Africa's Continued Marginalisation in the United Nations

[XXPANTHAXX]

Dr Godfrey Chikowore
Reprinted From the Zimbabwe Chronicle

Notwithstanding the noble humanitarian innovation which saw
the name United Nations being devised by the then United
States President Franklin D Roosevelt, the United States led
by Mr George W Bush of today has considerably not only
betrayed the expectations, for peace, prosperity and
cooperation haboured by the peace-loving world community, but
has further antagonised and divided the Developed and
Developing World by virtue of the US explicit inclinations
towards unilateralism.

Officially coming into existence on 24 October 1945, the
United Nations saw its constitutive Charter being ratified by
China, France, the Soviet Union (now Russia) the United
Kingdom and the United States, which subsequently became the
permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to
date.

Time has passed — 60 years to date — and Africa, which was
arbitrarily marginalised from the Security Council as a veto
wielding power still remains highly prejudiced, with the
noble humanitarian cause unanimously adopted in 1945, at this
global institution being shamelessly and purposely ignored.

In that oppressive domination and subordination equation, the
contemporary actors are the United States and United Kingdom
flanked as big brothers by the other countries and some
European Union member states versus the impoverished under-
developed South, strictly excluding the controversial
imperial Australia and New Zealand.

Following the preamble to the United Nations Charter were
very definitive purposes and principles of the United Nations
with a deeply entrenched human-centred meaning quite
essentially and diametrically opposed to the culture of
domination, now punctuated by unilateralism so much practiced
by George W Bush and Tony Blair. Highly compromised in the
contemporary by the diplomatically wayward US and United
Kingdom administrations, these human-centred purposes of the
UN Charter on one hand were and better still are:

-The maintenance of international peace and security;

-Development of friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self
determination of peoples;

-To cooperate in solving international economic, social,
cultural and humanitarian problems and in promotion of
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;

-To be a centre for harmonisation of the actions of nations
in efforts to attain their common goals;

At the same time the human centred principles of the United
Nations that would guide and inform its operations are:

-Interaction of nations based on sovereign equality of all
member states;

-To receive and consider the reports from the Security
Council and other United Nations organs;

-To consider and approve the United Nations budget and
apportion the contributions among members;

-To elect the non-permanent members of the Economic and
Social Council and those Members of the Trusteeship Council
that are elected;

-To elect jointly with the Security Council the Judges of the
International Court of Justice;

-Appointment of Secretary - General on the recommendation by
the Security Council, etc.

The sanctity of these principles and purposes are founded on
their human-centred nature which essentially upholds the
respect to the sovereignty of nation states whether big or
small, rich or poor; the equality of nation states; and
finally the right to freedom of choice.

The significance of these fundamental principles is that they
have deeply rooted historical underpinnings and should not be
taken for granted being viewed as an end in themselves, or
just as mere statements without the fundamental historical
humanitarian underpinnings.

This is exactly why the debate on the United Nations reform
has indeed proved quite controversial with the Developed
Countries in the image of the US administration visibly
becoming more dictatorial, making highly undiplomatic
maneuvers to force an inhuman UN reform agenda down the
throat of the 191 Membership of the United Nations General
Assembly.

Forming the major bone of contention is the reform of the
United Nations Security Council, which in the contemporary
has become considerably unrepresentative because it emerged
then after World War II as an institution for rewarding the
Allied Forces/Countries which had prevailed over the
Hitlerite Nazi Germany and the Mussolini Fascist Italy
collectively known as the Axis Power.

Notwithstanding the fact that most Africans who had been
captured as slaves did actually participate in the Second
World War against the Axis Powers, Africa was again not
considered for membership on the United Nations Council and
this remains controversial to date.

