Global Policy Forum

While the UN is bogged down by bureaucracy, the US is getting things done pretty fast The ever-deteriorating situation in Congo, where inter-ethnic and inter-factional clashes are now the order of the day, could be the ultimate confirmation that Africa has no business relying on the United Nations Security Council.

Indifference, indecision and outright ineptitude characterise the performance of the UN body charged with maintaining international peace and security in handling African conflicts.

The result is that while Congolese and other Africans go to bed assured that help is on the way, crises (usually death), catches up with them before the night is over. This, juxtaposed with the perpetual success of more or less unilateral action (albeit rather highhanded too) by the United States, intervening wherever they choose, raises another question: isn't it better to ally with and rely on the US than on the UN?

The Council has 15 members - five permanent members (US, Britain, France, China and the Russian Federation) and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of 'great Power unanimity', often referred to as the 'veto' power.

At end of the World War II, the US, Britain, France and Russia were considered the most powerful states in the world. China was recognised as a potential military power, fast coming up. The wisdom here was that with the top powers making the top decisions, it was unlikely whatever they decided would culminate in bitter conflict against each other, leading to another bloody war.

But the Council, like other UN arms, is always bogged down by bureaucracy -- committees, reports and resolutions that take years. There is a glaring lack of urgency in UN military operations and you have to look hard to find effectiveness.

In 1994, the whole world stood by as the Hutu regime in Kigali systematically massacred about a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus. It was business as usual in New York as the genocide raged on. The Security Council did nothing. No apologies have ever been offered to the Rwandese people, who were seriously let down.

In Somalia law and order have broken down over a decade, under the nose of the UN. For more than 20 years in Sudan, the slave trade continues with the full knowledge of the UN, as the Arab north oppresses the poorer black south. Nothing substantial has been done.

The Angola Emergency Campaign (AEC) was founded in November 1992 in response to Savimbi returning to war after losing the national elections. The war had developed into 'the worst war in the world' nearly two decades earlier, but remained largely ignored or forgotten. On 15 September 1993 Arms embargo and petroleum sanctions were imposed against UNITA, a somewhat positive development. But it took another four years for travel sanctions to be imposed against the brutal rebel chiefs and even just when they were adopted (September 1997), they were strangely postponed for another month. From then on, little effort was made in settling the Angolan question. And on 20 March 1999, the United Nations lowered its peace-keeping flag in Angola, bringing to a failed end the role given it by the Lusaka Protocol of 1994. Owing to Jonas Savimbi's actions there was no peace to keep.

In the DR Congo, it has been pretty much the same story. The UN has been ambivalent in its approach; first looking on as war raged, then belatedly coming in to call for a ceasefire and then promising so much and delivering so little, in fact equivalent to nothing. Given the failure to prevent the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and to address the long-term security issues it created, solving and settling the Congo crisis was an excellent opportunity for the UN to demonstrate commitment to African peace processes, and to rebuild credibility with the troubled continent.

In particular, the UN was expected to support regional efforts to restore the territorial integrity of the DRC and to resolve its security issues and put continuous pressure on all rebel factions to sign the Lusaka cease-fire agreement and on all parties to respect it At the local level, the UN Security Council was expected to create a donor liaison group to mobilise resources for humanitarian assistance, local reconstruction, rehabilitation of infrastructure and reconciliation initiatives at the community level. But nothing is forthcoming. The Council does have the might, but the will seems to be absent.

"Most of Africa does not matter much in terms of trade," explains a source close to the Council. "If those big countries are not interested in you, you cannot be high on the agenda since you are of no use in trade and investment and no strategic value as a base for certain military operations. And the resources are limited, so in choosing what crises to react to, Africa gets a raw deal," the source added. For unless all the five powers agree, nothing substantial can be done.

While the UN is bogged down by bureaucracy, the US is busy getting things done real fast.

When the Manuel Noriega regime in Panama was found (or thought) to be flagging on the drug-trafficking to the United States, the Bush administration moved to arrest him (from his own palace) in 1989 in a matter of weeks.

When Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait in 1990, it is the US which led Operation Desert Storm that threw him out and returned Kuwait to normalcy and sanity.

More recently after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US took matters in its hands and two months later the Talibans -- or rather what was left of them -- were in full flight. Afghanistan is now returning to normal.

In comparison, the Congo war that started years earlier is nowhere near its end. Mayhem multiplies each day. The tragedy of all the Security Council ineptitude is that it lends credence to the cause of unilateral interventions in cases where the ideal would be to have a multi-national force within the framework of the UN - like how Uganda intervened in the Rwanda genocide because nobody else cared.

When endangered nations understand that they cannot rely on the international community to bail them out of danger, they are more wont to increase their defence spending at the expense of crucial sectors like health and education.

African countries will have good cause, in exchange for a few favours to the US, to become or remain allies (read puppets) of the US because that is far more reliable than the talk-shop the UN has proved to be. Whereas UN arms like UNDP, UNICEF, WFP and others have scored many successes, the Security Council has proved inept as far as Africa is concerned.

Many countries in Africa recognise the odds in this regard and are beginning to advocate for reform. Egyptian ambassador to Uganda Maasoum Marzouk says: "The cure for an ill person is not to kill but to cure the deficiencies. Egypt is trying to do just that in cooperation with brotherly African countries. "The UN stands for international peace and cooperation," he says. "As Africans we should stick to this because there is no way around international law. We have to reform the UN; or else it will be some cartel of nations dominating the rest of the world."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.