South Africa’s about-face on Nigeria brings it more into line with the approach of other African
countries, reports Stefaans BrUmmer
FAR from Nelson Mandela’s trailblazing call last year for sanctions against Nigeria, South Africa was trying this week to pull the teeth from a United Nations resolution which slams the West African country’s human rights record.
The Department of Foreign Affairs acknowledges it is withholding support for the resolution until it is watered down, but argues that this is the best strategy to get consensus among African, Asian and Latin-American countries – — which will increase the chances of the European Union-sponsored resolution being adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which is meeting for its annual session in Geneva.
Said Jackie Selebi, South Africa’s ambassador to the UN mission in Geneva: “We have taken the view that we should make a contribution to a position where African countries can for the first time get consensus on an issue that involves [Nigeria].”
This is a far cry from Mandela’s adventurous call for oil sanctions against Nigeria immediately after the hanging last November of minority rights activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. His stance was lauded — though not heeded — by many in the West, but African countries made it clear they were not amused by what they saw as Mandela’s disregard for African solidarity. South Africa’s position in Geneva appears to be final confirmation that Foreign Affairs has gone with the African concern, and will no longer act alone.
Negotiations to water down the resolution coincide with a visit by Foreign Minister Alfred Nzo to London for a meeting this weekend of the Commonwealth “Committee of Eight”. The committee, of which Nzo is a member, was established by the Commonwealth at its annual heads of state meeting in New Zealand last November to look at human rights abuses in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Gambia.
Part of the committee’s mandate was to visit Nigeria on a fact-finding mission, but so far Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha has refused them entry on the grounds that it interferes with his country’s sovereignty. The London meeting is likely to have to decide on a response to that rebuff.
Ironically, the part of the EU resolution South Africa wants removed has the same theme: another world probe into Nigeria’s human rights situation.
A draft version of the resolution which the EU wants the plenary session of the UN Human Rights Commission to endorse says, among other things, that it is “deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Nigeria”. It calls for a range of human rights to be guaranteed and for Nigeria to take “immediate and concrete steps to restore democratic government”. It also calls for the appointment of a UN special rapporteur to “examine the human rights situation in Nigeria” and to report to the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Commission.
Selebi said this week African countries believed sending a special rapporteur to Nigeria would be “an overdose” at a time when the Commonwealth mission was pending, while UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali had his own “goodwill mission” in Nigeria this month, and while Nigeria itself has said it will consider accepting UN “thematic rapporteurs” who will report to the UN on specific issues, such as torture or freedom of speech.
“African countries don’t like a special rapporteur; in fact not any country likes a special rapporteur,” he said. A special rapporteur is seen as having very wide powers and as being “difficult to remove from the agenda”.
Selebi said EU negotiators had given South Africa a broad outline of the resolution some weeks ago and asked for support, but did not present a full draft version. A copy of the draft was later “smuggled” to him. “We looked at it, and consulted our colleagues from Africa. It was clear there would be no support for it unless at least a number of African governments could identify with it.
“If that happened, some Asian and Latin- American countries would support it, which will increase its chances of succeeding … As it is, it won’t succeed with the special rapporteur.”
Selebi pointed out that a “weaker” resolution on Nigeria adopted by the UN last December was co-sponsored by only four African countries, including South Africa.
A Foreign Affairs source said this week South Africa’s regional partners in the Southern African Development Community had made it clear at the body’s pre-Christmas summit that South Africa “had to do things on a regional basis”.
That the criticism was taken to heart — and that it became a strong theme in foreign policy — appears from the fact that South Africa, and Mandela, fell silent on Nigeria this year. Earlier this month there were allegations that South Africa had tried to discourage a meeting of Nigerian opposition groups in the country, inter alia by not issuing visas timeously.
In other matters concerning individual countries — such as the crisis in Swaziland, where pro-democracy and labour groups have asked for South African help — Foreign Affairs has also said repeatedly it would only act in conjunction with its regional partners.
Raks Seakhoa, chair of the South Africa- Nigeria Democracy Support Group, said: “We want to ensure every pressure is applied, including that of rapporteur … While we understand you have to pull the slower soldier with you, we will not be happy if that does not succeed and we as a country are seen as folding our arms.”