Between the United Nations and our UnUnited Nations 

This weekend, the United Nations commences yet another intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It has an awful reputation in the country stemming from its first peacekeeping effort there in half a century ago. The DRC has not known much peace since then, either. 

This time, the Secretary-General is sending our own Olusegun Obasanjo. It will not be the man’s first time in the neighborhood, either. He served there as a peacekeeper as a young soldier, and almost paid with his life. 

He went on to enjoy two tours of duty as Nigeria’s leader, first as an iron-fisted soldier in 1999, and then as a civilian in 1999. When Obasanjo left office in 1979, he became a celebrity. The world thought it was worthy of a carnival that an African military leader would “voluntarily” hand power over to a civilian. 

They lined up to hold parties in his honour, and to give him the keys to their cities. Obasanjo repaid: he gave speeches and interviews and conferences at which he underlined the great need in Africa of “good governance.” World leaders cheered. They had found an African hero: a former soldier who advocated the transformation of Africa using the democratic tool.  

When he ran into trouble and was put in jail for a phantom coup, Nigerians rewarded him with their presidency upon his return. It is that leadership, from 1999 to 2007, that defines the Obasanjo who left Angola for the DRC on Friday. 

It was during Obasanjo’s eight-year rule as a born-again democrat that the United Nations wrote its most important documents since The Charter, the Millennium Declaration, in 2000. On the basis of that Declaration, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration Goals, eight principal development targets agreed to by every nation on earth and every development institution, with a deadline of 2015. 

Those targets include halving extreme poverty, halting the spread of HIV/AIDS, and providing universal primary education. It is obvious that these are obvious goals that no self-respecting nation needed goading in order to achieve, particularly those nations that had the resources. 

Under Obasanjo, Nigeria was swimming with every resource— human, natural and financial—to make our nation a remarkable success MDG story. And yet when Obasanjo left office in 2007, halfway down the MDG timeline, Nigeria was being cited as one of those nations most unlikely to meet the goals. 

Under Obasanjo’s ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), development was defined not in terms of Nigeria or her people, but of the party and its leaders. Governance was not defined in terms of what served the Nigerian people but of how the PDP could spread its tentacles and rule indefinitely. 

Under the PDP, corruption festered, infrastructure decayed, unemployment ran wild, just as poverty multiplied and HIV & AIDS were downplayed. Obasanjo’s PDP stole wherever there was anything to steal: budgets, votes, justice. 

Because everyone knew that Obasanjo’s preachment about good governance was only a front, corruption acquired a new swagger. The Iboris and Odilis ate breakfast at the presidential palace in Abuja, did their branch banking and lunch in London, and partied in Dubai or Washington D.C. 

But this is not an Obasanjo story. It is about the United Nations. My question is: if the United Nations is serious about being on the side of what is right and fair, what kind of peace does its conscience enjoy when it asks our most hated anti-people former leaders to bring us peace? 

The DRC is a very troubled country. The UN mission in the country is a huge 18,434, including Nigerian troops, and growing. It could certainly use the wisest and most respectable counsel of both Africa and the United Nations. But in a nation where the organization is still held in great suspicion, how wise is Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s choice of Obasanjo? 

The DRC is proof of how often the international community often misjudges rebel movements in Africa, only to discover that they are far more educated and savvy than the government in power. Their perspective of who sits between the parties at the peace table is certain to be a significant factor. 

In addition to that, I have tremendous difficulty in understanding what signals the United Nations sends out when it hands such authority to a man with such a pathetic record. Is the credibility of that former leader not important in reaching the decision to give him the job, or is Africa still so far away, metaphorically, that Obasanjo is actually a hilarious inside joke at the UN? 

Back home, Nigerians well know the institution of “soft landing.” That is when Obasanjo appointed a party-member who had failed to win re-election, to a federal position. Desperate to rehabilitate his international reputation since he left office, the United Nations has just given Obasanjo this most desired golden parachute. 

On whose side is the United Nations? 

