Our Security—or
theirs? -Stephen Edetanlen
With the establishment
of the United Nations in the last century, the world had hoped to have an organized global forum and pseudo-executive system
wherein nations would find some common grounds, creating a sort of fellowship and sense of oneness which, when harnessed,
would prove a strong enough platform for meeting of the minds, trashing out militating differences in national policies of
members and moulding a paradigm for enduring global peace and security. The paramount basis for this arrangement was the fostering
of global peace and security, together with the enabling structural and logistical prerequisites. To be effective in its purpose,
five principal organs constitute the UN –though the continued relevance of one is uncertain. These organs are the General
Assembly, Security Council, the Secretariat, International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council and Economic and Social
Council.
The objectives of this
multilateral global organization, the UN, were very desirable and quite laudable, to say the least. For the successful realization
of these laudable objectives, however, it is pertinent for the organization to enjoy the trust of, at least, its members.
The organizational machinery has to be dependable, effective and efficient. It should be capable of being relied upon. Due
to the national and regional dynamics of the membership of the UN, a minimal level of trust will guarantee the functionality
of this world organization. With a multi-national organization of this nature as the UN, with its large membership each of
which has some “national interest” to protect, maintaining trust amongst them requires a high level of transparency
and accountability.
Of the primary organs
of this gigantic organization, without doubt, the two most important are the General Assembly and Security Council. Necessarily,
therefore, it is in these two organs that transparency and accountability, which are foundational for the requisite trust,
are most imperative. A review of the works and actions of these two organs discloses gross deficiency of trust, which is more
pronounced in the Security Council. A simple and generally recognized means of attaining and manifesting trust is the adoption
of open and democratic processes in decision-making. By and large, democracy is synonymous with transparency and accountability.
Due to the sensitive responsibilities and significance of the Security Council, it is very important that it be seen as truly
focused on the peace and security concerns of the global community and responsive to the interests of all its members. The
General Assembly, on the other hand, could pass for a democratic plenary body. The representatives apparently reach decisions
based on consensus of the majority. The same cannot be said of the Security Council. Unfortunately, the Assembly cannot make
decisions that are mandatory or binding on the members, whereas the Security Council can. The question is: can the Security
Council afford to be democratic? This would mean acceding to the views of the majority, irrespective of the reasonableness,
sensitiveness or otherwise of the question for determination.
Understandably, the
founders of the UN did not think it wise to trust the maintenance of international peace and security in the hands of every
member of the organization, nor subject the matter to the democratic deliberations of the whole body. Besides the necessity
of efficient running and prompt decision-making, it was easier to trust global peace and security in the hands of a few allied
powers that prevailed against the axis powers in 1945—nations which had proved their military might and share similar
political ideologies. That may have been the case then. But the world has moved on since then. The leaders of the axis powers
then, Germany,
Japan and Italy,
are now major players in recent peace and security initiatives. Indeed, Japan
and Germany are second only to the United States, with regards to financial contributions to the UN. This goes to
show that the dispensation of 1945 is much different from what obtains now. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that the founders
of the UN intended for the decisions by the Security Council be reached for purposes other than the genuine maintenance of
peace and security in the world. Sadly, this is often the case today. Instead of taking decisions based, primarily, on maintaining
global peace and security, “national interests” of members of the Security Council are the principal considerations,
with lots of lobbying, arm-twisting and manipulation being employed to attain selfish national goals. Tens of thousands of
people could be perishing in a region or country and the Council will not lift a real finger, because the “national
interest” of its powerful members is not threatened or affected. This is so even where the disturbing development has
been extensively deliberated by the General Assembly.
It is not in dispute
that the circumstances of this day are not the same as those prevailing during the formation of the UN. What is not agreed
upon is whether this changed circumstance sufficiently necessitates altering the decision-making process of the Security Council.
Naturally, leading the pack of the proponents of maintaining the status quo are the current permanent members of the
Council. Whatever position may be found agreeable to individual or group intellectual or political leanings, a factor that
cannot be disregarded is that the current procedure and process of arriving at decisions in the Council cannot continue. The
reason for this is the gross misplacement of priority in Council deliberations by its members. The system must be reformed
so as to be transparent. The UN was not founded, ex facie, to protect the “national interests” of certain
nations merely, but for the peace and security of every nation of the world. The overly politicization of the decision-making
apparatus of the Security Council is unacceptable. It must be open, transparent and made accountable.
Seeing Through
Iran’s Political Posturing -Stephen Edetanlen
The world awaits and
hopes to see the day of lessening of tensions in the Middle East: if it will ever come. For that to happen, there would be so much compromise
on the part of every party. The stance of so many groups in the region and outside it, not to recognize the existence and
statehood of Israel, does not help matters,
in the least. But by far, the most controversial nation in the region has been Iran,
for a number of years now. Its nuclear bid, its challenge and posturing against the world’s only super-power and, most
recently, the seizing of British service personnel, has ensured for Iran
a place in international affairs that many do not envy.
Let us look more closely
into this latest development. While Iran claims the service men and a woman,
numbering eleven altogether, violated its territorial sovereignty by trespassing into its territorial waters; the United Kingdom, on the other hand maintains, the
naval officers were within Iraqi territorial waters, going about their lawful duties under the mandate of the United Nations.
Meanwhile, the United Nations has not taken any steps denying or accepting authority over the service personnel or their functions
in this incidence. Though this point seems to have been overlooked, it does somewhat punctured the British argument, that
the 15 service men and woman were on international assignment under UN’s authorization. The United Nations, apparently,
prefers to be non-partisan, at least for now. Tactically, the traditional ally of the British, the United
States, has chosen to maintain a low profile in Iran’s
latest confrontation against the West.
What seems to be manifest
for now is that the international community chooses to treat this as a bilateral affair, that the two countries involved should
try and resolve between them. Though it is still disputed whether or not the arrest and abduction occurred within Iranian
or Iraqi territorial waters, it appears Iran
is deliberately using the capture as a tool of propaganda to secure some kind of leverage to push forward its goals. This
goal was initially thought to be as a bargaining chip in its nuclear programme controversy. While not discrediting this conjecture,
a clear and new indication of Iran’s
targeting of this incidence as a propaganda method came somewhere from the nuclear issue. This giveaway indication is found
in the purported recent letters from Faye Turney. In a letter released by Iran's embassy in London, alleged to be from the
sailor, again, it states "I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraq, sacrificed due to the
intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments,". With due respect to the Iranian government, this Iraqi angle which
has been introduced is a telltale that this is a propaganda gimmick. It deviates from their initial posture breach of territorial
sovereignty and the two issues can not be on the same plank. This rubbishes Iran’s
initial claim and by not maintaining their claim, like the British who have been saying the same thing since the outbreak
of this stand-off, their claims can not be taken seriously. Iran
should reveal its hands, take away its guise and let the world make sense of this matter.
A Review of African Union’s Response to Corruption in
Africa
Abstract This
paper examines the African Union’s fight against Corruption in African Countries. While developing countries are striving
to achieve socio-economic integration, there are a number of social and political evils that undermines economic growth in
these countries. This paper analyses the causes and effects of corruption, which has constitutes a severe constraint to economic
growth. The paper argues that much as the African Union deserves commendation for the role it is playing towards eradication
of corruption in Africa, the measures adopted by the Union can hardly help reduce corruption to any appreciable extent, due
to some factors that militate against such measures.
Introduction The African Union was founded in July 2002
at the Durban Summit, following the Sirte Declaration on 09 September 1999 and succeeded the Organisation of African Unity.
The establishment of the African Union was as a result of the various initiatives by the OAU amongst which was the greater
need for a process of accelerated, sustainable socio-economy, cultural and political integration in the African continent.