Even if we were to go on the issue of veto-power permanent
representation by continents, Africa remains without
representation on the Security Council, with Euro-Asia
already overwhelmingly represented having four solid
permanent and veto power vote. Britain, China, Russia and
France enjoy permanently these privileges. Being again
unlawfully considered as the United Kingdom appendages,
overseas territories Australia and New Zealand could be
provisionally considered because of their historical
allegiance to Britain already enjoy full insurance cover from
the veto power Britain has on the Security Council at the
moment.

As regards the Northern American continent (the US and Canada
lumped up) it could be well argued that the continent thus
summarily enjoys veto power on the Security Council because
the US has a permanent seat and a veto power on the council.

With such great disparities and unjustified inequalities on
representation in the council, why would it be so
controversial to reform these dictatorial institution? Even
going by the logic of continental representation, the Middle
East just like Africa, Central and Southern America is again
visibly far away from representation on the council as a
wielder of a veto power and a permanent seat.

Why then is it that these continents Africa, Central America,
Southern America and the Middle East hardly have a permanent
seat as well as veto power on the UN Security Council? Indeed
according to the white supremacist theory, these geographical
regions have to remain permanent sources of raw materials,
human and natural resources reserves for the supreme white
race and racists in the greedy North.

This programme called maximum could be achieved by skillfully
cheating the masses of the South into believing that the
Eurocentric doctrine of democracy and human rights will lead
to peace, prosperity and equality. The profound error of
this approach is that it in most instances advocates that
civilisations have to be born and adopt unconditionally a
Eurocentric doctrine for a guaranteed existence on earth.

As a principle of life, it grossly infringes on the rights of
world communities especially in the Developing World, as it
essentially dishonours the right to sovereign rule, let alone
self-determination and freedom of expression and choice by
the weaker nations of the South. It inhumanly purports to
dishonour the historical obligation which the North owes the
South through the enslavement, colonialism, neo-colonialism
and now unilateralism, a millennium destructive weapon which
the US and Britain have adopted to coerce the weaker and
impoverished nations of the South into ranks of Western
democracy but in servitude.

Again to express the global dictatorship that is epitomised
by the UN Security Council now operating as it appears on
behalf of the George W Bush and Tony Blair administrations,
is it not that Africa is a continent and not a country,
Africa is a continent comprising 53 states and a huge
population of nearly 850 million yet not even a single
country in Africa has a permanent seat or veto power on the
Council?

So Africa, both as a continent has no veto power or permanent
seat on the Council yet the US, Britain, France, China and
Russia are just but mere countries with a veto power and
permanent seats on the council. The US, Britain, France,
China and Russia are not continents and therefore have no
countries in their composition as opposed to Africa. Where
then is respect for democracy and human rights for the
majority that is under-represented on the council, in Africa,
Central and Southern America as well as in the Middle East?

Even if we were to go by the logic of population composition,
Africa has a population of nearly 850 million with over 70
percent living on less than US$1 per day but has neither a
permanent seat nor veto power on the Council yet France with
a population of over 59.1 million; Britain of over 59.9
million; China of over 1271.9 million; US with a population
of over 284 million and finally Russia with a population of
over 144 million (WDR: 2001) do enjoy permanent seats and
veto power on the Council.

Is it not that in a baptism ceremony the honourable priest
baptises his own child first and subsequently proceeds to
serve the rest?

Indeed experience and the deplorable socio-economic
circumstances so rampant in Africa, Southern and Central
America and in the Middle East are among other factors an
indication of the absence of their representation or
misrepresentation by those powers on the Security Council,
being taken for granted and always assigned the back seat as
permanent members jostle to protect the interests of their
nations in the final analysis.

Africa, German, Japan, Brazil and India should have got both
veto powers and permanent seats on the UN Security Council if
at all peace, prosperity, development and cooperation is to
prevail for both big and small; rich and poor nations of the
North and South.

The second bone of contention on the reform of the United
Nations centred on turning the Commission on Human rights
into a UN Council on Human rights.

As of now, the commission operates as a subsidiary machinery
of the UN Economic and Social Council and it carries the year
round work of the Security Council and reports back to the
council at regular intervals on issues of human rights.

