OPINION
How Abacha humiliated Mandela - Thabo Mbeki
Thabo Mbeki |
29 February 2016
Former president disputes the claims that South Africa neglected the cause of human rights
PROPAGANDA AND THE PURSUIT OF HEGEMONIC GOALS – THE MYANMAR AND ZIMBABWE EXPERIENCE.
February 29, 2016
Much has been written about how much the so-called
international community expected the new South Africa born in 1994 to
lead the campaign for respect of human rights especially in Africa. The
first major test which faced our late President Mandela in this regard
was at the 1995 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) held in
New Zealand.
Here President Mandela came under great pressure publicly to
condemn the Nigerian Abacha military government, especially for its
continued detention of M.K.O. Abiola who had won the 1993 Presidential
elections, and agree to the imposition of some sanctions against
Nigeria.
President Mandela resisted all this until news came through
that on the very first day of the CHOGM, the Nigerian Government had
executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his Ogoni colleagues. He then
immediately joined others strongly to condemn the Abacha Government and
approved the suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth.
Thereafter, despite strong presentations about human rights,
South Africa’s strenuous efforts to get SADC and the OAU to impose
sanctions against Nigeria produced a negative response throughout the
Continent, leaving South Africa isolated on this matter.
President Mandela had visited Nigeria in 1994 and engaged General Abacha on the matter of the release of Mr Abiola.
In July 1995 I led a small delegation of our Government to
Nigeria to meet General Abacha. This time our focus was on the two
matters of persuading General Abacha and his Government to release the
Ogoni leader, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and his co-accused, as well as to release
Generals Olusegun Obasanjo and Shehu Yar’ Adua, who were detained for
allegedly having been involved in a planned coup d’etat.
We met General Abacha at 02.00 hrs (2 a.m.) at his offices.
Having heard us out, he told us that he would reflect on what we had
said and would respond to us before we left Nigeria.
A day or so later, then Chief of Defence Staff and effective
Deputy to Abacha, Lt Gen Oladipo Diya, invited us to lunch. During this
lunch he gave us General Abacha’s response to the issues we had raised.
This response was that with regard to the matter of Ken
Saro-Wiwa and his co-accused, Gen Abacha could not intervene to stop a
legal judicial process which involved murder charges. However, if the
accused were to be found guilty and sentenced to death, he would use his
prerogative as Head of State to reprieve the accused so that they would
not be executed.
Gen Diya also reported that Gen Abacha had said that there was a
military tribunal which was considering the matter relating to Generals
Obasanjo and Yar’Adua. It was necessary that he should allow the
tribunal to complete its work. His view was that the tribunal would
recommend the release of the two Generals, failing which he would again
intervene to release them.
After asking Gen Diya to convey our thanks to Gen Abacha for
the commitments he had made, we suggested to him that it would be best
that the Nigerian Government makes the necessary announcements when the
time came, rather than that we should do this. Diya agreed to this and
said that Gen Abacha would issue the necessary orders at the appropriate
moments.
Our delegation still had a small challenge to address. We had
travelled from South Africa with a journalist. Treated by our Nigerian
hosts as a member of our delegation, she was present at the lunch where
Gen Diya gave us Gen Abacha’s response.
She therefore had a real “scoop”! Together with her we agreed
that if she were to publish what we had been told by Gen Diya, the
likelihood was that not only would the Nigerians deny the story, but
this would also inevitably condemn Ken Saro-Wiwa and others and Generals
Obasanjo and Yar’Adua to death.
A principled person, she kept her word not to publish her
“scoop”, convinced as all us were that Gen Abacha had made a commitment
to President Mandela and South Africa which he would honour.
It was with this knowledge that President Mandela left South
Africa to attend the New Zealand CHOGM meeting. When Ken Saro-Wiwa and
others were executed, President Mandela was truly surprised and
genuinely outraged that Gen Abacha could evidently so easily betray his
solemn undertaking in this regard.
Undoubtedly our Government drew its own conclusions from this
painful experience with regard to the complexities of the construction
of inter-state relations, including as this relates to the effective
promotion of human rights.
In his 1994 book “Diplomacy”, the well-known former US National
Security Adviser and Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, wrote:
“From the time of Reagan’s
inauguration, (he and his advisers) pursued two objectives
simultaneously…(to achieve supremacy over the USSR with regard to
geo-political influence and strategic armaments.) The ideological
vehicle for this reversal of roles was the issue of human rights, which
Reagan and his advisers invoked to try to undermine the Soviet
system…Reagan and his advisers went a step further by treating human
rights as a tool for overthrowing communism and democratising the Soviet
Union…
“In fact, Reagan took Wilsonianism
to its ultimate conclusion. America would not wait passively for free
institutions to evolve, nor would it confine itself to resisting direct
threats to its security. Instead, it would actively promote democracy,
rewarding those countries which fulfilled its ideals and punishing those
which fell short – even if they presented no other visible challenge or
threat to America.”