There is no doubt that it was modelled on the European Union which itself was previously known as The European Economic Union
(EEC). While the OAU was fighting diplomatically against racism and apartheid and decolonisation and the Soviet Union and
the West were watching each other with more than an eagle eye and ready to press the Red button of destruction, the AU became
the aftermath of that. The changing faces of the East – West relationship from the ever ready to lunch the weapons
of mass devastation to that of cooperation was noted by the Heads of State of the defunct OAU at their two days summit of
Twenty-sixth Ordinary Session of the Assembly in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in July 1990. The Heads of State and Government of the OAU in that summit took a critical review of the
political, social and economic situation of the Africa continent, in light of the rapid changes taking place in the World
and their impact on Africa, as presented in the Report of the Secretary General on the Fundamental Changes taking place in
the World and their Implication for Africa: Proposal for an African Response.[1] The real treat of the African Continent’s
marginalisation in global affairs, especially in socio-economics situations which remains precarious today is now much a greater
and in present danger than ever before, unless the AU tackles the menace corruption of in all its forms. The African has suffered from decades of socio-economics, cultural
and political decades of decline and marginalisation. The aftermath of independence has witnessed nothing but a string of
wide spread corruption and gross abuse of power dictators as Heads of Government with poor economic policies and civil wars.
Corruption has and continues to be cankerworms deep in the mind set of over 99% of African Heads of Government and her people
both in the public and private sector. “Its deep effects on society have been described as being worse than prostitution.
While prostitution may jeopardise the morals of individual, corruption on the other hand affects in multitude and diverse
ways the well being of the whole nation.” [2]
The corroding effects of corruption
are multifaceted. This evil in particular spreads and paralysis entire government and public sector operations if left unimpeded.
Corruption is as much structurally conditioned as it is a personal-choice driven behaviour. This is why anti-corruption strategies
and policies ought to seek to reduce structural opportunities for corruption as well as motivational factors to corrupt and/or
to be corrupted. The criminal justice approach in combating corruption divorced from prevention and human development efforts
will make a few headlines and will put a few behind the bars but cannot dismantle the economic, cultural and political forces
driving a corruption zeal. Similarly, anti-corruption proclamations and mere economic growth cannot, on their own, dismantle
a personal choice to get involved in a corrupt
Transaction, be it for survival, greed
or mere convenience. Thus, the integration of structural and motivational factors generating corruption requires even stronger
and targeted integration of anti-corruption approaches and interventions.[3]
Organised crime and corruption pose a massive security challenge
in Africa. They indirectly compromise the welfare and integrity of society through unlawful practices that create victims,
while at the same time generating benefits only for criminals. They undermine the rule of law and engender lawlessness, thus
creating an environment in which governments seem incapable of providing security for their people. Government officials have
themselves been found to be complicit in acts of crime and corruption. Failure to curb this problem only serves to chain the
continent to deprivation, weak economic performance, bad governance, social disintegration, poverty, apathy and strife. This
poses a threat to the achievement of the developmental objectives envisioned in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) Programme – the blueprint document that sketches the path towards Africa’s economic growth and development.
It is
argued in this paper that NEPAD, which is sanctioned by the African Union (AU), should create a forum to drive a targeted,
holistic, programmatic approach towards containing organised crime and corruption in Africa. This approach should aim at developing
national capacities to tackle organised crime and corruption effectively. By doing so, countries will be able to foster a
stronger regional and wider global response to the challenge. Without this approach, Africa will continue to lag behind and
remain the weak link in global efforts to control organised crime and corruption, as is the case with other social ills that
afflict the continent. Africa
is affected by various kinds of organised crime, including banditry, the diversion of humanitarian aid and crucial food resources,
racketeering, the theft and smuggling of mineral resources, motor vehicle theft and smuggling, trafficking in illegal drugs
and small arms, poaching and cattle rustling. Human trafficking is also starting to emerge as an area of concern. These crimes
affect all African countries. However, differences in the degree to which countries are affected do, in turn, have a bearing
on the level of national prioritisation and coordination between countries in efforts to control these criminal activities.
