By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwe’s president Emerson Mnangagwa recently announced
that he will not be attending the 2024 United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Through an official statement from his office,
he cited what he referred to as a ‘dense schedule’ as the main reason why his
Foreign Affairs minister will undertake Zimbabwe’s address to the UNGA.
As to be expected there has been mainstream and social media
speculation as to why he is not attending.
These speculations range from fear for his own safety, divisions within
the ruling Zanu PF party and the most ridiculous one being some assumption that
he would lose power by attending what is essentially a four day global summit for
heads of state and government.
These are relatively abstract speculations which have not
yet proven to be based on any facts.
And to also immediately add that not all heads of state/government
make the annual pilgrimage to the UNGA. They can choose to attend in person, send
their representatives or in some cases address the UNGA via online platforms
where and when it is permitted.
What has however been interesting is what I consider an African
and Zimbabwean misunderstanding of the importance
of the United Nations as an organization.
Both in its historicity and in the contemporary as it works
toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) . As well as what its secretary general Antonio
Guterrez has referred to as the ‘Summit of the Future’.
Historically, the UN has been a friend to the African decolonization
process. Barring of course the
intransigence of some members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) such as the
United States of America (USA), United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) since its formation.
The recognition of struggles for independence by African countries
was always finally sealed at the UNGA.
Addresses by liberation struggle and post-independence leaders in
solidarity with others who were still fighting for self-determination as
determined by the UN Charter were always progressively accepted by the UNGA. From Nyerere to Cabral among many others, the
UNGA served as a global platform to draw the attention of the world to Africa’s
liberation struggles and to change what was then a colonial global narrative of
who we were and who we can be as free peoples.
By the time Nelson Mandela addressed the UNGA as the president
of South Africa this historicity had come full circle barring the struggle for
the independence of the Saharawi Republic from Morocco.
In the second instance, the UN and its agencies have been
arbiters of progressive societal change.
Not only when we consider global human equality relations but also development
and modernization of previously racially and colonially marginalized societies.
The UN therefore is centrally placed in how we seek to
address global challenges as a collective and equal but diverse human family.
Naturally there are those that challenge its broad global importance.
Mainly via the UNSC where global superpowers argue and veto each other over
mainly the doctrine of liberal interventionism, global dominance as most emblematized by the historically
contested reach of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Add to these contestations, the desire of the African Union
(AU) to want at least three permanent seats of the UNSC and we have a Pan African
perspective on how serious let alone important the UN as global organization is
or at least should be.
But the essential point of this brief write up is that Zimbabwe’s
president has chosen not to go to the UNGA in 2024. As argued above, this is permissible in terms
of the UN’s own inclusive regulations.
The import of this decision is at least two-fold.
The first is its own contradiction of Zimbabwe’s foreign policy
directive of global ‘re-engagement’ at the highest possible levels. The UN is one such platform of engagement in
any country’s foreign policy. Even if it
appears tedious, as does international diplomacy, the significance of world leaders
attending this meeting creates a global cultural understanding of the UNGA’s
importance and necessity.
The second element is that Mnangagwa decided not to attend
to this years UNGA because of the likely assumption that there are too many
global challenges in which Zimbabwe quite literally has no say except to its evident
strongest allies, China and Russia. And
whatever they say, we will likely vote with them.
From the war in Ukraine through to the Israel genocide in
Palestine and also the pending international relations impact of the elections
in the USA, there may not be an urgent reason why Mnangagwa should be at the
UNGA.
More so when Zimbabwe as a country is nowhere near any other
global superpower’s agenda for violating statutes of the UN Charter or its supporting
declarations. Or when we, as a country,
have been reported in the mainstream media as wanting to be one of the African countries
that want to be on the UNSC.
When we look at it, in the final analysis, president Mnangagwa’s
decision not to go to the UNGA this year does not give good Pan Africanist optics.
Historically, most progressive African presidents have ensured
that they at least officially make their struggles, issues known at the highest
possible levels at the UNGA. Not out of
just a country focused foreign policy but also in order to recognize the global
significance of the UN in keeping the world marginally politically stable and
working to prevent war and improve human lives.
Arguably the noble intentions of the UN are not giving the
impression that they are being adhered to.
But we must always hold on to the progress we have made. Globally.
And under the auspices of the UN.
Our president may not have the time to attend the #UNGA2024,
but I hope he recognizes its importance.
At this time and in this moment of global uncertainty induced by
regional wars, emergent racism and climate change challenges. And in this, as Kwame Nkrumah opined “Africa
Must Unite!” More-so at the UNGA2024.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment