Dog-fight amongst African leaders over U.S. war with Iraq

By Chika Onyeani, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, African Sun Times, 3-9 April 2003

WASHINGTON, DC, Mar. 21—A dog-fight has developed between African leaders over how to respond to the United States’ invasion of Iraq. The dog-fight is a sign of a major crack in the ranks of African countries in their resolve to oppose the American-led war against Iraq.

Three weeks ago, the African Union decided that the Union was opposed to war against Iraq as this would bring catasthrophic consequences to the continent. But now, most countries would seem to be opting out of the African Union’s directive opposing the war.

Our position is very clear. It has not changed since the meeting of the Central Organ [of the African Union] of February 3 at the heads of state level, where it was decided that we would have preferred the full implementation of Resolution 1441 by Iraqi administration, said African Union spokesman Desmond Orjiako. If the inspectors had continued with their work, Africa believes that some other peaceful means could have been found in disarming Iraq instead of going to war.

Mr. Orjiako said war kills innocent people and destroys needed infrastructure. In addition, he said Africa has other concerns.

Our biggest concern is that war between the rich and the poor begets greater poverty for the poor, especially for the Africans who are already marginalized as the poorest continent in the whole hemisphere, he explained. We would have liked that 100 percent of the billions of dollars and pounds being expended for this war should have been given to Africa in aid to solve these so many problems. We have the problem of HIV/AIDS; we have the problems of conflicts, and the problem of natural disasters. But that is easier said than done.

On Thursday, March 20, the President of the Cameroon, Paul Biya, visited U.S. President George Bush for discussions on cooperation. Whether this translates to being a member of the coalition of the willing countries is not yet known. Of course, Cameroon is a member of the United Nations Security Council. But what is known is that three African nations have decided, for one reason or the other, to come out openly in support of President George Bush, including Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Just today, the news came out that another country, Uganda, has joined the two others in support of U.S. policy against Iraq, and even pledged to send in troops to fight alongside the coalition forces if needed.

However, the most disturbing news is the dog-fight between Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade on the one hand, and Presidents Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Olusegun Obasanjo on the other hand. The dog-fight has arisen over a letter that the three Presidents had decidedly agreed to send to President George on the Iraqi question.

At a meeting of the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) held on the 14-15 of March, 2003 in the Niger capital of Niamey, these three Presidents had allegedly agreed to address a letter to President Bush in which, among other things, they stated that, we the undersigned African leaders, have agreed against the background of the crisis in Iraq and the Middle East, to write this letter in expression of our concern for: 1. The need to preserve the integrity and credibility of the United Nations; 2. The problem of international terrorism which has shown itself not to respect national boundaries, and thus a threat to peace in any corner of the globe; and 3. Justice as the ultimate foundation for peace anywhere in the world, and that when justice is denied there is always the danger of people resorting to extraordinary actions in order to seek it.

In this context, seeking the implementation of the UN resolution 1441 regarding the disarming of Iraq is not only in the interest of Iraq, but also in the interest of the Middle East, in the interest of Africa, and indeed in the interest of the whole world. Iraq must indeed disarm transparently and totally to the satisfaction of the UN. The UN should be the authority to ascertain through appropriate agencies, and to certify compliance with resolution 1441. We understand and appreciate the spirit with which the United States of America has approached the problem of disarming Iraq.

We believe the US commitment to the disarming of Iraq and the military posture adopted has begun to complement diplomatic efforts. Indeed, the action of the US has almost achieved the desired objective with the threat of an imminent war. Thus, if the US were to withdraw its troops after Iraq complete disarming it can justifiably claim to have achieved victory for the high purpose of the UN which is global peace without actually going into war.

We in Attica, who at this point are looking for the achievement of the UN Millennium Goals, are apprehensive that any war brought about at this point in time would have monumental adverse effects on our development. We daresay also, that it will have destructive and irreversible effects on the delicate situation in the Middle East and on global peace in general.

After many days of faxing the letter back and forth, the three leaders finally agreed to sign it, which they did and then faxed the letter to the White House in Washington, DC. However, a day or two later, President Wade is alleged to have drafted an entirely different letter, with a language even softer than the one they had faxed to the White House. President Wade’s letter made it clear that he was disassociating himself from the call for the U.S. to withdraw its forces around Iraq.