Countries often do not have the same priorities, let alone similar capacities to fight organised crime and corruption. This
not only has a direct impact on national capacity to fight organised crime and corruption, but also negatively affects international
cooperation. The latter takes place more often and effectively at bilateral level and to a lesser extent at regional level.
In order to launch an effective struggle against crime and corruption, capacity will need to be enhanced initially at national
level.[4] Causes
of Corruption The causes of the corruption in the continent
are multifaceted and primarily center on greed. Corruption is a global phenomenon but the African continent pays more dearly
for this evil act. The lack of basic infrastructure, good education, health care, genuine means of income to sustain your
family are amongst some of the factors that triggers corrupt acts. Accountability and transparency is ill developed in the
region due to lack of quality leadership. That is a critical factor in the determination of the prevalence of corruption.
“The senses of public duty and of national vision are often in which all can benefit is often not present, and may not
be shared by all even in some liberal democratic societies”.[5] Corruption is intertwined with politics and it
is indeed a symptom of weak political institution.
In Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, to name but a few are such countries that are grossly
guilty of the causes of corruption. Where miscreant, privilege individuals, illegitimating amass national funds to the detriment
of the lager majority of its citizenry; corruption is thus giving birth to. The erosion and abuse of the judiciary and enforcement
structures also play a pivotal role in abuse of power by those entrusted with leadership.
Effect on the People
Indeed, corruption is global but the high level corruption in the African continent is mind blowing. In
some part of the region, there is barely a meal for the day. Yet there leaders’ leaves gold paved palaces, with bank
accounts across the globe. The effect of such misappropriation is a limited national and international investment and ineffective
system of administration – government. The citizens are unproductive, living in some cases way below the poverty line.
These citizens faces untold hardship, without a better choice, learned to cope with high inflation, increased cost of transport,
food stuff, fuel, medicines, lack of clean drinking water, electricity, inaccessible roads etc. In a State or region where
there is no stimulation of socio-economic growth, the effect is felt at all levels of life for those at the receiving end
of bad governance and such is the unfortunate situation in Zimbabwe were a few enjoys at the expense of the majority.
Corruption
is so endemic in Africa that the World Bank estimates that some $1 trillion is paid globally on bribes alone each year. According
to the bank, the sums of money embezzled or stolen from the public funds and assets by corrupt officials and the unaccounted
volume of fraud within the private sector could exceed the scale of global corruption. It furthered argued that, not only
does it obstruct development but it fetters business growth. The bank surveyed nine African countries amongst which are those
named above and ranked corruption as the major impediment to their development. It is estimated by the bank that where good
governance and corruption control have been firmly established, the long-term economic dividend can be as much as three to
fourfold increase in income per capital, together with economic growth of about 4%.[6] Corruption is bad enough on its own but, what makes it worse is that
the proceeds from these corruptive malpractices are spent and kept in banks outside the African continent. Where these illicit
proceeds which the World Bank estimates to be in the region of $100 billion to $200 billion every year spent in Africa, it
would to an extent create more needed jobs and some kind of infrastructure. Corruption enriches the few minorities and strangulates economic
growth and inadvertently blocks much needed development in the African region. It forestalls in flock of potential international
investments, thus underpinning the region in an analogue age. Corruption is a man made disease, it is global in nature, but
practices more in Africa by self-serving public office holders. At the expense of those whom they were meant to serve and
protect – the private sector whom on the other hand were infested by the disease and thus became magnitude in nature.
The consequences
of corruption are invariably felt most by those at the bottom of the economic scale – the poor people who due to their
poorness have less means to cushion the negative impact. It is observed that, “Corruption has a strong negative effect
on all aspects of society: It distorts the economy, it challenges the rule of law and it undermines the functioning of the
political system. It is further observed that “While the effects of corruption may not be felt by the well-off decision-makers
of business and politics, widespread corruption has however a direct bearing on the everyday lives of the poorest strata of
the society as well”.[7] African Union Convention
The AU convention on preventing and
combating corruption and related offences was adopted by the heads of state at the AU summit held in Maputo on 11 July 2003.
