   |
|
afrol News, 26 February - Africa's three non-permanent Security Council members, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea, within short will decide whether Washington will have the UN's blessings when it attacks Iraq. A Western pilgrimage to Luanda, Yaoundé and Conakry illustrates the scramble for Africa's decisive votes. Officially, Africa stands united against an attack on Iraq without having given the UN weapon inspectors more time to fulfil their task. This was manifested at a summit of the African Union (AU) in Ethiopia in January. Most recently, this was repeated at the Franco-African summit in Paris and at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia). Beneath that, Africa is almost as split as the European Union. South Africa leads the African protest movement against any Iraqi war, sticking to the argument that such a war would be - and already is - extremely expensive for developing countries. The high oil price gives weight to the South African argument. North Africa, while trying not to alienate the US, calls for Iraqi disarmament and more time for inspections. The region cannot afford an attack against Arab brothers in Iraq. On the other end of the scale are Djibouti and Rwanda. Djibouti hosts about 3,000 US special forces, marines and air force personnel, engaged in the US "war against terrorism". These troops form part of a planned attack on Iraq. Rwanda, which has a troubled relationship with France, openly supports military action against Iraq. President Paul Kagame relates the Iraq issue to the Rwandan genocide, saying there are events when the international community should do more than talking. Those in power to influence the outcome, however, the three African non-permanent Security Council members, all take a middle position. Voting with their heart, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea would say 'no' to immediate action against Iraq. But there is more to it than conscience. Angola, Cameroon and Guinea will have to choose next week, as the US, Britain and Spain present a resolution saying Iraq has not complied with UN demands and thus legitimising an attack on the country. Voting against, they could support an initiative by France, Germany, Russia and China, calling for six months of intensified UN inspections. This would be closest to the official AU communiqué. The three African countries however cannot choose to not express their view, being the key countries to secure a majority for the US resolution text. The US, UK, Spain and Bulgaria have opted for the new resolution. Mexico today signalled it would follow "national interests," meaning maintaining good relations with its powerful northern neighbour and vote for the US resolution Mexico is against. The only superpower needs four more votes to legitimise its attack on Iraq. Syria, Germany, France, Russia and China will say 'no'. Pakistan will say 'no' or abstain. This leaves only Chile, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon, which all need to vote 'yes'. Pressure is therefore enormous on Chile and the three African Security Council members. In addition to the standard US arguments for an attack on Iraq, the US argues that the Security Council would lose its importance if it votes against the US. There is the example of Turkey, selling its support to the US for several billion dollars. And finally, there is the direct lobbying campaign by US and allied officials. The case of Mexico, which was strongly opposed to an Iraqi war until a few days ago, is probably illustrative of the current pressure against Luanda, Yaoundé and Conakry. According to AP interviews with unnamed Mexican diplomats, conversations with US officials had been "hostile in tone" and demonstrating little respect for the Mexican view. "They actually told us: 'Any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a heavy price,'" one Mexican diplomat had said. Especially the Angolan and Guinean governments have been put under heavy pressure from the US and its allies in the UK, Spain and Portugal. Both countries are outside the inner core of French influence in Africa and have the US as their main trade partner. Angolan President José Eduardo dos Santos has received phone calls from Portuguese Prime Minister José Durão Barroso, US Vice President Dick Cheney and President Bush himself. He has received visits from Walter Kansteiner, the US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, and Spain's Trade Minister Juan Costa, who yesterday promised to cancel Angola's debt to Spain. Baroness Amos, the UK Foreign Office Minister responsible for Africa, is on her way to Luanda. In Guinea, which becomes chairman of the Council on Saturday, the US lobbying has been made somewhat more difficult by the grave kidney disease of President Lansana Conté, who is being said to be in his deathbed. Attempts by President Bush and Baroness Amos to talk to President Conté directly are said to have failed for that reason. Prime Minister Lamine Sidime has had to handle all the bothersome visits from the US and its allies. Cameroon, the most pro-French country of the trio, has not been left out in the US and UK lobbying. America's Mr Kansteiner has already had talks with the Yaoundé government, and the British baroness is due to arrive in the Cameroonian capital within short. But also France has been active lobbying the African Security Council members. President Chirac has been on the phone to Luanda, Yaoundé and Conakry. At the Paris Summit last week were Cameroonian President Paul Biya, Guinea's Prime Minister (and in practical terms, the country's current leader) Lamine Sidime and Angola's Foreign Minister João Bernardo de Miranda. They were, reportedly, heavily courted by the French President. Guinean Foreign Minister François Fall is currently visiting Paris - again. Speculations in Washington and London are that the three African votes can be bought. Angola's dependency on US oil exports, oil investments and humanitarian aid is mentioned on and on again in the Anglo-American press, claiming to base their reports on sources in the US and UK Foreign Ministries. Concerning Guinea, this press is even surer there is a price tag attached to the country's vote. The 'London Times' even concludes: "Whatever is said, Guinea's vote is for sale. Conté will hold out for proper aid," quoting a West Africa regional expert with the UN. Guinea also some US$ million from one US source and other millions from another source - or was it the UN - the US press is sure to know. However, both Guinea and Angola also have other trade partners and donor countries, including France. France has also turned out to be a more stable and predictable partner for most African countries. And France does not openly play the offensive dollars-for-support card. Predictions in the Anglo-American press about African pro-war votes were demonstrated to be wishful thinking at the last US attempt to present a resolution text to the UN Security Council. And what do the three African decision-makers say about their vote? They all refuse to make clear statements, thus cleverly being the objects of positive lobbying instead of "hostile" talks as experienced by Mexico. They probably have decided on how to vote, but are playing their cards well by French-style diplomacy rules. Angola and Cameroon have asked the US for dialogue on why a fresh resolution on Iraq is needed. Guinean and Angolan officials have stated the UN inspectors should be given time to do their work. They are all sceptical about the US "rush to go to war" (Angolan Information Minister). All further snort at the suggestion their vote may be up for sale.
|
