| UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA - AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER |
Africa: Africans Speak Out for World Peace Date distributed (ymd): 020916 Document reposted by Africa Action
Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List: an information service provided by AFRICA ACTION (incorporating the Africa Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa). Find more information for action for Africa at http://www.africaaction.org
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide Issue Areas: +security/peace+ +US policy focus+
SUMMARY CONTENTS:
This posting contains remarks by Africa's most prominent international figures, Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan, in opposition to the U.S. rush to war on Iraq. Mandela's remarks came in a September 10 interview with Newsweek, posted on the Newsweek web site; Annan's in his September 12 speech to the UN General Assembly.
Mandela's eloquent and candid remarks express widespread consensus among African opinionmakers and public opinion, most often muffled in statements by officials wary of offending Washington.
See also:
(1) Statement by Kenyan Human Rights Commission posted last week along with NPR commentary by Africa Action director Salih Booker (http://www.africaaction.org/docs02/sec0209.htm)
(2)Churches for Middle East Peace U.S. Church Leaders Urge U.S. to Avoid Military Action Against Iraq http://www.cmep.org/iraqletter.htm
Open letter to President Bush from leaders of the National Council of Churches, major U.S. denominations and religious orders
(3) "Whose Security," by Charlotte Bunch http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&s=bunch&c=1
(4) The Nation: Anti-War Resources http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=040307
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nelson Mandela: The U.S.A. Is a Threat to World Peace
In a rare interview, the South African demands that George W. Bush win United Nations support before attacking Iraq
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Sept. 10 Nelson Mandela, 84, may be the world's most respected statesman. Sentenced to life in prison on desolate Robben Island in 1964 for advocating armed resistance to apartheid in South Africa, the African National Congress leader emerged in 1990 to lead his country in a transition to nonracial elections.
AS PRESIDENT, his priority was racial reconciliation; today South Africans of all races refer to him by his Xhosa clan honorific, Madiba. Mandela stepped down in 1999 after a single five-year term. He now heads two foundations focused on children. He met with NEWSWEEK'S Tom Masland early Monday morning in his office in Houghton, a Johannesburg suburb, before flying to Limpopo Province to address traditional leaders on the country's AIDS crisis.
Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Why are you speaking out on Iraq? Do you want to mediate, as you tried to on the Mideast a couple of years ago? It seems you are reentering the fray now.
Nelson Mandela: If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate. We must understand the seriousness of this situation. The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken.
Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. If you look at those factors, you'll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost power and influence, can never be a suitable mediator.
What about the argument that's being made about the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's efforts to build a nuclear weapons. After all, he has invaded other countries, he has fired missiles at Israel. On Thursday, President Bush is going to stand up in front of the United Nations and point to what he says is evidence of ...
... Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white.
So you see this as a racial question?
Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don't have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn't find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you've had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people.
What kind of compromise can you see that might avoid the coming confrontation?
There is one compromise and one only, and that is the United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United Nations and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we must do something about it, we would all support it.
Do you think that the Bush administration's U.N. diplomatic effort now is genuine, or is the President just looking for political cover by speaking to the U.N. even as he remains intent on forging ahead unilaterally?
Well, there is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like. And of course we must consider the men and the women around the president. Gen. Colin Powell commanded the United States army in peacetime and in wartime during the Gulf war. He knows the disastrous effect of international tension and war, when innocent people are going to die, young men are going to die. He knows and he showed this after September 11 last year. He went around briefing the allies of the United States of America and asking for their support for the war in Afghanistan.
But people like Dick Cheney -- I see yesterday there was an article that said he is the real president of the United States of America, I don't know how true that is. Dick Cheney, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, they are people who are unfortunately misleading the president. Because my impression of the president is that this is a man with whom you can do business. But it is the men who around him who are dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age. The only man, the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era is Gen. Colin Powell, the secretary of State.
I gather you are particularly concerned about Vice President Cheney?
Well, there is no doubt. He opposed the decision to release me from prison [laughs]. The majority of the U.S. Congress was in favor of my release, and he opposed it. But it's not because of that. Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in Dick Cheney.
I'm interested in your decision to speak out now about Iraq. When you left office, you said, "I'm going to go down to Transkei, and have a rest." Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you've been very active.
I really wanted to retire and rest and spend more time with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife. But the problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can use whatever influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it's difficult to say no.
************************************************************
"There is no Substitute for Multilateral Action" - Annan
United Nations (New York)
September 12, 2002
The Speech of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan before the General Assembly.
Mr. President,
Distinguished Heads of State and Government, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen:
We cannot begin today without reflecting on yesterday's anniversary - on the criminal challenge so brutally thrown in our faces on 11 September 2001.
The terrorist attacks of that day were not an isolated event. They were an extreme example of a global scourge, which requires a broad, sustained and global response.
Broad, because terrorism can be defeated only if all nations unite against it.
Sustained, because the battle against terrorism will not be won easily, or overnight. It requires patience and persistence.
And global, because terrorism is a widespread and complex phenomenon, with many deep roots and exacerbating factors.
Mr. President, I believe that such a response can only succeed if we make full use of multilateral institutions.
I stand before you today as a multilateralist - by precedent, by principle, by Charter and by duty.
I also believe that every government that is committed to the rule of law at home, must be committed also to the rule of law abroad. All States have a clear interest, as well as a clear responsibility, to uphold international law and maintain international order. Our founding fathers, the statesmen of 1945, had learnt that lesson from the bitter experience of two world wars and a great depression.
They recognised that international security is not a zero-sum game. Peace, security and freedom are not finite commodities - like land, oil or gold - which one State can acquire at another's expense. On the contrary, the more peace, security and freedom any one State has, the more its neighbours are likely to have.
And they recognised that, by agreeing to exercise sovereignty together, they could gain a hold over problems that would defeat any one of them acting separately.
If those lessons were clear in 1945, should they not be much more so today, in the age of globalisation?
On almost no item on our agenda does anyone seriously contend that each nation, or any nation, can fend for itself. Even the most powerful countries know that they need to work with others, in multilateral institutions, to achieve their aims.
Only by multilateral action can we ensure that open markets offer benefits and opportunities to all.
Only by multilateral action can we give people in the least developed countries the chance to escape the ugly misery of poverty, ignorance and disease.
Only by multilateral action can we protect ourselves from acid rain, or global warming; from the spread of HIV/AIDS, the illicit trade in drugs, or the odious traffic in human beings.
That applies even more to the prevention of terrorism. Individual States may defend themselves, by striking back at terrorist groups and the countries that harbour or support them. But only concerted vigilance and cooperation among all States, with constant, systematic exchange of information, offers any real hope of denying terrorists their opportunities.
On all these matters, for any one State - large or small - choosing to follow or reject the multilateral path must not be a simple matter of political convenience. It has consequences far beyond the immediate context.
When countries work together in multilateral institutions - developing, respecting, and when necessary enforcing international law - they also develop mutual trust, and more effective cooperation on other issues.
The more a country makes use of multilateral institutions - thereby respecting shared values, and accepting the obligations and restraints inherent in those values - the more others will trust and respect it, and the stronger its chance to exercise true leadership.
And among multilateral institutions, this universal Organisation has a special place.
Any State, if attacked, retains the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter. But beyond that, when States decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.
Member States attach fundamental importance to such legitimacy and to the international rule of law. They have shown - notably in the action to liberate Kuwait, twelve years ago - that they are willing to take actions under the authority of the Security Council, which they would not be willing to take without it.
The existence of an effective international security system depends on the Council's authority - and therefore on the Council having the political will to act, even in the most difficult cases, when agreement seems elusive at the outset. The primary criterion for putting an issue on the Council's agenda should not be the receptiveness of the parties, but the existence of a grave threat to world peace.
Mr. President,
Let me now turn to four current threats to world peace, where true leadership and effective action are badly needed.
First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of us have recently been struggling to reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with Palestinian humanitarian needs.
But these limited objectives cannot be achieved in isolation from the wider political context. We must return to the search for a just and comprehensive solution, which alone can bring security and prosperity to both peoples, and indeed to the whole region.
The ultimate shape of a Middle East peace settlement is well known. It was defined long ago in Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and its Israeli-Palestinian components were spelt out even more clearly in Resolution 1397: land for peace; an end to terror and to occupation; two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side within secure and recognized borders.
Both parties accept this vision. But we can reach it only if we move rapidly and in parallel on all fronts. The so-called -sequential- approach has failed.
As we agreed at the Quartet meeting in Washington last May, an international peace conference is needed without delay, to set out a roadmap of parallel steps: steps to strengthen Israel's security, steps to strengthen Palestinian economic and political institutions, and steps to settle the details of the final peace agreement. Meanwhile, humanitarian steps to relieve Palestinian suffering must be intensified. The need is urgent.
Second, the leadership of Iraq continues to defy mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.
I have engaged Iraq in an in-depth discussion on a range of issues, including the need for arms inspectors to return, in accordance with the relevant Security Council Resolutions. Efforts to obtain Iraq's compliance with the Council's resolutions must continue. I appeal to all who have influence with Iraq's leaders to impress on them the vital importance of accepting the weapons inspections. This is the indispensable first step towards assuring the world that all Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have indeed been eliminated, and - let me stress - towards the suspension and eventual ending of the sanctions that are causing so many hardships for the Iraqi people.
I urge Iraq to comply with its obligations - for the sake of its own people, and for the sake of world order. If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.
Third, permit me to press all of you, as leaders of the international community, to maintain your commitment to Afghanistan.
I know I speak for all in welcoming President Karzai to this Assembly, and congratulating him on his escape from last week's vicious assassination attempt - a graphic reminder of how hard it is to uproot the remnants of terrorism in any country where it has taken root. It was the international community's shameful neglect of Afghanistan in the 1990s that allowed that country to slide into chaos, providing a fertile breeding ground for Al-Qaeda.
Today, Afghanistan urgently needs help in two areas. The government must be helped to extend its authority throughout the country. Without this, all else may fail. And donors must follow through on their commitments to help with rehabilitation, reconstruction and development. Otherwise the Afghan people will lose hope - and desperation, we know, breeds violence.
Fourth, and finally, in South Asia the world has recently come closer than for many years past to a direct conflict between two nuclear weapon capable countries. The situation may now have calmed a little, but it remains perilous. The underlying causes must be addressed. If a fresh crisis erupts, the international community might have a role to play; though I gladly acknowledge - indeed, strongly welcome - the efforts made by well-placed Member States to help the two leaders find a solution.
Excellencies, let me conclude by reminding you of your pledge two years ago, at the Millennium Summit, to make the United Nations a more effective instrument in the service of the world's peoples.
Today I ask all of you to honour that pledge.
Let us all recognise, from now on - in each of our capitals, in every nation, large and small - that the global interest is our national interest.
Thank you very much.
************************************************************
Message-Id: <200209161601.g8GG1tT05250@marduk.africapolicy.org> Comments: Authenticated sender is <apicmail@server.africapolicy.org> From: "Africa Action" <apic@igc.org> Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:05:40 -0500 Subject: Africa: Africans Speak Out for World Peace
Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar
| Previous Menu | Home Page | What's New | Search | Country Specific |