The fight against corruption was not specifically introduced at the regional level until June 1998, at a session of
the assembly of heads of state and government in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. The assembly passed a resolution calling on the
secretary general to convene a high-level meeting of experts in cooperation with the African Commission on Human and People’s
Rights. These experts were to consider ways of removing obstacles to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights
– such as through the fight against corruption impunity – and propose appropriate legislative and other measures
for reform. The scene was set for the drafting of a historic convention. Civil society groups, including Transparency International,
actively participated in the writing of the first draft of the of the AU convention at expert meetings in Addis Ababa in November
2001 and September 2002.[8] The framework which covers a range of criminal
offences, also calls for preventive measures, more serious, meaningful regional co-operation, regional and international
legal assistance in the recovery of assets, illicit enrichment in both the public and private sector corruption. This convention
is unique in the sense that African heads of government are for the first time taking a pro-active steps in the fight against
corruption by a mandatory provision with respect to accountability in all sectors of their economy i.e. transparency in political
funding, designated public office holders declaration of assets, restrictions on immunity for public office holders (Article
7), bribery etc. The steps are indeed right steps in the right direction. However, the ratification is yet to attained the
require signatories for it to be enforced. Only 21 out of the 53 countries have signed the AU convention but none has ratified
it. [9] It is in the interest of the African state to
urgently ratify and vigorously pursue and effective mechanism in the eradication of corruption. As Susan Rose argued,
high level corruption limits investment and growth and lead to an ineffective government. Objectives The African
Union under the current leadership of the Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who succeeded South African president Thabo
Mbeki seems poised to institute measures to combat institutional and private sector corruption. To promote foreign investment
in Africa, the effect is what we are seeing in Chinese railway and agricultural investment in Africa notably Nigeria, through
NEPA (New partnership for Africa’s Development) programme. To promote human rights, peace, security and the alleviation
of the living standard of the African people. To promote regional cooperation for the effective implementation of measures
adopted in the interest of the continent, such as money laundering, people trafficking, eradication of corruption and related
offences. Under the Articles of the convention, the harmonisation and co-operation of policies and legislation amongst the
signatory African states for the purposes of eradicating corruption, detection, prevention and punishing is stated as one
of its major goals. The goal of socio-economic development is another stated as objectives of the convention. The aim of these
objectives is to combat corruption at every level and promote social, economic, political and cultural rights to the enjoyment
of growth in the region.[10] The emphasis of the convention is to encourage
member states to ‘promote and strengthen the development… of mechanisms required to prevent, detect, punish and
eradicate corruption and related offences in Africa and to ensure effectiveness of these measures.’[11] The convention has listed and strengthened laws
on corruption and related offences thereby ensuring they are punishable by national legislation. By encouraging and promoting
public awareness both national and internationally, the convention has thus enlisted global co-operation in the detection,
confiscation, forfeiture of the proceeds of corruption, the repatriation of such proceeds and furthermore, punishment for
those involved in the corrupt act.
