Amb. Betty King's UNGA Remarks on Causes of Conflict in Africa
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and may I congratulate the Governments of
Singapore and Spain for assuming the leadership of this critical task.
The report before this committee is a broad investigation of the roots
of conflict and a host of other ills that continue to bedevil the
African continent. I subscribe to its observations and
recommendations, but I wanted to use this important forum to offer
some observations based on our work in the UN over the last 15 months.
This discussion has raised some important questions about the causes
of conflict today. Of course, these questions and answers aren't
unique to Africa - conflict has existed on every continent - but
they do seem particularly acute in Africa. To my mind, there are four
critical questions:
First: Does poverty cause conflict in Africa?
While the relationship between poverty and conflict cannot be denied,
it is much more complex than one of simple cause and effect.
Some of Africa's most tragic countries are some of the world's richest
in natural resources. Take Congo, Sierra Leone and Angola, for
example. And some of the poorest countries are at peace. In economic
terms, Mali is among the poorest countries within the United Nations.
However, from the grass roots to the Presidential palace, Malians are
working together to build a better life for themselves and their
children. They are building democracy. Though they face many
challenges, armed conflict is not one of them.
Second: Do ethnic divisions cause conflict in Africa?
Too many of the world's conflicts - whether in Central Africa or the
Balkans or East Timor-- have been attributed to "ancient ethnic
hatreds." This could not be more wrong. Ethnic groups don't have
genetic codes for violence and conflict. Indeed, the most recent
scientific breakthroughs on the human genome highlight an important
fact: in genetic terms all human beings, regardless of race or
ethnicity, are more than 99.9% the same. This means that modern
science has confirmed what many of us first learned through our faiths
-- that the most important fact of life on earth is our common
humanity.
So why is it that some choose to fight over such minor differences?
I contend that it is because of cynical leaders. Leaders who seek any
means possible to exploit others for personal gain. Leaders who choose
not to celebrate and draw strength from the minor differences within
humanity, but to exacerbate and magnify these minor differences for
their own ambitions.
Mr. President, it has been just over a year since the world mourned
the loss of Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, a leader who presided over a
country that is a glorious mosaic of cultures and languages and which
today enjoys a strong and vibrant national identity. On the other side
of the equation, Somalia might be the most ethnically homogenous
country in Africa, and yet Somalia was plunged into a chaos from which
it is only now beginning to emerge.
Hutu/Tutsi violence in Rwanda and Burundi does not reflect a permanent
animus. Rather it represents a divide-and-conquer strategy by which
colonial and post-colonial politicians sought to perpetuate their
rule. These people are not true nationalists - they are opportunists
who seek to stoke nationalist and ethnic fires for their own personal
gain. As we have seen all over the world, politicians and opportunists
who sow the seeds of ethnic chauvinism for self-advancement can plunge
entire regions into chaos. They =- not the forces they unleash - are
responsible for the violence that ensues.
Third: Do religious differences cause conflict in Africa?
We see the same twisted dynamic at work as leaders try to exploit
religious differences for personal again. Mr. President, until very
recently, there had never been any tensions between Christians and
Moslems in Cote d'Ivoire. Sectarian violence was unheard of in one of
Africa's strongest economies and most open and welcoming societies. In
most parts of East and West Africa, Christians and Moslems co-exist
with no difficulties. However, in many countries - and not just in
Africa - unscrupulous leaders often try to create sectarian violence
as a means to political influence. That is an indictment of those
individuals, not the millions of faithful who can live in harmony.
I took note when the Ivorian Minister of the Interior visited the mass
grave of victims of recent unrest and said that this massacre was
alien to the culture of his great country and a source of shame for
all Ivorians. That sentiment was almost as important as his pledge of
a full and immediate investigation, for it showed that such acts are
contrary to the political and civic culture of the Cote d'Ivoire ...
and must remain that way.
Fourth: Do colonial boundaries cause conflict in Africa?
Mr. President, other than island state members, all of us live in
places with arbitrary boundaries; yet this does not make conflict
inevitable. Zambia borders two countries wracked by conflict -Angola
and the DRC - and three more that had internal conflicts in the last
25 years - Namibia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Zambia's people share
common languages and identities with all of their neighbors, and the
country's boundaries reflect the intersection of Belgian, British,
German and Portuguese colonialism. However, Zambia is at peace with
itself and its neighbors.
Again, Mr. President, I refuse to believe that conflict is inevitable.
After my time in the Balkans and - more recently - in Africa I
reject the thesis that so-called "ancient hatreds" determine the fate
of nations. I also reject the concept of a "failed state." States and
peoples do not fail ... leaders fail.
Perhaps the true cause of conflict in Africa is unaccountable
governance.
If there is war when the people want peace, the inescapable conclusion
is that the governments making war are not listening to their people.
Take any conflict - internal or external - in Africa today. Whether
we discuss Angola, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, the DRC, Cote
d'Ivoire, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea or Somalia, the
international community and - more importantly - the people in these
countries need to ask the following questions:
-- Where are the parliaments demanding to know why the executive
branches have committed the resources of the state to a conflict?
-- Where are the courts demanding to investigate charges of human
rights abuses and outright theft?
-- Where are the newspapers and radio stations demanding to know who
made the decision to go to war?
-- Where is civil society to tell armed movements to lay down their
weapons and enter the political life of their countries?
-- Where are the opposition political parties demanding votes of
confidence in governments that make war?
-- Where are the trade unions, churches and civic organizations
demanding to know why their men are sent to fight and die in wars that
are not of their making?
-- Where are the women's organizations demanding to know why their
governments and movements make war when their children can't afford to
go to school?
-- Where are the Ministries of Finance and Central Banks demanding an
accounting of money spent and money stolen by officials of the state
itself?
-- Where are the opportunities for voters to change governments that
make war or repudiate movements that won't make peace?
Mr. President, the Security Council is charged with the maintenance of
international peace and security. However, nowhere in the Charter of
the United Nations does it say that we are collectively responsible
for ensuring good governance in other peoples' countries. What are we
to do, however, if our obligation to maintain peace and security
conflicts with our desire to maintain the national sovereignty of our
members?
We as the United Nations and we as the Security Council can address
the effects of conflicts and even alleviate many of the symptoms of
conflict. However, only through the advancement of the universal
principle of accountable governance - which we believe comes with
democracy - can we truly begin to live up to the challenges embodied
in the UN Charter.
The United Nations and the United States share a wonderful common
bond: our founding documents begin with the phrase "We the people."
Although the UN Charter uses the word "peoples," I believe that in
either case, a reading of our instructions really does not need to go
any further than the first three words.
There has been much talk over the last year about which organ of the
United Nations is supreme. At the end of the day, we believe that in
our people lies the true authority of this organization, or of any
government. I do not mean the people as an abstract concept, I mean
the people as the individuals who - for example - will decide on
November 7 if some of us in this room have to find a new line of work.
When every president, every minister and every permanent
representative in Africa knows that his or her job depends on the
approval of their people, I predict that the job of maintaining
international peace and security in that part of the world will get
easier.
Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
