…After Ki-moon: UN needs Secretary, Not General
Professor Alaba Ogunsanwo, who teaches International Relations at the Lead City University, Ibadan, Oyo State, was Nigeria ambassador to the European Union (EU) and Belgium. Speaking with the Editor, KAMAL TAYO OROPO,against the backdrop of the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) which held in New York between September 19 and 23, 2016, he said Nigeria has done its part by taking problems confronting it to the international community. This is even as he projected the type of person that should take over from Prof Joy Ogwu, whose tenure as the Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the UN has expired. Ogunsanwo also looked at the race to succeed the Mr. Ban Ki-moon.
How concerned are you about Nigeria’s participation at the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly?
  Well, this particular General Assembly session was slightly different from the previous ones because of the events at the global, regional and sub-regional levels that had transpired. Events that obviously require the attention of various heads of government and Nigeria was not an exception to that. There are global issues, which of course, you expect every nation to touch upon. And there are regional, sub regional, as well as, national issues one expects should be of concern to every leader. But to what extent discussions would achieve targeted goals is yet to be seen.
  When Nigeria appeared at last year’s session, the 70th, we were too occupied with our own situations; in terms of getting the country out of the problems bedevilling it at the national level. There were lots of effort at getting international support in helping to trace, track and return Nigerian monies that are stashed abroad.
   Now, it is one year since that appeal was made; and it was made powerfully. Unfortunately, not much has happened in that direction. It is now left to the role the international community is ready to play in doing the needful. It is the international community that is holding on to these funds. Therefore, they are the ones we should appeal to in order to get the funds back. As such, this is one area Nigeria needs to re-emphasise and remind the international community of the promises they made. There is need to ensure that those that have illegally stashed these monies abroad do not continue to enjoy their loots. But we have not seen much in this direction.
But to what extent as the UN facilitate the achievement of the Nigerian interests?
  It is not actually the UN, as a body, that would lead achievement of Nigerian goals, but we are merely using the forum provided by the body to make a statement. Most of the countries in possession of these monies are going to be in attendance. If you will recall, some of these funds were stashed away by General Sani Abacha in 1998. Despite the fact that they have been traced, they are yet to be returned to where it was taken. It is now about 18 years since Abacha died, but the recipients of these stolen loots are still saying go and do this, go and do that. But when you have received stolen money; why are you holding on to it, if you are not a thief yourself? This attitude is increasingly unbecoming of many western countries.
  In a case where someone held public office for eight years and you found him having 200m dollars in banks in Britain or America. It is very easy to calculate what this particular official must have amassed in salary and allowances while in office. Let the official be the one to say, ‘don’t freeze this money. It is not ill-gotten.’ Not that the government concerned must come and prove that this money was stolen from them its coffers. You should not be saying this if you are not corrupt yourself. And that is what most of these countries, who are being sanctimonious and tasking others to come fight corruption, truly are. You have received stolen money because you are crooked yourself.
  If the thief knows there is nowhere to keep his loots, no safe haven, or offshore account, he will think twice before stealing the money. In fact, those receiving stolen money are more corrupt than the original thieves. The western nations track these stolen funds, they know their movements and where they are hidden. But they deliberate allow this act to endure because when the thief dies, the money would be difficult for any family member to collect. The recipient countries are the only ones that know where the money is kept and the specific amount.
  This thing is deliberate and we must understand this reality; and not fool ourselves. These things are very straightforward; if you identified 50b dollars, return the money. You don’t need to be the central bank of the country concerned.
In this regard, don’t you think the UN has not been too useful a platform to Nigerian interests and desires?
  The UN has been there since 1947 and it has 193 member-states. Each nation knows its interest and is expected to pursue these interests vigorously within the body. There are other members of the UN that you would interact with it to the extent that you can articulate your interest, align the interest and maybe you can achieve some of these interests; you cannot achieve all.
 If you look at history, particularly since Nigeria’s independence in 1960, and the objective it set for itself. It is each country that would been, over the years, articulate its objectives and goals. But these objectives are also prone to changes. What you wanted in 1960, may not necessarily be what you now want in 2016. One would have to look at to what extent has successive governments in Nigeria had succeeded in utilising the opportunities provided by the UN system to achieve international goals the government set for itself?
  To this extent, it is not enough to continue harping on what the UN has done for Nigeria, but what has the country taken to the UN. If you look at what is going on the Northeast, for example,  there are so many UN bodies offering one form of assistance or the other. The question is how are we taking advantage of these?
  However, focus of Africa should shift to issues like the bad examples like what the South Sudan currently represents. What is happening in that particular country, the youngest member-state of the UN, is a shame to the entire continent of Africa — after all the years of struggle. Look at all the suffering and hardships they are visiting on innocent. So, we need stability in the region. We need policy consistency so that even your nationals abroad know what you are doing and they can forecast; make plans. There is need to put policies in place to attract those in the Diaspora. You have to create an enabling environment to encourage them contribute meaningfully to their respective countries. If you don’t do this, I don’t see how any honest foreigner can come and do legitimate business in your country.
In the light of impeding replacement of the Nigeria’s permanent representative to the UN, Prof Joy Ogwu, what should be uppermost in the mind of the government in choosing the right man for the job?