Robot  # 1 | 16.11.2008 11:28

Between the United Nations and our UnUnited Nations This weekend, the United Nations commences yet another intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.It has an awful reputation in the country stemming from its first peacekeeping effort there in half a century ago.The DRC has not known much peace since then, either. This time, the Secretary-General is sending our own Olusegun Obasanjo.It will not be the man’s first time in the neighborhood, either.He served there as a peacekeeper as a young soldier, and almost paid with his life. He went on to enjoy two tours of duty as Nigeria’s leader, first as an iron-fisted soldier in 1999, and then as a civilian in 1999.When Obasanjo left office in 1979, he became a celebrity.The world thought it was worthy of a carnival that an African military leader would “voluntarily” hand power over to a civili...Read the full article.

Igboamaeze  # 2 | 16.11.2008 13:49

Under Obasanjo’s ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), development was defined not in terms of Nigeria or her people, but of the party and its leaders. Governance was not defined in terms of what served the Nigerian people but of how the PDP could spread its tentacles and rule indefinitely. Under the PDP, corruption festered, infrastructure decayed, unemployment ran wild, just as poverty multiplied and HIV & AIDS were downplayed. Obasanjo’s PDP stole wherever there was anything to steal: budgets, votes, justice. ------------ Thank God for HIS mercy. Obasanjo was/is never a peace-maker but a notorous war manger. Whoever sent him to DR Congo must be living in another planet.

igwe  # 3 | 16.11.2008 19:17

how wise is Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s choice of Obasanjo? Pathetic! He also sent Gambari, the Niger Delta undertaker, to Burma as part of his own cynical joke. Go to the BBC and see a picture of Nkunda, the man butchering people in east Congo in a warm embrace with OBJ--here's a man he can do business with! As the BBC reports, "some observers were surprised at how Mr Obasanjo appears to have been seduced by a man Congolese officials and human rights groups refer to as a "war criminal". " The UN is a joke! Our own Fela asked long ago, "who and who unite for united nations?" Their soldiers use rape and sexual harassment as pass time in places where they are deployed for "peace keeping." Their functionaries are over bloated and overpaid. They easily engage in surreptitious transactions with known felons. The UN is notorious for negotiating with dictators so that they could remain in power, from Burma to Libreville, Yaounde to Lome, the story is the same. The UN has not been able to keep peace anywhere. The body looks pathetically like an undertaker. Worse still, they've not been able to stop massacres anywhere. Their so called peace keepers are notorious for looking on while rebels and dictators over run cities and countries, only to negotiate with them after. They always argue, pusillanimously, that they are not supposed to engage in combat. Any wonder the soldiers they send quickly find other interesting things to do? The UN is a cynical but expensive joke!

fxo  # 4 | 17.11.2008 05:22

=igwe;290586>some observers were surprised at how Mr Obasanjo appears to have been seduced by a man Congolese officials and human rights groups refer to as a "war criminal". " The UN is a joke! The UN is a cynical but expensive joke! I was in Goma and Bukavu ( North and South Kivu Province Eastern DRC) last month, a few days before Nkunda's troops attacked. Actually I was not able to exit the country via Kinshasa because I was already cut-off from Goma Airport. The local Tutsi people do not actually consider Laurant Nkunda and his men as criminals or aggressors but as protectors and also agents of their revenge against the Hutus that killed their brethren in Rwanda during the genocide. The crises in the DRC is a little bit more complex than what the UN is prepared or willing to deal with. Most of the UN troops in the DRC come from Asian countries, like Pakistan, Bangladesh and such, most of whom are not prepared to do what it takes. Unlike fellow Africans, Europeans or Americans, Asians do not aspire to the same level of humanity and self sacrifice. Most of this Asians would consider race and religion ahead of humanity. Therefore their reluctance to deal with the situation. They flee on sighting Nkunda's troops and the local villagers stone and course them at the sight of this cowardice. There is no quick fix, as DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, France, Belgium and the UN interests are enmeshed in creating the current situation. Obasanjo's ability at talking to Kabila, Nkunda, Kagame, Museveni and et al, be it persuasion, trickery, threat or what ever might be of value as not all this men are honourable. Some are in it for material gains, some are in it for revenge, while others just hope they can find a loophole to exploit. Obasanjo might not be the best man for the job, but at least he is showing enthusiasm for the job. It is high time, we come to terms with the fact that there is a weakness in the African culture as we know it, as in the absence of men, we are forced to glorify "dogs"