Offences Constituting Corruption Transparency
International defines corruption “as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.”[12] It went further in its report, “corruption
is considered to include offering, soliciting and accepting bribes. The report points out that embezzlement through mechanisms
which include siphoning off funds to non-existent companies and through fake and mispriced transactions is rife throughout
Africa.”[13] The convention defined corruption broadly enough
as to ensure that corruption or related offences committed both within the common law and civil law jurisdiction would not
escape punishment. Under the civil law rule, corruption and embezzlement are offences which are only capable of being committed
by holders of public office or involving public funds. By introducing the term “related offences” the convention
found a way round that common law rule thus introducing civil law rules. The convention is now able to define corruption as
“the acts and practices including related offences proscribed in this convention.”[14] The convention has clearly and broadly defined corruption enough as to pre-empt any conflicts
of interpretation in both the civil and common law jurisdictions. Under this AU convention, the inclusion of ‘related
offences’ means those who commits the offence of corruption within official and private sectors in civil law countries
cannot escape punishment. As they have thus falling into the armpit of both common and civil law jurisdiction. However, the provision of the illicit enrichment
in the convention has been criticised. In that, the burden of the presumption of innocence in criminal law is somehow shifted
from the prosecution. In criminal cases which involve illicit enrichment or unjustified enrichment, the burden of proof usually
rest with the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that acquired wealth is not justified by earnings. Here, under
the convention, the prosecution is not legally required to prove beyond our accustomed reasonable doubt that wealth exceeds
income, nor does the prosecution necessarily need to prove that the unjustified income was derived from corruption. It is
automatically presumed that unjustified income is a proceed from corrupt source. It is argued that, if implemented, such provisions
are likely to face legal challenges, particularly in countries where the presumption of innocence is imbedded in the constitution.[15] African Union: International Co-operation against Corruption The African Union has solicited the assistance of the international community in a global
war against corruption in the region. The need to render such assistance was promptly recognised by the British government,
the World Bank, United Nations, the international and regional business communities. The British government welcomed the report and responded to the recommendations in the Africa
All Party Parliamentary group, titled “The Other Side of The Coin” by acknowledging that corruption and related
offences presents a critical obstacle to development in Africa. As such legal framework to combat international bribery, corruption
and money laundry were said to be re-enforced. Furthermore, recommendations from the Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) bribery working group has also been revisited to combat bribery of foreign public officials in international business
dealings. The United Nations adopted also adopted a convention on 9 December 2003 against corruption. African Union: Efforts to Present and Combat Corruption The
African Union has been concerned about the negative effects of corruption and impunity on the political,
economic, social and cultural stability of African States and its devastating effects on the economic and social development
of the African peoples. It has come to grip with the devastation caused by corruption and acknowledge that
corruption undermines accountability and transparency in the management of public affairs as well as socio-economic development
on the continent, thus recognizing the need to address the root causes of corruption on the continent. It
is convinced of the need to formulate and pursue, as a matter of priority, a common penal policy aimed at
protecting the society against corruption, including the adoption of appropriate legislative and adequate preventive measures.
The African Union is determined to build partnerships between governments and all segments of civil society,
in particular, women, youth, media and the private sector in order to fight the scourge of corruption.[16] The Convention on Preventing and Combating
Corruption has its basis in the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights as well as other resolutions and declarations
of the OAU. These include, the 1990 Declaration of fundamental changes taking place in the World and their Implications for
Africa.[17] The adoption of the convention was hailed both
in the region and international community as a step in the right direction. Furthermore, accountability and transparency awareness
is now a phenomenon welcomed in the region. The need for better governance in Africa cannot be under estimated. Without good
governance the effort to achieve economic integration will be futile. Bibliography Conga, Frank. Corruption in Africa.
Charleston, USA: Booksurge, 2006 Mbaku, John, M. Institutions and Development
in Africa. Trenton, USA: African World Press, 2004
Mbaku, John, M., Corruption in
Africa: Causes, Consequences and Clean up Lanham, USA: Lexington, 2007 Olaniya,
K, The African Union on Prevention and Combating of Corruption: A Critical Appraisal, African Human Rights Journal,
2004, Vol. 4 No. 1 74-92 Sardan, Jean-Piere, O. D., and Cox, Susan. Everyday Corruption
and the State: Citizens and the Public Officials in Africa. London: Zed Books Ltd, 2006 Sinjela, M., The African Union takes a legal stand on Corruption,. African yearbook of International
Law; 2005 vol. 11, p143-159
[1] http://www.africanreview.org/docs/govern/changes.pdf [2] Sinjela, M., The African Union takes a legal stand on Corruption,.
