Africa's "New Order"
Feb. 3rd, 2012 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nairiporterLast month the UN Security Council had a meeting where one of the main topics was Africa's role in resolving its own crises. An important detail here: the meeting wasn't simply chaired by the permanent African representative in UNSC, South Africa (which since January is also chairing the Council), but explicitly by SA president Jacob Zuma. Despite the fact that formally the topic was only limited to the issue of strengthening the African mission in Somalia, what the real purpose of the meeting was, is no secret: the African Union has decided on a transition to a qualitatively new phase of its activities, a more active role that would put it out of the guardianship of the UN.
The policy of the African countries to try to take the responsibility for solving their "own" crises in their own hands is understandable - after all, more than 70% of the issues on the agenda of the UNSC usually concern Africa. However, there are presently only three African representatives in the Security Council (South Africa, Togo and Morocco). At the same time, Morocco is considered part of Africa only geographically but not politically, since it is not a member of the AU, and neither is it part of the Organisation of African Unity. The African region has the largest number of countries than any other (54, and counting), but just a single permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Jacob Zuma has directly urged for UN reforms and, above all, UNSC reforms. The problem there is not only the disproportionate representation but that the UNSC has long ceased to perform its primary function of maintaining international peace and security. Despite the fact that the members of the Council are supposed to act in the interests of the entire international community, in practice the picture looks quite differently. If we take a look at the issues that are still on the UNSC agenda, we'd be surprised. For instance, the Council has still not addressed complaints from Libya from 1983, '84, '86, '89, and even a complaint from Sudan from as early as 1958, as well as many other complaints and requests by other African countries for UN protection or arbitrage. In the recent years the UNSC has strangely stopped publishing the list of questions and pleas that it has received, and it is no longer possible to find even the slightest hint of such a list on their official website. And it is logical to ask the question why that is.
Yes, one might ask why all these questions are never addressed, and why these issues remain on the agenda of the Council, and are never solved? The answer may well be hidden in Article 12 of the UN Charter, which states that the General Assembly cannot deal with issues that are already put in front of the UNSC, unless the UNSC itself requests so. So, it turns out that an institution that comprises of all the UN member states, actually cannot make any decisions on matters that are on the "pending" queue of the Security Council, even when it is obvious that the Council is not willing to discuss them any time soon. By the way, the UN reforms that are now being offered include the creation of regional Security Councils, which again is a direct consequence of the UNSC's refusal or incapability (you choose) of fulfilling its functions impartially and in the interests of the entire international community.
So the African Union decided to finally put the question about the gradual transferring of the prerogatives to resolve Africa's own crises. The catalyst for this decision were the events in Libya and the UN's rather apathetic participation in finding a "solution" of the crisis. As some might know, the AU had already developed a political "road map" that was supposed to help resolve the conflict in Libya from last year. And Gaddafi even agreed on it. But, no surprise, the AU's plan remained completely ignored in favour of bombing Libya by the NATO forces. In this sense, Jacob Zuma said that the military operation in Libya had been like a preemptive strike on the prospects for a peaceful solution of the Libyan crisis. This was again completely ignored. This is why the AU supported the operation only with half a mouth and without providing any logistical or military support for NATO (which put additional risks to the operation itself, and for a time it looked likely that Gaddafi would be able to escape through the southern border because of that - in case he had some brains of course). Of course the British and French were very hasty to push for a military solution, completely disregarding the African nations as if they did not exist at all. It turns out that the UNSC did not allow the AU to even attempt a peaceful solution.
And really, if we recall the circumstances around the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1973, which came almost immediately after the adoption of Resolution 1970, we might ask: why was there such a hurry, especially when the measures stipulated in the preceding resolution had already begun to be implemented? Well, the thing is that at that time the AU's peace initiative "road map" was being put forward, in whose creation Jacob Zuma played a central role. And Res.1970 wasn't strong enough.
The fact that the African Union, and particularly South Africa as the driving engine behind it, has begun a systematic transformation and shift away from the UN Security Council, and assuming the power over maintaining international peace and security in the region, has become most visible in the case with Somalia. And for a good reason. The situation in Somalia is not just a result from the continuous work of multiple factors aiming to destroy the state of Somalia (it has already practically split into several parts), but is a long-term hit on the very statehood as such, a destruction which would hardly be reversed any time soon.
