Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the UN
Comment on "Africa and the Security Council"to a meeting of Africa Amicale
UN Headquarters, November 1996
(The following text is an edited version of the Ambassador's remarks)
In my view there are three sets of pressures which impinge on African members of the Security Council. They are very real pressures and I believe we should, as Africans, be aware of them.
First is the pressure on African members of the Security Council to have policy positions on issues that are far away from Africa. Members of the General Assembly don't have to develop specific policies on Cambodia, or Georgia or Haiti or El Salvador. But if you are a member of the Security Council from Africa you are expected to participate, not only in issues of concern to you as an African but also in other areas, otherwise you lose your credibility. The Security Council is a body that works as a whole and it has the primary responsibility for maintanence of international peace and security globally. So you cannot accuse others of not paying attention to African issues if you yourself, as an African member of the Security Council, have no opinion whatsoever when they come to talk about other problems. This is a hard pressure on us because because Africa for the time being occupies much of the agenda of the Council.
Second is the pressure to join consensus. This wonderful world works on consensus, when the Security Council has agreed there is to be no vote. But consensus works in two ways. On the one hand, it facilitates agreement, so that the resolution has the widest possible support among Council members. But on the other hand, it results in weak resolutions -- the least common denominator. I am afraid that we, the Africans find that we are supporting a consensus which is really an empty resolution in terms of really addressing the issues of concern to Africa and the hemisphere.
Third, I'd like to mention the pressure of double standards on the part of the major powers. Amb. Legwaila already mentioned this. But let me just illustrate very quickly with a resolution on Liberia. All members of the Council except one country -- you can guess what that country is -- agreed that they were ready to vote on the resolution on Liberia, in order to take advantage of what appeared to be positive developements then. But that member said "No" and held up the resoulution for two weeks. Boy it was bad! On the other hand, when a 15-page resolution of the same nature on Bosnia came up, we got the text the day before and they told us that tomorrow we must pass this resolution. Which we passed by the way. But we could compare this to the passing of the resolution on Liberia -- less than one page long -- which was to identify and support the positive developments in that conflict area.
[Ed. note: Nigeria is seeking a permanent seat in the Security Council, a step which most other African countries do not support.]