African yearbook of International Law; vol. 11, p143-159/2005 [3] See Corruption and anti corruption in South Africa. http://www.unodc.org/pdf/southafrica/southafrica_corruption.pdf [4]http://www.iss.co.za/index.php?link_id=28&slink_id=1185&link_type=12&slink_type=12&tmpl_id=3 [5] Ibid fn 2
[6] See Lord Chidgey., House of Lord debates, Monday 19 June 2006. On
the report of the Africa All Party Parliamentary Group, The other side of the coin: The UK and Corruption in Africa. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2006-06-19a.585.0&m=100562. Also see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank [7] Ibid fn 2
[8] Ibid [9] Htt://www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/queries/query30.cfm [10] See Article 2 of the convention
[11] See A. Muna, The African Convention against Corruption, in Transparency
International (TI), Global and regional reports, p.117 [12] ibid fn 8
[13] ibid [14] ibid fn 2; also see the preamble of the convention [15] Ibid fn 9
[16] See p.2 & 3., AFRICAN UNION CONVENTION ON PREVENTING AND COMBATING
CORRUPTION http://www.africa union.org/root/AU/Documents/Treaties/Text/Convention%20on%20Combating%20Corruption.pdf
[17] Ibidi fn 1
|
 |
Action in Darfur
is Long Overdue -Stephen Edetanlen
Sunday, 29th
April 2007, was Global Day of Action for Darfur. This is the fourth of such international days of action to garner support for the United Nations
to step in and positively act to bring and end to the genocide taking place in Darfur, a region in the western part of Sudan. The international day is a globally organised civil
protest held in several major cities around the world, including London and New York. There were speeches by celebrities and renowned international figures (past and
present) calling on the UN to take interventionist measures to bring an end to the humanitarian crisis. According to the BBC,
other events include a day of cultural events in Cairo, and a demonstration outside the Sudanese
embassy in Abuja, Nigeria.
This is all well and
good. Apparently, the world is not only focused on Iraq,
which slices up a huge chunk of global publicity, in recent years. What is quite disconcerting is that the UN has not taken
any meaningful action to stop the crisis, despite numerous resolutions that it has passed concerning the horrendous and deplorable
situation in that part of the African continent. What originally began as a conflict between the Sudanese government and rebel
groups in Darfur opposed to it has now spilled over into Chad and the Central African
Republic, worsening the humanitarian situation.
In the late 1990’s,
NATO, led by the United States, Britain
and Germany, intervened in the Kosovo
war without UN authorisation or accordance with the NATO charter.
There, the decision
by the major powers, including two members of the UN Security Council, was defended as a mission for international humanitarian
purposes, although the nation was not an alliance member. Up until this day, the involvement of the countries which intervened
in the Kosovo crisis is still very controversial, as it both violated Article 51 of the UN Charter and the NATO Charter. However,
the public were mostly sympathetic to the excuse of international humanitarian intervention given by the interfering foreign
powers.
To reconcile the excuse
for the international intervention in the Kosovo crisis by the big powers, with the lack of action so far in Darfur,
makes nonsense of the justification of intervention on international humanitarian grounds. The magnitude of the atrocities
in Kosovo in former Yugoslavia does not compare to Darfur,
with the UN’s new figure of 200,000 deaths. Yet, the leading powers of the world were quick and non-hesitant in their
intervention in Kosovo. Very unlike the diplomacy ruse employed by the significant powers of the UN Security Council to stall
UN action in Darfur, there were no such negotiations with the Yugoslav government before
NATO began bombarding Kosovo –and, this was even without the authorization of the UN.
