NEW YORK — The United States is trying to
derail Africa's chosen candidate to represent the continent on the U.N. Security
Council, saying Sudan's government has such a poor human rights record that its
ambassador could not possibly take part in discussions about international peace
and security.
Sudan received the endorsement of
the Organization of African Unity in July, and its election to the Security
Council was all but certain.
But in recent
weeks, the tiny island of Mauritius — about 500 miles east of the continent and
a bit larger than Oahu in Hawaii — has made clear that it also is seeking the
council seat, and has powerful support from
Washington.
The entire U.N. membership is to
select the five new council members tomorrow in one of the rare secret ballots
on the General Assembly calendar. Each region elects one or two candidates to
represent the region on the council for a two-year term beginning in
January.
A State Department official
acknowledged that the United States backs Mauritius, but bristled at the
widespread notion that Washington is putting Mauritius up to block
Sudan.
"Mauritius put in its nomination in
March, before the [OAU] meeting," she said. "So it would be erroneous to say
that they were put up by the United
States."
Still, the State Department official
left no doubt that Washington would prefer to see almost any African nation take
the place of Sudan on the council.
"Sudan is
not a suitable candidate to represent Africa for a number of reasons," she
declared, saying the African country bordering the Red Sea has been under
Security Council sanctions and has a "terrible" human rights
record.
"So in light of that, it's difficult to
envision how Sudan would be a credible interlocutor for Africa," she said,
whatever the Organization of African Unity
thinks.
Some African leaders — most volubly the
Ugandans — may agree with the State Department, but they also say that position
smacks of a colonialism they cannot
tolerate.
As one North African diplomat wryly
commented last week: "Three words: Boutros Boutros-Ghali." He was referring to
the Egyptian diplomat who served as the previous U.N. secretary-general and was
blocked by the United States from a second term despite Africa's continued
support.
The council imposed an air embargo
against Sudan in 1996 for its suspected role in an assassination attempt against
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Ethiopia the year before. The OAU, the Arab
Group and several others have petitioned the council to lift the
sanctions.
Sudan was also the target of U.S.
cruise missiles in August 1998, following the bombings of U.S. embassies in
Tanzania and Kenya. After destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceuticals Industries
factory in Sudan's capital, Khartoum, Washington said it believed the site was
producing components of chemical weapons and had financial links to suspected
terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, though neither claim has been conclusively
substantiated.
Just three weeks ago, Egyptian
Foreign Minister Amr Moussa reaffirmed Cairo's support for Khartoum's council
candidacy, declaring: "There is an African and an Arab decision in Sudan's favor
concerning this issue."
Sudanese Ambassador
Elfatih Erwa is livid over what he sees as American interference in African
affairs. He notes that Sudan has "the legitimate African endorsement" and
disparages Mauritius' candidacy as a "distortion" of the regional
selection.
Mr. Erwa also notes — correctly —
that nothing in the U.N. Charter prohibits a nation from taking its turn at the
Security Council's horseshoe table because of council
sanctions.
"When you talk about international
peace and security, everyone knows you're not talking about internal problems,
you're talking about invading other countries," Mr. Erwa
said.
The spat over the African seat has
eclipsed the usual handicapping that accompanies annual Security Council
elections.
This year, Singapore is unopposed to
take over the Asian seat as Malaysia ends its turn, and Colombia will replace
Argentina.
Italy, Ireland and Norway are
competing in relative gentility for the "Western Europe and other" seat that
includes such far-flung democracies as the United States, Australia and,
nominally, Israel. The Netherlands and Canada are ending their two-year stints
on the council.
In recent weeks, the
socializing has heated up, with Norway throwing a lavish dinner hosted by King
Harald and Irish diplomats wining and dining the developing world to explain
Ireland's history as a former colony of
Britain.
But it is the African contest that has
turned the election into a cliffhanger. It is Namibia's seat that is up for
grabs, while Mali will keep the other African seat until December
2002.
"This really isn't good for Mauritius,"
said one African ambassador who said his government had instructed him to vote
for the endorsed candidate. "They aren't going to win, and in fact, it will
surely cost them. No African [country] should be seen as a tool of the United
States or the Europeans."
Which is exactly how
the island is starting to appear.
Many U.N.
officials and observers, who see the annual Security Council elections as
something like intramural sports, say Mauritius isn't supposed to win. Its role,
they explain, is to put up enough of a fight so that a third nation will be able
to emerge as a consensus choice.
There are
precedents for a compromise — sort of.
In 1995,
Libya won the vote to represent Africa in the council, but after prolonged
agitation from the United States and others, Tripoli allowed Egypt to serve its
term.
The Sudanese say no compromise is in the
works.
"Why should we do that?" asked Mr. Erwa.
"We are expecting to win."