African Focus By Tafataona P. Mahoso
The last week revealed some clear examples of the realignments taking place around the United Nations, as each country is forced to consider whether to be counted among the coalition of those willing to join the Anglo-American global apartheid or to create a new alliance of Frontline States against this new global axis of racism. Even the Commonwealth is deeply affected by these realignments.
Libya announced that it saw no purpose in remaining a member of the Arab League, because that body now seems to have become part of the "coalition of the willing", those engaging the new apartheid forces in order to be allocated some leftovers from the white man’s unipolar table.
The new South Africa has also been targeted by the axis of racism (the US, UK, Australia and the EU) in order, in fact, to determine whether it has actually moved from the old apartheid or it wishes to become one of the new jewels in Bush’s constellation of states or coalition of the willing.
The decisive test came when the imperialist-sponsored "final push" against Zimbabwe had just failed and the summit of the African Union was just about to start. The North American president came bearing pressure against South Africa concerning the role of that country in Zimbabwe, Sadc and the African Union.
South Africa passed the test as a new Frontline State against the new global apartheid, forcing George W. Bush to back down, forcing the constellation of imperialist saboteurs and stooges in the whole region to change their song from "final push" to "national dialogue". That is how decisive these realignments have been.
In other words, what happened at the 58th Session of the UN General Assembly was an expression and a continuation of the realignments forced upon the nations of the world by the blatant clarity of the new apartheid as applied against Iraq, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Palestine and former Yugoslavia.
On September 28, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as one of the voices of global apartheid, told his new Labour Party:
"I don’t think we have anything to apologise for as a country . . . I believe as powerfully as I did at the time (of the illegal invasion of Iraq) that making sure that that man is no longer in charge is a good thing for his country, the region and the world . . . I don’t apologise for Iraq. I am proud of what we have done."
But in The Herald of October 9 2003, Chris Marsden points out the role of the new global apartheid, rather than Blair’s conscience, in precipitating that decision to invade Iraq. Writes Marsden, quoting Blair’s own former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook:
"I am certain the real reason he (Blair) went to war was that he found it easier to resist (British and world) public opinion . . . than the request of the US president for a ‘coalition of the willing’."
So, where Britain was always one of the biggest investors in the old apartheid, Tony Blair and New Labour have insured that it remains one of the centres of the new global apartheid. The Iraq war makes this perfectly clear. Britain does not want to be left out of the new apartheid. Britain’s role in the Commonwealth also makes this clear.
But the majority of the world leaders who gathered at the UN for the 58th Session of the General Assembly were at least alarmed by the new apartheid. Those representing the new Frontline States condemned the new apartheid in the clearest terms possible. The new realignments revealed themselves at the UN.
Among those alarmed by these realignments was the UN Secretary-General himself, the man who has done the most to facilitate "constructive engagement" with the Anglo-American coalition. He said according to this coalition:
"States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.
"My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification."
So, the Secretary-General sees risks in the adventures of the new apartheid forces, just as many also saw risks in the adventures of the old apartheid regime when it occupied Namibia and later invaded Angola and destabilised the other Frontline States. That was the road to Cuito Carnavale. Instead of removing Angola from among the Frontline States, that move led to the rebirth of South Africa itself as a new Frontline State, as George W. Bush found out during his visit in July 2003.
China also condemned the new apartheid and its unilateralism:
"We should promote democracy in international relations . . . It simply means to bring about a new regime of international relations under which all countries, big or small, rich or poor, strong or weak, are treated as equals, and no country has the right to impose its will on others.
"Human wisdom has produced so many civilisations, allowing us to follow different paths of development and a variety of values."
Here the Chinese see the new apartheid as extremely racist, intolerant and exclusive . . . just like the old apartheid. Cuba joined in with an equally powerful condemnation of the new apartheid, saying:
"In the denouncement of the international crisis generated by the war in Iraq, the future of the United Nations is at stake today . . . Therefore, must be the occupation in Iraq cease?
Yes, it must. And the sooner the better . . . Are international relations governed by the purpose and principles enshrined in the Charter? No. Why now . . . is the superiority of some peoples over others once again proclaimed and other peoples, that should be treated as brothers and sisters, are called the ‘dark corners of the planet’ . . .?"
Three solutions were necessary from the Cuban point of view: The United Nations should be restructured for democracy, not for apartheid; the occupation and plunder of Iraq must be stopped immediately; and, finally, the UN must find ways to end the scourge of global corporate cannibalism and the massive impoverishment of the world’s majority.
The French presentation was critical of the new global apartheid but vague on specifics, except as regards the Security Council.
"Chief responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security lies with the Security Council. It is therefore essential for its legitimacy that its membership reflects the state of the world. It must be enlarged to include new members, for it needs the presence of major countries . . ."
India agreed with the others on enlarging the Security Council, but it also specified the need to abolish the single veto and other anachronisms based on the post-1945 situation in world politics. The assumptions which led to the construction of the UN system after 1945 were no longer valid today.
South Africa’s statement was also characteristic of those states which have refused constructive engagement with the new Anglo-American axis of racism. The South African president’s speech made Iraq the very first substantive issue in his speech, saying:
". . . what is decided about the role of the UN in Iraq will . . . decide what will become of the UN [itself] in the context of its Charter . . . history has placed at our feet an urgent and practical test case that obliges us to answer the question — what do we collectively want the United Nations to be?"
President Mbeki said in his speech that, as victims of the old apartheid, South Africans did not want their country to be a party to the new global apartheid.
President Mugabe’s speech for Zimbabwe was very well received and widely distributed here and abroad. It confirmed at a global level that Zimbabwe remains a Frontline State against the new global apartheid. Based on concisely nuanced principles of human liberation, democracy and international law, the President’s speech was among the clearest statements of the popular global demand for UN reform, for an immediate end to the Anglo-American occupation and brutalisation of Iraq and for an end to the corporate cannibalism — also called globalisation — which benefits the new apartheid minorities while impoverishing more than three quarters of humanity.
The speeches examined here constitute a warning to those striving for peace and security based on co-operation.
The old United Nations Security Council was based on a desire by the North to reward those who were seen as having contributed the most to the defeat of Nazism and Fascism.
But the old United Nations, with its Charter and its so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in fact, co-existed with apartheid for 50 years, with 1948 being ironically the same year when both official apartheid and the UDHR were proclaimed.
The world leaders of the Frontline States are saying the same United Nations cannot co-exist with the new global apartheid the same way it did with the old apartheid. Why? Because the new global apartheid, unlike the old, actually seeks to scrap and replace the UN.
Co-existence would be possible only if the UN became an instrument of the new apartheid, as it already seems to have done in Iraq. By trying to negotiate a parallel co-existence with global unipolarity and unilateralism, the UN is risking its own existence and function. Iraq demonstrates this threat clearly.
Mitayo Potosi
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