I think the powers behind
the Security Council do not see a sufficient “national” interest of theirs to protect in Sudan, or her neighbouring countries. This kind of posturing is not surprising
to the keen observer of international disputes. In fact, it is in line with the summation of certain paradigm of the Security
Council, (see “For our security—or theirs?” March 2007). In spite of the numerous calls on world leaders
and the UN to take active steps to halt the devastation, human rights violations, destruction and genocide in Darfur,
and the admission and declaration of the UN itself of the humanitarian crisis and genocide in the region, we only have resolutions
to show for it –no action. A statement signed by celebrities during the Global Day calls on the world to "end its stalling
and take decisive action". Under the same canopy of humanitarian intervention, adopted by the leading nations of UN and NATO
when they entered Yugoslavia in 1999 without authorization, the world leaders
could go into Sudan and stop the destruction
of lives taking place there.
Why the delay; why the
wait? How many more people would have to die before the UN would drag its feet into Darfur?
Must there always be “national interest” to protect? What about global interest? What about humanitarian interest?
What about human lives? A life-destroying situation that has spilled over from one nation into neighbouring nations, does
that not constitute “threat to international peace and security”? Must the land have oil first? Probably, the
world needs a new interpretation of the UN Charter, as the current one hardly bears any meaning anymore.
Security
Council’s Hariri Resolution Was Unnecessary -Stephen Edetanlen.
The
United Nations Security Council, on 30th May 2007, adopted Resolution 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for
Lebanon to come into force on 10th June, 2007. Essentially, the tribunal is to “try” those found to
be responsible for the February 14th, 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Earlier
in its investigations, the UN had found officers culpable in both the Syrian and Lebanese administrations.
Summarily, according to the Security Council, the pivot of this resolution
is founded upon two premises. The first is a request by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, to the Secretary-General of the UN in December 2005 and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
The request was expressed in a letter of December 13th, 2005 “requesting inter
alia the establishment of a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found responsible for this
terrorist crime.” Afterwards, the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to negotiate an agreement with the
Lebanese government, aimed at establishing such a tribunal based on the highest international standards of criminal justice.
There
is no doubt that this request is a valid invitation to the UN to act. The question I find hard to reconcile is whether the
council ought to constitute a separate body, bearing in mind the basic principle of nemo
dat non quod habet?
The
UN Charter already established a competent judicial body, the International Court of Justice, to exercise judicial functions.
Therefore,
the question that arises is, albeit while the request for a tribunal may be justified, is the council’s tribunal also
justified?
Second,
although in characteristic form for its resolutions, the Security Council does not specify the specific Charter provisions
it relies on. For all intents and purposes, the relevant provision under Chapter VII would be Article 39, which states:
The Security Council shall
determine the existence of any threat
to the peace, breach of
the peace, or act of aggression and shall
make recommendations, or
decide what measures shall be taken
in accordance with Articles
41 and 42, to maintain or restore
international peace and security.
No
stretch of interpretation of the above provision would ground the kind of descent by the Security Council into the internal
affairs of a sovereign state, particularly when read vis-à-vis Articles 41, 42 and 2(7) of the Charter. Had Lebanon investigated
and came out with allegations that the terrorist act was sponsored by another state, then as in the Nicaragua case, the UN would be called in.
More
appropriately, the matter would be referred to the ICJ. In my humble submission, it is only and after this fails that Chapter
VII may come into play.
For
the avoidance of doubt, I firmly agree that Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination was horrific and gravely condemned.
But my point is these are criminal or terrorist acts which fall under the purview of the affected state’s internal affairs,
though it may involve third states, occasionally.
However,
as long as it can be processed with the state or states, and does not degenerate into a situation that threatens regional
or international peace, there is no place for the UN there. And, should it become a matter coming under the scope of the UN,
it should be properly directed to the appropriate body constituted to deal with the arisen matter.
This
does keep in mind that even the Prime Minister’s request for intervention will be invalidated if the proper constitutional
procedure has been followed which would make the request an effectual one.
In the circumstances,
it was not necessary for me to look into the merits of the request. The Security Council’s action was already flawed,
even if the request resulted from due observance of constitutional protocol.
|