AISAGBON OMOGIADE  # 5 | 17.11.2008 08:57

=fxo;290642> Obasanjo might not be the best man for the job, but at least he is showing enthusiasm for the job. Who is the man in OBJ's position that will not show enthusiasm for a job that will erase (while the job last) the indelible stain on his reputation, especially with the revelations contained in the book launched by his first wife about a week ago. To work is a kind of an antidote to melancholy.Miles away from home and on mediation duty is every thing OBJ needs for now.

fxo  # 6 | 17.11.2008 11:24

AISAGBON OMOGIADE, you are spot on.

igwe  # 7 | 17.11.2008 13:08

@fxo, I listened to OBJ being interviewed on the BBC. He said he believes Nkunda. According to him, they were fighting to protect "minorities", therefore, that makes it right for them to butcher (bloody) civilians. I know what is going on in the DRC. Listening to OBJ, it's clear he doesn't understand what's happening. What's happening? The Tutsi government in Kigali (capital of Rwanda) are simply expanding into the DRC under the pretext of "fighting" the Interahamwe who carried out the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. Look at the map and see how far they've moved into the DRC territory. Their ultimate agenda is to capture and annexe Goma. Actually they've effectively taken over most of north east Congo. As I'm writing this, the rebels who promised Obj that they'll observe a ceasefire, are advancing further into the DRC. Obj, and by extension the UN, have lend them some credibility. No wonder Nkunda was elated to see Obj. This news just in: A U.N. peacekeeper at Rwindi, who declined to be identified, told Reuters Nkunda's National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP) forces had started advancing against government troops on Sunday, the day the rebel general met Obasanjo. See this link for more: http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE4AG4DL20081117 Unfortunately, this mission, which Obj wangled from the UN (a body from which you can easily buy public relations stunt, like our ex-president is doing now), like most things Obj has done lately, is an unmitigated disaster. Worst still, Obj has an unenviable record of dallying with war criminals. Remember Charles Taylor? The UN is a cynical joke!

Igboamaeze  # 8 | 17.11.2008 13:53

I hate to sound fatalistic but I can't resist the urge to warn that Nigeria will corrupt the world if the world fails to save Nigeria. Pray, why on earth would any serious person/body appoint obj to do this sort of assignment? Here is a man who almost threw his own country into war by sheer greed and power mongering. Doest it mean that Banki Moon or whatever his name is does not know Obj? How can UN of all people give legitimacy to a fading tyrant? Can we at NVS send a protest letter to the UN before they send Babangida or Anenih?

fxo  # 9 | 17.11.2008 15:16

Haven been on the ground in the DRC and talking to the locals, I know Obasanjo is not the man for the job. But also haven travelled and worked in all regions of sub-saharan Africa, I know for fact that we suffer a drought of qualified men of repute known to the rest of the world, who have the capacity to do the job and are willing to go. Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Wole Soyinka, Wangari Mathaai and co, are a shrinking class. Take a look at any AU head of states class group photograph, its a 'who is who' of war-crime/genocide indicitees', managers of failed states, fast fingered felons, morally bankrupt geriatrics and such. Like I said before "in the absence of men, we glorify dogs".

igwe  # 10 | 17.11.2008 20:07

=fxo;290808>Haven been on the ground in the DRC and talking to the locals, I know Obasanjo is not the man for the job. But also haven travelled and worked in all regions of sub-saharan Africa, I know for fact that we suffer a drought of qualified men of repute known to the rest of the world, who have the capacity to do the job and are willing to go. Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Wole Soyinka, Wangari Mathaai and co, are a shrinking class. Take a look at any AU head of states class group photograph, its a 'who is who' of war-crime/genocide indicitees', managers of failed states, fast fingered felons, morally bankrupt geriatrics and such. Like I said before "in the absence of men, we glorify dogs". I disagree with your prognosis. If the UN is serious about sending people of quality, Africa has them in their thousands. They're always looking for big names for their own public relations stunt. The former Botswana (Festus Mogae) president who just won a leadership award would be light years better than OBJ, for instance. But does the UN care about such people? The UN is a cynical joke!