In Somalia, the state would not be able to recover for more than 20 years even if the crisis suddenly stopped today. And there are many reasons for that. Strangely, what seems to be the main reason for the crises elsewhere on the African continent, is almost absent in Somalia: the multinational composition of the population. Unlike many other African countries, Somalia, just on the contrary, is a rare example of a mono-ethnic country. The "titular nation", the Somalis, are almost 90% of the population. Yes, there is indeed a strong clan system, but it is not what is the main obstacle to restoring statehood (the current splitting of Somalia did not occur along tribal lines). The disintegration of Somalia is a special case which was achieved through unique means and has brought unique results. In this sense, probably Somalia has a few lessons to teach us about Libya as well, and should serve as a warning.
The African continent is probably the region which has suffered the most from the global political dynamism of the last century, and this includes both the "old" and "new" world order, whatever that means. Africa has always been treated not as a subject but rather an object of international law. And things very much remain the same to this day. There probably was a very short period (in the early 1960s) when things seemed to be starting to change, but that was more like an exception from the rule, a rule which quickly had the upper hand in the subsequent decades, and the old ways again prevailed on the continent from the early 1990s onwards. The "scramble for Africa" has never really ceased, only the players and the means are constantly changing. And perhaps it's time that Africa takes its destiny in its own hands, despite all the hardships it will inevitably encounter on the way, and all the flaws that are inherent to a region so diverse and so inexperienced in democracy and international cooperation.
Frankly, what has started to transpire after the transformation of the current world order (some might call it a collapse of the world order, or restructuring if you like), has become rather intolerable from an African standpoint. Africa has again and again been turned into a proving ground for testing various "international" special operations, new types of regimes, and the "collateral" victims do not seem to matter that much. The UN's involvement in resolving the African crises has more and more clearly become rather a detriment than benefit for the continent - what it has resulted in has been one conflict after another, instead of peace. And I am not even beginning to address the arbitrary border drawing by the former Great Powers after the collapse of their colonial empires - a problem that echoes across the decades even today, and that has to a large extent defined the conundrums on the continent (cases where the African peoples have managed to right these wrongs on their own in a peaceful way could be counted on the fingers of one hand). So you might understand the desire of the African countries to try to use the African Union as a tool to get out of this vicious "guardianship" and finally grow up. I think this striving is understandable, legitimate and justified. Granted, the process has only just begun, but the sense of the general direction is already quite clear.
The policy of the African countries to try to take the responsibility for solving their "own" crises in their own hands is understandable - after all, more than 70% of the issues on the agenda of the UNSC usually concern Africa. However, there are presently only three African representatives in the Security Council (South Africa, Togo and Morocco). At the same time, Morocco is considered part of Africa only geographically but not politically, since it is not a member of the AU, and neither is it part of the Organisation of African Unity. The African region has the largest number of countries than any other (54, and counting), but just a single permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
Jacob Zuma has directly urged for UN reforms and, above all, UNSC reforms. The problem there is not only the disproportionate representation but that the UNSC has long ceased to perform its primary function of maintaining international peace and security. Despite the fact that the members of the Council are supposed to act in the interests of the entire international community, in practice the picture looks quite differently. If we take a look at the issues that are still on the UNSC agenda, we'd be surprised. For instance, the Council has still not addressed complaints from Libya from 1983, '84, '86, '89, and even a complaint from Sudan from as early as 1958, as well as many other complaints and requests by other African countries for UN protection or arbitrage. In the recent years the UNSC has strangely stopped publishing the list of questions and pleas that it has received, and it is no longer possible to find even the slightest hint of such a list on their official website. And it is logical to ask the question why that is.
Yes, one might ask why all these questions are never addressed, and why these issues remain on the agenda of the Council, and are never solved? The answer may well be hidden in Article 12 of the UN Charter, which states that the General Assembly cannot deal with issues that are already put in front of the UNSC, unless the UNSC itself requests so. So, it turns out that an institution that comprises of all the UN member states, actually cannot make any decisions on matters that are on the "pending" queue of the Security Council, even when it is obvious that the Council is not willing to discuss them any time soon. By the way, the UN reforms that are now being offered include the creation of regional Security Councils, which again is a direct consequence of the UNSC's refusal or incapability (you choose) of fulfilling its functions impartially and in the interests of the entire international community.