Thus, according to Dr Kissinger, the issue of “human rights”
was used by the Reagan Administration not because these rights were
important in themselves but because their projection was “a tool for
overthrowing communism…(and) undermin(ing) the Soviet system”.
In the end the Soviet Union collapsed, the European socialist
countries disappeared and the US emerged as the sole world super-power.
Practically the reality is that since the Reagan years, the
successive US Administrations have followed the policy explained by
Kissinger, that “America would not wait passively for free institutions
to evolve…Instead, it would actively promote democracy…”
Indeed when the false argument collapsed that the US and the UK
had attacked Iraq because of the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD), both President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair elevated
the argument that they had gone to war against Iraq to bring democracy
and human rights to the country and the Middle East.
Essentially, given its privileged position as the sole world
super-power, the US had the power and the general outlook, informed by
ideas of ‘US exceptionalism and its manifest destiny’, to impose its
will especially on the developing countries, to “fulfil its ideals”, as
Kissinger put it.
As late as August 28, 2015 former US Vice President Dick Cheney
and his daughter, Liz Cheney, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that,
“It was up to us then (to defeat the Soviet Union) – as it is now (to
preserve peace and freedom) – because we are the exceptional nation.
America has guaranteed freedom, security and peace for a larger share of
humanity than any other nation in all of history. There is no other
like us. There never has been.”
On April 7, 2003, shortly after the invasion of Iraq by the
US-led forces, I addressed a Conference of the SADC Independent
Electoral Commissions held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and said:
“The prospect facing the people of
Iraq should serve as sufficient warning that in future, we too might
have others descend on us, guns in hand, to force-feed us with jollof
rice…If the United Nations does not matter and should be destroyed, why
should we, the little countries of Africa that make up the African
Union, think that we matter and will not be punished if we get out of
line!”
This was to argue that in the light of the naked abuse of power
by a major world power, as exemplified by the invasion of Iraq against
the express opposition of the UN Security Council, our best protective
shield as the developing countries was:
> a strong United Nations respected by all countries, big and small;
> respect by all for the UN Security Council as the world guarantor of international peace and security;
> a reformed UN Security Council to make it truly representative of the world community of nations;
> a binding law-governed system of international relations, including as defined by the UN Charter; and,
> respect for the rights of
regions to maintain international peace and security in their areas, as
spelt out in the UN Charter.
UN Secretaries General Dag Hammarskjöld and Boutros
Boutros-Ghali had taken the same position, especially as this relates to
respect for international law as contained in the UN Charter.
The Swedish scholar, Henning Melber, has written that “For
Hammarskjöld, the UN was there to serve especially the countries without
global leverage instead of being an instrument of the big powers.”
Melber writes that “On 15 September 1961, two days before the
fatal crash of the plane in which he and 15 others lost their lives, he
(Hammarskjöld) cabled to Ralph Bunche: “It is better for the UN to lose
the support of the US because it is faithful to law and principles than
to survive as an agent whose activities are geared to political purposes
never avowed or laid down by the major organs of the UN.”
Melber writes that in 1996 one Stanley Meister characterized
Boutros-Ghali as “probably the most fiercely independent
Secretary-General since Dag Hammarskjöld”, who became a useful scapegoat
for covering up the failures of US American foreign policies.”
Hammarskjold died in a plane crash which has still not been
explained. Boutros-Ghali is the only UN Secretary General who served
only one term, having been pushed out by the US Government.
It was in the context of the struggle to respect international
law that while we served as a non-permanent member of the UN Security
Council we voted against resolutions tabled by the US and its allies
proposing sanctions against Myanmar and Zimbabwe on the basis that these
had violated human rights in multiple instances.
The West and its allies in our country strongly condemned our
Government for voting against these resolutions, accusing us that we had
betrayed the human rights posture in foreign affairs it was claimed our
country had taken under President Mandela.
For our part, like UN Secretaries General Hammarskjöld and
Boutros-Ghali, we insisted that all countries had an obligation to
respect international law, and therefore the rule of law on which the
West insists whenever this suits its interests.
That international law, as laid down by the UN Charter,
prescribes that the UN Security Council (UNSC) should take action
against countries in the event that they present a threat to
international peace and security.
Despite their many problems and challenges, neither Myanmar nor
Zimbabwe posed any threat to international peace and security. Indeed
the day before the Security Council met to consider the draft resolution
on Myanmar, the ASEAN countries, of which Myanmar is a member, had met
and formally stated that the situation in Myanmar did not constitute any
threat to international peace and security.