   If you go back to the beginning, under Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, we had Chief Simeon Ajebo, we also had important personnel during the Second Republic, under Alhaji Shehu Shagari; people like Maitama Sule. If you will re-call we had Ibrahim Sulu-Gambari, who was there after he was sworn in as a minister. We have had career diplomats who were Permanent Representatives. Ambassador Joe Garba, who was formerly Foreign Minister, was a Permanent Representative and along the line, became president of the General Assembly at a point, we have had a series of good representatives in New York.
  This is a multilateral post and it must not be confused with, for example, our embassy in Washington; it is a multilateral post. On that basis you have to find somebody who can fit in very well. Chief Arthur Mbanefo was our Permanent Representative in New York at a time. Though a chartered accountant, he represented Nigeria creditably well during the Second Republic.
  Whoever is sent to the UN must be that person who is well verse and can easily handle matters at that level of engagement. But because of our own peculiar situation, if indeed we must send a politician there, he or she must someone with pedigree in handling matter at that level. If the individual is such a person who we believe might not be able to handle the post well, he or she must have a deputy in the calibre of an ambassador at a career level, who will therefore, leave him with few things to do so that two of them, working together, can achieve desired result.
  The kind of person that is being presently talked, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, was former Foreign Affairs minister of Nigeria, a titled ambassador who was a career diplomat before going into politics. For sure, we need somebody who will be able to work with other people; you cannot go in there and go and sit down just enjoying the perquisites of the office or doing his her things.
  We need somebody who can take charge. Somebody that understands the tasks ahead. But it all boils down to what the President want to achieve and the type of permanent representatives that can best represent the interest and aspiration of Nigeria in New York. It could be one of the career ambassadors.
There has been several calls asking for reform of the UN as a global body in line with democratic norms; especially the most important arm of the body, the Security Council, where each of the five member-states has veto power over any matter in the world. Do you think there is need to revisit that call now, especially in view of a new Secretary General taking over soon?
  The Security Council, which is the arm that has primary responsibility for national and international issues, especially global security concerns. It is where you have the five permanent members, who from 1945 has the veto and there are suggestions that membership should be four. There are has always been calls for reforms. People have suggested that the membership should be increased to 25 and I don’t think there is a problem to that. However, the problem is how many of the new members will be permanent members? Who will they be? That is where the problem is. Will all be acceptable to the five permanent members? If China says, ‘no, there can be no reform’, if France says, ‘no, there can be no reform’, what then can be done since you cannot amend the chatter without unanimity of agreement of the five permanent members? There can be no reform if any of the members says no. Therefore, you can’t just say there should be reform. The issue is how the reform is to come about.
  Former Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Anan, during his tenure, set up a high level committee to look at these issues and they made some recommendations, but what now is the way forward? We are still talking about reform, reform, but there are other steps that can be taken which could lead to democratisation of the secretariat. The various programmes the United Nations can have and the issues keep expanding and expanding. Upon the demands of member states, the general assembly passes resolutions which call for an enabled or establishment of new programmes which has to be funded and staffed; in terms of personnel. To that extent, there has been areas that came up for concern of the body in terms of expansion. There has been resistance by countries that the UN should not go certain ways. And this is done by the General Assembly, where there is no hinderance of veto. And it is not constraint by the question of funding. Though, every nation is equal on the basis of one-man-one-vote,and there is veto, but the point is that there are countries that contribute to projects funding, annual subscribtion, peacekeeping operations and others, more than other countries. But that is part of the sacrifices you will have to make if you belong to such a world organisation.
  There will always be call for reforms. But would there would be a point in the future where there would be no more need for reforms? I doubt that very much. In any human organisation, where you aim for perfection and better ways of doing things, other things often develop along the lines which now call into question what had been decided upon earlier on – it is part of nature to revisit part of what has been decided.
Upon the expiration of the tenure of present Secretary General Ban Ki-moon this year, what type of successor are you looking forward to at the UN?
  I will be looking forward to the appointment of an individual who would be more of a secretary than a general. A ‘general’ in this sense is that individual who gives order to be carried out, while a ‘secretary’ is that individual who executes decisions. The secretary general of the United Nations is more of a secretary than a general. He is the secretary to the Security Council, the General Assembly and other arms of the body. Of course, this does not include the International Court of Justice, which stands on its own.
  The UN secretary general is the head of the 45, 000 members of staff of the body which carry out instructions and programmes the Security Council, the General Assembly and other arms decide. To that extent, you need somebody who is able to understand what member-states want. Somebody who understands the principles, objectives and rules of the Charter. He or she is that somebody who understands that he or she is not the head of state of any country/ that he or she is not a global head of government. He or she understands that his or her task is merely to carry out the wishes of the assembly of member-states.
  It is not possible to have at a point in time, a secretary general who believes that every member of the UN is under his or her authority and deemed to be too interfering; just as it is being alleged of Ban Ki-moon after his first tenure. He is alleged not to be sufficiently out there taking initiatives. It is believed that it was for this reason that the five-member Security Council gave him a renewal. They don’t want somebody who is going to tell them that they are wrong. The UN works in a particular way. The Secretary General can only succeed when he has the consensus and collaboration of member-states, particularly the permanent members of the Security Council. The work force is also very crucial. We have people working under him, who can reach him and give him very useful advices. He or she must be able to articulate the dynamics of the global system.