So the African Union decided to finally put the question about the gradual transferring of the prerogatives to resolve Africa's own crises. The catalyst for this decision were the events in Libya and the UN's rather apathetic participation in finding a "solution" of the crisis. As some might know, the AU had already developed a political "road map" that was supposed to help resolve the conflict in Libya from last year. And Gaddafi even agreed on it. But, no surprise, the AU's plan remained completely ignored in favour of bombing Libya by the NATO forces. In this sense, Jacob Zuma said that the military operation in Libya had been like a preemptive strike on the prospects for a peaceful solution of the Libyan crisis. This was again completely ignored. This is why the AU supported the operation only with half a mouth and without providing any logistical or military support for NATO (which put additional risks to the operation itself, and for a time it looked likely that Gaddafi would be able to escape through the southern border because of that - in case he had some brains of course). Of course the British and French were very hasty to push for a military solution, completely disregarding the African nations as if they did not exist at all. It turns out that the UNSC did not allow the AU to even attempt a peaceful solution.
And really, if we recall the circumstances around the adoption of the UNSC Resolution 1973, which came almost immediately after the adoption of Resolution 1970, we might ask: why was there such a hurry, especially when the measures stipulated in the preceding resolution had already begun to be implemented? Well, the thing is that at that time the AU's peace initiative "road map" was being put forward, in whose creation Jacob Zuma played a central role. And Res.1970 wasn't strong enough.
The fact that the African Union, and particularly South Africa as the driving engine behind it, has begun a systematic transformation and shift away from the UN Security Council, and assuming the power over maintaining international peace and security in the region, has become most visible in the case with Somalia. And for a good reason. The situation in Somalia is not just a result from the continuous work of multiple factors aiming to destroy the state of Somalia (it has already practically split into several parts), but is a long-term hit on the very statehood as such, a destruction which would hardly be reversed any time soon.
In Somalia, the state would not be able to recover for more than 20 years even if the crisis suddenly stopped today. And there are many reasons for that. Strangely, what seems to be the main reason for the crises elsewhere on the African continent, is almost absent in Somalia: the multinational composition of the population. Unlike many other African countries, Somalia, just on the contrary, is a rare example of a mono-ethnic country. The "titular nation", the Somalis, are almost 90% of the population. Yes, there is indeed a strong clan system, but it is not what is the main obstacle to restoring statehood (the current splitting of Somalia did not occur along tribal lines). The disintegration of Somalia is a special case which was achieved through unique means and has brought unique results. In this sense, probably Somalia has a few lessons to teach us about Libya as well, and should serve as a warning.
The African continent is probably the region which has suffered the most from the global political dynamism of the last century, and this includes both the "old" and "new" world order, whatever that means. Africa has always been treated not as a subject but rather an object of international law. And things very much remain the same to this day. There probably was a very short period (in the early 1960s) when things seemed to be starting to change, but that was more like an exception from the rule, a rule which quickly had the upper hand in the subsequent decades, and the old ways again prevailed on the continent from the early 1990s onwards. The "scramble for Africa" has never really ceased, only the players and the means are constantly changing. And perhaps it's time that Africa takes its destiny in its own hands, despite all the hardships it will inevitably encounter on the way, and all the flaws that are inherent to a region so diverse and so inexperienced in democracy and international cooperation.
Frankly, what has started to transpire after the transformation of the current world order (some might call it a collapse of the world order, or restructuring if you like), has become rather intolerable from an African standpoint. Africa has again and again been turned into a proving ground for testing various "international" special operations, new types of regimes, and the "collateral" victims do not seem to matter that much. The UN's involvement in resolving the African crises has more and more clearly become rather a detriment than benefit for the continent - what it has resulted in has been one conflict after another, instead of peace. And I am not even beginning to address the arbitrary border drawing by the former Great Powers after the collapse of their colonial empires - a problem that echoes across the decades even today, and that has to a large extent defined the conundrums on the continent (cases where the African peoples have managed to right these wrongs on their own in a peaceful way could be counted on the fingers of one hand). So you might understand the desire of the African countries to try to use the African Union as a tool to get out of this vicious "guardianship" and finally grow up. I think this striving is understandable, legitimate and justified. Granted, the process has only just begun, but the sense of the general direction is already quite clear.
