The very notion of
respectability as it affects sovereign states presupposes the false
premise that every state under all kinds of leadership will conform to
the minimum standard of governance. History has falsified this
assumption and human nature runs counter to it. It is absolutely
illogical and we must disrespect sovereign states whose leaders make
life unbearable for their people. We should not just stop at that, the
world must begin to intervene directly in order to put an end to man’s
inhumanity to man under any guise.
THE UNCONDITIONAL RESPECT FOR A COUNTRY’S
SOVEREIGNTY IS RETROGRESSIVE AND SHOULD BE REVISITED BY THE UNITED
NATIONS ORGANIZATION. by
Joseph Ifeanyi Chikunie
I
am strongly averse to the so-called respect for the sovereignty of all
states regardless of whatever plays out in those states. There is an
urgent need to create a Special United Nations Intervention Council (SUNIC),
which must exclusively deal with how all existing states of the world
exercise authority over their subjects.
Think about the genocide in Rwanda; how one Nelson Mandela spent 27 of
his adult life in prison for his fight for a free South Africa and how
Moshood Abiola died in prison after winning a Nigerian Presidential
election. How about Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar who continues to
languish in detention clamped on her by an illegitimate government for
being a promoter of democracy? How can we forget the actions of Idi
Amin Dada of Uganda, Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, Sanni Abacha of
Nigeria, Saddam Hussein of Iraq and a host of others who used their
positions to inflict pains, death and trauma on their people? This
sufficiently justifies why the world can no longer watch, while ‘some
sovereign states’ wreck havoc and dehumanize their people among other
heinous crimes being committed by them.
Furthermore, the formation of a United Nations Intervention Group will
ultimately reduce if not put an end to unilateral invasion of one
country by another. It would have been impossible for the United
States of America and United Kingdom to lead their allied forces in
the invasion of Iraq without the backing of the United Nations
Organization. If the war was waged by the world body, rather than a
few states led by America, peace would have since returned to that
state. Other Middle East countries as Iran, Syria and Egypt would have
played more active roles before and after Saddam’s downfall as part of
a United Global force.
The
very notion of respectability as it affects sovereign states
presupposes the false premise that every state under all kinds of
leadership will conform to the minimum standard of governance. History
has falsified this assumption and human nature runs counter to it. It
is absolutely illogical and we must disrespect sovereign states whose
leaders make life unbearable for their people. We should not just stop
at that, the world must begin to intervene directly in order to put an
end to man’s inhumanity to man under any guise.
Man
by his nature has the tendency to display moral rectitude in the
governance of a people just as he also has the capacity to visit evil
on those subjects. This is the reality as evidently proven by human
experience. It is totally wrong to remain passive when a human being
decides to become anti-social such that the lives of others become
consumed by his or her actions.
This explains why laws are formulated to deal with all anti social
behaviour such that there will be punishment against offenders and to
serve as deterrence against actions deemed inhuman and unwarranted.
It
is instructive to note the danger, which consistently looms in world
politics at present. The United States of America by virtue of its
super power status continue to dictate and influence global order with
her allies. The world is therefore becoming a reflection of American
leaders’ judgment, weaknesses and strengths. When for instance, George
Walker Bush attacked Iraq after 9/11, he immediately impacted
negatively on the entire Middle East stability. The world was changed
without the United Nations active role, yet the body is still
recognized as the arbiter in global politics. Tension and multilateral
distrust exist among states because there is no global body charged
with an unbiased assessment and control of governments’ actions as it
relates to their citizens or those of other states.
The
lame duck of the UNO will be radically transformed once a body as
SUNIC is charged with the responsibility of identifying states where
an intervention is needed. The tension and distrust, which usually
arises when states take unilateral actions, will naturally be a thing
of the past.
Some would argue that the Security Council of the United Nations
already plays the role of the proposed SUNIC. Unfortunately, that body
is highly politicised as the limited member states gauge issues as it
affects their individual interests. The collective interest of global
human development is always relegated to the background as member
states engage one another in diplomatic jigsaw. The result is delay in
reaching a decision over the crisis in Darfur and non intervention in
Rwanda for instance while millions of lives were snuffed out. It is
noteworthy that China most often than not prefers a non committal
approach in exercising her votes during Council meetings.
Nevertheless, whereas the Security Council is populated by government
apparatchiks, SUNIC should be constituted by Human rights bodies,
Nobel laureates for peace, respected statesmen and revered ex world
leaders. The body must be divested from any government patronage or
influence. Members are to be appointed by the General Assembly to
represent the different regions of the world.
It
is very essential that this body’s recommendation is binding on the
Security Council, which must then take a definitive action against any
erring sovereign state notwithstanding whether she belongs to the
United Nations or not.
The
world will be spared the prevailing partisan approach usually employed
by the Security Council in determining where an intervention is needed
and the timing for such an intervention. It will be the responsibility
of SUNIC to set a timeline for any recommended intervention.
The
intervention must be through direct negotiation with the Country’s
government and this negotiation period must not exceed two weeks.
Where an erring government fails to heed the advice of SUNIC, the
military option must then be invoked without further delay.
It
is very distasteful to watch the United Nations Organization despatch
its Special Representatives to repressive states to negotiate with
them on the need to either refrain from dehumanizing acts or to take
democratic steps only for the UNO to be spurned afterwards.
For instance, Ibrahim Gambari made several visits
to Myanmar where he kept ‘begging’ the junta to embrace democracy.
The junta has confined Suu Kyi (a leading democratic exponent) in her
home for 12 of the last 18 years. Her latest house arrest began in
2003 and has been renewed annually for the last five years.
The
actions of the government after his visit were most demeaning. The
government continued to clamp down on members of opposition and
protesters. It carried out a referendum at a time the people where in
national mourning after a cyclone killed thousands of people. The
referendum itself was conducted without any observance by any
international observer group.
Not
surprisingly, over 92 per cent votes was claimed by the junta to be in
its support and as a further slap on the UNO, the democratic torch
bearer Aung San Suu Kyi now has her house detention extended. The
question then is what did Ibrahim Gambari achieve?
The
world should move beyond pleading with leaders who remain irrational
and oppressive to taking corrective actions against them, towards
ending their gross misrule. Suppose this has been the case, many
millions would not have perished in Rwanda, Nelson Mandela would not
have wasted all those years at Robben Island and Moshood Abiola would
not have died just because he contested and won a Presidential
election in Nigeria.
Finally, as Europe and America always seem to only react through NATO
in intervening in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and other regions
which they consider of great interest to them, the African Union
should also consider a similar body.
This is more imperative considering the fact that African leaders have
a propensity to oppress their people. The AU must in the least
constitute a regional body, charged with the responsibility of
identifying states where direct intervention is needed to effect
regime change before helping those states to fully democratize.
It
is sad that governments now seem to have perfected the inordinate
rigging of elections when it is clear that they have lost as in
Zimbabwe and Kenya recently. This if not checked will lead to colossal
waste of human lives in the continent.
An
African Intervention Force (AIF) must be formed to deal with this
issue at the regional level on the advice of a body similar to the
proposed SUNIC. We just cannot fold our arms while rulers do what they
like to their subjects simply because we want to respect a country’s
sovereignty. This argument has outlived its usefulness, no longer
tenable and to say the least, a tacit authorization to bad rulers, to
act arbitrarily.
The
blood of the millions of people who would have been saved from the
hands of their oppressive governments will always be on the heads of
not just the perpetrators but also on the heads of those leaders in
other states who refused to act or who acted belatedly. The time to
take definitive steps as a checkmate against wanton killings and
oppressive rulers is now.