Both Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo told President Wade that that was not the letter they had agreed to, and warned that it would create problems and would be quite embarrassing for them to be sending two contradictory letters.

However, President Wade would not be dissuaded from sending the second letter, which he promptly faxed to the White House. During Desert Storm in 1991, Senegal was one of the countries that contributed troops to fight alongside world coalition forces to oust Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait.

It was President Wade who had on March 13, urged his fellow African leaders to come up with a unified decision because of what he called one of the most difficult moments in the history of mankind. Said Wade, It’s true that we are small countries, but Africa will not escape the consequences of a war because uncontrolled terrorism will appear, and because of a rise in the oil price which will hit African countries that are not oil producers. During that interview, Wade promised to consult with fellow African leaders.

Right now, there are two contradictory letters from the three African Presidents at the White House. According to individuals close to the matter, both Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo are fuming about which, it is alleged, to be President Wade’s stab at the back of these two leaders. The African diplomatic community is talking of the excrement on the faces of these Presidents. It is said that President Wade is playing the role of standing up to the Nigerian and South African Presidents as French President Jacques Chirac is doing standing up to George Bush.

According to the same source, an underling at the State Department is alleged to have called President Obasanjo to withdraw the first letter because only the second letter was being accepted by the Bush Administration. President Obasanjo was allegedly furious that an underling would be calling him.

But diplomatic sources within the African community in Washington said President Obasanjo should not complain too much about being disrespected by Bush administration officials. They said that when he visited Washington, DC, last time, he went to see Secretary of State Colin Powell which was protocally incorrect. Most said that they were surprised when this happened, as to how the President of Nigeria would be making a courtesy call on the U.S. Secretary, rather than the other way around.

African countries are being pulled left, right and center to make decisions as to which side they are on in this war. Angola, which is a member of the Security Council, was listed last week on the White House website as a member of the countries of the willing, but by today Angola’s name had disappeared from the list.

On Friday the 21st of March, both the U.S. and Britain temporarily closed their diplomatic missions in Nigeria, giving as a reason, the fear of Muslim uprising against these two countries after Friday prayers. There embassies also were closed in South Africa. Nigeria was one of the countries that Osama bin Laden had listed, during his last broadcast, where Muslims should rise and take over the government.

Also, the U.S. has allegedly curtailed its military assistance to Nigeria which, according to that country’s Minister of State in the Foreign Ministry, was due to Nigeria’s position on the Iraqi issue. The Junior Minister, Dubem Onyia, accused Washington of acts of intimidation.

He summoned the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Howard Jeter to his office in Abuja, and admonished him that Nigeria will resist any intimidation by the United States government over its stand on the Iraqi question.

What is yet to be determined, in the case of Eritrea and Ethiopia, is why these countries which are still on the verge of war, have decided to support the war. According to African analysts, it is not difficult to understand why the two countries have jumped on the side of America. As one American newspaper put it, What can Eritrea really offer America?, in the war besides being a number and to thwart Ethiopia. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia do not want the other to take any advantage in their still on-going war of words about territorial boundaries.

After years of fighting with Ethiopian forces aligned against former Prime Minister Megistu Haile Miriam, Eritrea won its independence in 1993, after an pro-Eritrean government came to power in Ethiopia. The two countries even had one currency, the Ethiopian Birr, but then Eritrea decided to get its own currency, alleging that Ethiopia was stifling its economic growth. In 1998, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia in a move that surprised Ethiopia. Ethiopia eventually regrouped after many months, and eventually recaptured all its territory, and almost marched to the Eritrean capital of Asmara.

On Ethiopia’s part, its Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Abdul Mejid Hussein said that Ethiopia was supporting the war because of its long history fighting civil wars in Africa. He said Ethiopia supports the U.S. in the war against Iraq.

For us in Ethiopia, it takes us back to the mid-’30s, when Fascist Italy and Mussolini invaded Ethiopia and the League of Nations did nothing. So if we put it in perspective, for us, the failure of collective security is not a good thing. Our position is that the United States as an old ally and friend asked us for a couple of things to grant them overflights and basing, and we agreed to that. That’s our position, said Ambassador Hussein.

What most African diplomats are concerned about, is the damage that this dog-fight could inflict on the nascent African Union. They believe the African Union must call an urgent meeting to rein in the disagreeing parties for the sake of the unity of the continent.