|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Africans Speak Out for World Peace
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.africafocus.org/docs02/sec0209.php>
(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.
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by
Africa Action (incorporating the Africa Policy Information
Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa).
Africa Action's information services provide accessible
information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and
international policies toward Africa that advance economic,
political and social justice and the full spectrum of human rights.
|
