represented in the Security Council. But year after year, they did nothing more than the lip service!
We believe that one day, it will happen. More as a way of cleaning of the consciences of those countries, after some big failure, such as the refusal to deal equitably and humanely with the Palestinian question, or some such international political disaster to come. Whatever the circumstances, it may be opportune to ask: Are we ready? who will represent Africa? by what criteria? Is it just to be in the Council as an individual country merit as has been up to now, or to really represent a Continent where powerful countries are still counting our resources as theirs? How do(es) the African country(ies) exercise the veto power? For Africa or for their perceived interests? We believe that the Continent deserves representation in a new format, not the individualism that has characterized the Council up to now. Africa should change the character of the Council if it enters this club. We would even argue that if Africa does not change the culture of the Council, perhaps there is no gain in joining.
In discussing this topic, we wish to offer a few more views on the matter. And limiting ourselves to countries that may readily stake a claim to a chair in the Security Council, such as: Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Morocco, to just set the arguments that we wish to share:
Nigeria: Having been at the forefront of the ECOWAS call for an invasion of Niger (only prevented by its parliament and by the peoples bordering Niger), it is clear that they were doing the bidding of France. A country that introduced the notion that one African country can impose sanctions on another African Country.
South Africa: Over the years there have been xenophobic attacks on other African immigrants. And there has been no denunciation nor any action on the part of the government. The DUDULA movement has effectively taken the role of the Ministry of Home Affairs and it has not been challenged by any relevant national institutions. More than that, xenophobia has now been institutionalized as DUDULA has been recognized as a political party, meaning they will be running for the next elections. An implicit approval of their policy. In fact, only targeting Africans. People have been brutally killed and will continue to be killed.
Egypt: It does not feel African enough and refuses to accept the research and study of Sheikh Anta Diop attributing the pyramids to any African intelligence and ingenuity. It feels insulted to be seen as African. A country trying to assert the colonial entitlement to veto what happens downstream of the Nile River, implying that other countries should not touch the river waters for their own development. All arguments have been advanced, to keep this vestige of colonial entitlement.
Morocco? Still holds the territory of Western Sahara, a country recognized by the AU, hostage to its political and economic ambitions.
In Africa, you could review one by one the biggest economies or countries and find that maybe we should be represented in the Security Council, but not necessarily by the bigger economies. Moreover, all countries North of Africa are now being financed as gendarmes of Europe, to seal the southern borders of Europe and preventing Africans from crossing the Mediterranean. Many have demonstrated a racism that still needs to be discussed openly. The AU would seem to be the forum, but as a Union of countries, it has shown no such courage. We need that, before we attempt to market ourselves in the United Nations.
We were saying in an earlier article that the United States is an observer in the African Peace and Security Council of the African Union. In fact, we may need to first have a SWOT analysis of the AU itself, before we attempt to show muscle on the international stage. Under these conditions, maybe entering the Security Council of the United Nations deserves a prior serious debate at the level of the AU, a Special Summit if you will, where all this and other political dirty laundry should be washed courageously. That requires the chairmanship of a strong moderating team capable of confronting heads of State. Otherwise, what we will be assisting is the predictable behaviour of big countries waving their individual entitlement to the seat(s).
The United Nations Charter has been trampled by many recent events, not the least of which are the events in the Middle East, where Europeans and Americans rushed to express support for Israel, enabling the current genocide of the Palestinian people by gun and by starvation (and by communication). Israel that clearly stated its intention to bomb a hospital, is bombing schools, emptying the entire northern half of the Gaza Strip for non-declared territorial designs. And publicly humiliating the Secretary General of the said United Nations. Plus, events in Mali and Niger that indicate the instrumentalization of the United Nations. All these point to the need for a review of the international order and of the rules of engagement between and among nations.
We dare posit that Africa should not be in a rush to join the Security Council before two events take place:
an African Summit of self-criticism, from which perhaps we could come out more united and less infiltrated. And let other Continents do their homework before, if they so wish.
And causing the initiation of a review of the international order of things. Which best institution to push this forward than the BRICS context?
We would propose that rushing to sit permanently in the Security Council without this catharsis will be tantamount to setting the Continent to further division and external competing forces. Do we want to say that those that today sit permanently in the Security Council have fared better than the African Countries described above? NOT AT ALL.
We are instead suggesting that the entry of Africa in the permanency of the Council is an opportunity to also overhaul standards of international conduct of business in it. The powerful are dictating the agenda. Africa should, at and upon entry, correct the “might is right” mental state and behaviour. That will be a service, not just to Africa, but also to other smaller countries in other Continents and the Island nations. We are suggesting that new entrants can challenge current uneven and lopsided standards. There are issues that should be redefined and banished as state behaviour, such as (clearly not exhaustive): xenophobia, sanctions, erecting physical barriers between nations, racism (we would say institutional racism, but that would be a tautology because racism is already a system, an institution), etc.
The current state of relations between nations is just not it! Africa should not just attempt to jump into the bandwagon and mimic other nations. Let us infuse added value to an international order we have been criticizing.
Jose, Tete
November 2023
Comments