posted
Why Nigeria will not get the UN seat........... for lack of identity,lack of stability, internal problem and own version of Islam. South Africa, a more settled nation with a complete sense of direction will get the UN seat.Egypt will displace Nigeria for the second seat for it's clear Arab/moslem identity. Currently there are no moslem African nation occupying a seat in UN Security council; Egypt remains a strong and viable candidate over Nigeria.
Here is the take, one country from the Moslem North of Africa and the other from the Christain South of Africa. You can bait on that. Nigeria is too drunk and too defiant against it's citizens to earn such a power in the UN seat.
Hail Biafra Posts: 1683 | From: Minnesota USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Why Africa drops bid for veto power, by Adeniji From Oghogho Obayuwana, Abuja
THE time-tested wisdom of "half a loaf being better than none" was what informed the decision by Nigeria and her friends to drop the earlier demand for two permanent seats with the veto power and five non- permanent seats in the envisaged expansion of the United Nation's (UN) Security Council.
Indeed, the fear of the permanent five (P5), namely United States (U.S.), Britain, France, China, and Russia, has become the beginning of wisdom to the Nigeria- led group of African countries seeking the coveted seat. They have suddenly come to grips with the reality that having two permanent seats without a veto and four non-permanent seats (as against the initial five demanded) is a wiser option than allowing their resolution reached last month in Libya to be "vetoed" by the powerful permanent five.
In offering explanations at the weekend for the development, Foreign Affairs Minister, Olu Adeniji, told The Guardian in Abuja: "It became clear to us after our latest consultations (in New York and London) that if the 53 African members of the UN insist on a non-negotiable position in dealing with key actors from the other regions, in the 193-member-assembly, our draft resolution stood no chance of being adopted particularly as Africa is the only continent now demanding a veto for its two permanent members. Therefore, if Africa is to attain its fundamental objective of being represented in the permanent membership category, it has to compromise on the issue of the veto."
The minister offered explanations on his recent consultations alongside the foreign ministers of South Africa, Libya and Egypt with other interest groups in New York. The African group also met with members of the Group of four (G.4) - (Japan, Germany, Brazil and India) on July 25 in London. Drawing strength from the position of the 31 other co-sponsors, Adeniji took a swipe at the virulent Egyptian propaganda now making the rounds that Nigeria has sold out Africa's position as enshrined in the Ezulwini consensus (reached in February). It was endorsed by the leaders in their Libyan Summit for Africa to insist on two permanent (with a veto) and five non-permanent seats. The Egyptian attack is being spearheaded by that country's foreign minister, Aboul Gheit who has also threatened that the Nigerian "sell out" would lead to a major diplomatic row at an extraordinary summit expected to be called soon.
But the new move by Nigeria, according to Adeniji, is consequent upon "greater wisdom, realism and vision." He said "Egypt's complaint is borne out of the fact that it belongs to the small minority that is insisting on a non negotiable approach...Nigeria as the chair of the follow-up mechanism was merely the spokesman of the overwhelming majority of the AU heads of state who responded to President (Olusegun) Obasanjo's (AU chairman) consultations with them. So the virulent attacks are wrong"
The minister also gave insight on how the new position gained steam and Nigeria's confidence in it. "We found out that the G4 proposal was the closest to ours. Whereas, the mandate of negotiation given to us by the authority of the heads of state and subsequent consultations by the AU chairman revealed that majority of African states - Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Botswana among others affirmed the intention of the leaders that Africa should be flexible and be willing to give and take." He continued: "President Obasanjo wrote to his colleagues to seek their views on this and the overwhelming replies received showed a disposition to give up on the demand of the veto while adopting a flexible approach on the question of additional four seats."
Adeniji said categorically that the shift of ground had to do with the deluge of complaints by the existing permanent five members.
He said: "Africa's request for additional seats to bring its own representation to seven encouraged Asia to also ask for four additional seats to bring its own representatives as well to seven and it was obvious that the Latin America/Caribbean region will also ask for one additional seat. This would make the security council too large for the support of the permanent five, many of whom are already complaining that the initial 24 recommended by the Secretary-General was too large... Indeed, America's last statement was that the total number in the enlarged council should not be more than 21."
In the new deal, all proposed two African nations plus India, Germany, Brazil and Japan will be permanent members of the Security Council without a veto. Adeniji described this scenario at the weekend as "the real politic of today" bearing in mind that even the G4 initially also asked for the veto.
Of what use the UN seats would be without the veto, he said: "Africa would have gained entrance to the inner caucus of the UN. It will have six members in that privileged chamber instead of the existing rotating three.
The possibility that we will have none through the insistence on the veto is gred." Adeniji continued: The veto has become less and less an instrument of resort by members of the permanent five since the end of the cold war. Indeed, in the last 10 years, we have not had any except when the U.S. used it on the Middle East debacle. With the abolition of apartheid, veto in the hands of African states will invariably be more of a matter of prestige than of necessity. What distinguishes Africa from the rest of the world is that it's the only region from which no existing permanent member of the security council emanates."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