It is all hypocrisy and lies in its essence and world affairs
managed on such principles are in themselves catastrophic as
they build illusions that democracy is in the making when
actually a process of fundamental disempowerment and
deprivation of the world poor majority will be gradually
entrenched by the North.

Is it not that fighting of illustrious wars of liberation
manifests how the developing countries well understand what
human rights is all about and better than what the developed
North in the image of the USA and Britain purports to know?

Is it not that when the South through the UN General Assembly
rightfully ask for military intervention by the UN Security
Council in times when democratically elected governments in
Africa, Asia, Central and Southern America, Middle East are
threatened by armed rebellions, coups de tats, tribal
conflicts and the same Council snubs them know their human
and democratic rights better than those maliciously snubbing
them who now again purport could best Reform the UN?

What only emerges in the claim for the elevation of the UN
Commission on Human Rights to a council is again to have a
repetition of the diplomatic anarchic precedent set by the
current UN Security Council to prepare a ground for a
malicious victimisation of weaker nations of the South which
are still in the process of reclaiming their legacy from the
former colonial masters.

The historical and ideologically qualitative differences
between the North and the South would see the later being
arbitrarily victimised by the former when in actual fact it
is the former who historically and even now owes the South a
lot in terms of human rights as they destroyed the social
foundations and fabric of the South from slavery to the age
of unilateralism.

Essentially the elevation of the commission to a council
would sooner imply legalisation of criminality against the
innocent populations of the South, in a mad fit by the North
to muzzle the South and run away from their historical
obligation to compensate that very South for the historically
inflicted suffering and inhuman human rights record.

On the Millennium Development Goals, the developed world
deliberately and purposely failed to honour the sovereign
rights and fundamental liberties of the developing world and
they have emerged as saints of virtue with the MDGs,
pretending to bring salvation to Africa and the rest of the
Developing World.

If at all the world and mankind are to survive and prosper
the best option for getting to such an end is respect for the
sovereignty of nation states, respect for the equality of
nation states, respect for the freedom of choice by nation
states whether rich, poor; small or big.

While this golden opportunity to reform the UN could have
seen the world community turn into a progressive and
homogeneous global family, the diplomatic recklessness and
irresponsibility being manifested by the Mr Bush and Mr
Blair's administrations as heads of superpowers threatens to
immensely jeopardise such an outcome.

For the betrayal of humanity and its noble values, history
and let alone the Almighty will not pardon, those that
advocate this unsolicited discord.

Author: Dr G Chikowore

Head: Dept of International Relations and Social Development
Studies, Institute of Development Studies University of
Zimbabwe

E-mail: gchikowore@science.uz.ac.zw / godchik60@yahoo.co.uk.

[Akyeame Kwame]

Originally Posted by XXPANTHAXX

Again to express the global dictatorship that is epitomised
by the UN Security Council now operating as it appears on
behalf of the George W Bush and Tony Blair administrations,
is it not that Africa is a continent and not a country,
Africa is a continent comprising 53 states and a huge
population of nearly 850 million yet not even a single
country in Africa has a permanent seat or veto power on the
Council?

So Africa, both as a continent has no veto power or permanent
seat on the Council yet the US, Britain, France, China and
Russia are just but mere countries with a veto power and
permanent seats on the council. The US, Britain, France,
China and Russia are not continents and therefore have no
countries in their composition as opposed to Africa. Where
then is respect for democracy and human rights for the
majority that is under-represented on the council, in Africa,
Central and Southern America as well as in the Middle East?

how can Afrika be anything but marginalized in the united snakkkes...i mean, united nations...the internation version of fema?

[Cherubim]

The solution?

Nuclear weapons.

America, Europe, and Asia all have nuclear weapons scattered around the continent.

Africa, and South America don't....so they gets no respect.

Nigeria and Ethiopia should be competing with eachother over who can snag a nuke first.

The Native American not only have no say so, they don't even have a contient anymore so they don't count.