Chapter VIII of the UN Charter makes specific provision for
Regional State Organisations to intervene in defence of international
peace and security in their regions, with a directive that they should
report to the UNSC.
While both ASEAN and SADC were engaging Myanmar and Zimbabwe
respectively, having determined that the situation in both countries did
not constitute a threat to international peace and security, the
Western countries in the UNSC were determined to ignore their views and
impose their own solutions on both countries concerned.
Fortunately both the Russian Federation and China vetoed the
Western inspired resolutions on Myanmar and Zimbabwe, fully supportive
of the then current alternative initiatives to help these countries to
resolve their problems.
At the same time our then Permanent Representative at the UN,
Ambassador Dumisani Khumalo, explained to the UNSC that contrary to any
view that we were opposed to international action on Myanmar and
Zimbabwe:
> South Africa fully supported
the intervention of the UN Human Rights Council in Myanmar, as well as
the use of the good offices of the UN SG, through his representative,
Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari, to address the challenges in Myanmar; and,
> South Africa, supported by
SADC and the AU, was directly involved in engaging the Zimbabwe Parties
to address all the problems in that country.
In 2011 the Western countries persuaded the UNSC to approve its
Resolution 1973 to impose a “no-fly-zone” over Libya on the basis of
the false assertion that the Gaddafi regime intended to massacre large
numbers of civilians, in much the same way that the 2003 invasion of
Iraq had been justified on the basis of the fabrication that the country
possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which threatened
international peace and security.
In the Libyan case, rather than present an argument about a
non-existent threat to international peace and security, these Western
countries used the instrument of the controversial “right to protect”.
Again in this instance the UNSC deliberately violated the UN
Charter, specifically Chapter VIII, by contemptuously ignoring the
submission of the African Union to the UNSC concerning the steps it had
taken and would take to achieve the peaceful resolution of the internal
conflict in one of its Member States, Libya.
During the 2008 Hokkaido, Japan G8 Summit Meeting we engaged
Presidents Medvedev and Hu Jintao of Russia and China respectively and
advised them of our view that the UNSC had neither any legal authority
nor any need to intervene in Zimbabwe as the country did not present any
threat to international peace and security, and that SADC was engaging
the Zimbabweans to help them solve their problems.
They expressed their respect for our positions by voting
against the resolution on Zimbabwe when this was later presented to the
UNSC.
In essence we were accused of betraying the cause of human rights because:
> we insisted that all countries, including the most powerful, should respect international law;
> we sought to encourage all
countries to respect the legitimate decisions of the world multilateral
organisations, especially the UN;
> we opposed the unilateral abuse of power by some countries to impose their will on the peoples of the world;
> we opposed the misuse of
globally well accepted values, such as promotion of human rights, to
disguise the pursuit of selfish hegemonic goals; and,
> we sought to defend the right
of all nations to self-determination, supported by the rest of the
international community, without compromising this right.
Betrayal of these rules has resulted both in transforming Libya
into a failed State engulfed in protracted violent conflict, and the
export of weapons from this country, causing enormous problems in the
African Sahel and Syria.
To the contrary, by exercising their right to
self-determination, in 2008, and with our facilitation, the
democratically elected representatives of the people of Zimbabwe adopted
the Global Political Agreement (GPA).
Writing on October 23, 2015 in the Zimbabwe privately owned and
opposition-supporting newspaper, the “Zimbabwe Independent”, Wilbert
Mukori said:
“We had the opportunity to end
tyranny during the Government of National Unity (GNU), but once again,
we failed to realise Tsvangirai and his MDC were too incompetent to
implement all the 2008 Global Political Agreement (GPA) democratic
reforms. These were a necessary prerequisite for meaningful change,
which would end ZANU PF’s octopus dictatorial reach and control of state
institutions…
“The only legal and peaceful way to
force ZANU PF out is by demanding the implementation of all the 2008
GPA democratic reforms.”
I have never heard those who accuse us of betraying the cause
of human rights denounce those who have abused this cause as in the case
of the 2003 Iraq war, consistent with what Henry Kissinger said, with
disastrous consequences. Neither have these condemned the abuse of power
which has plunged Libya into the most serious crisis.
The accusation that we have betrayed the cause of human rights
derived from the fact that, by asserting the rule of international law
in the interest of ‘countries without global leverage’, we opposed the
pernicious global diktat of those who, in their interest, see themselves
and act as the universal benevolent hegemon!
This article first appeared on the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s Facebook page.
SOURCE: politicsweb
