At
End
of AU Meeting,
UK Explanation
of Vote Calls
it Hurried,
Genocide
Subtext
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January 12,
update Jan 13
-- At the end
of a day of
speeches about
the UN
Security
Council
improving its
work with the
African Union,
a
resolution was
adopted 15-0
but the United
Kingdom ended
with an
"explanation
of vote."
UK
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Philip Parham
said
"We
regret
that the
hurried manner
in which this
text was
negotiated has
left some
potential
ambiguities...
In those
instances
where we
consider
co-ordination
to be
appropriate,
this can only
occur in the
context of the
primacy of the
Security
Council
regarding the
maintenance of
international
peace and
security."
US
Ambassador
Susan
Rice had said
much the same
thing, using
the Abbott and
Costello line
"who's on
first?" But
the US did not
make any
explanation
of vote. (Nor
would it
explain why
not.)
When
Inner City
Press asked
South Africa's
Foreign
Minister Maite
Nkoana-Mashabane
what
she made of
the
explanation of
vote, she
replied
diplomatically
that the AU is
happy to work
with the
United
Kingdom. Later
one well
placed Council
member snarked
to Inner City
Press, if the
UK didn't
like the
resolution
they should
have had the
courage to
abstain. But
they didn't
dare, since it
was on the AU.
It's
said, in
response to
the allegation
that the
resolution was
"hurried,"
that the UK
had more input
than any other
delegation.
Inner City
Press
witnessed near
interminable
consultations
on the
resolution, at
the experts'
and then DPR
level. So why
did the UK
make the
explanation of
vote?
A
close observer
of the Council
and the UK
mission said,
when the UK
wants to
fight,
they sent
Philip
[Parham, the
DPR] and not
Mark [Lyall
Grant, the
Permanent
Representative.]
Continued
inquiry
into the
substance find
that the UK
wanted (or
could have
accepted)
more specific
references in
the resolution
to war crimes
and
genocide, that
it would
welcome
working with
the AU to
combat or
prevent these.
On
this issue,
one
Security
Council source
said,
"It
was
the US who
raised the
idea of
including a
reference to
UN/AU
cooperation
Prevention of
Genocide, War
Crimes and
Crimes Against
Humanity, and
we and others
supported.
Fourteen
members of the
Council could
have been
accepted it,
so South
Africa said
that they’d
refer back to
Pretoria. But
they never
included it in
any draft. Nor
any
compromises
suggested,
such as
'encourages
the UN to
cooperate with
the AU and
other regional
organisations
to ensure the
prevention of
genocide, war
crimes and
crimes against
humanity.' It
seemed that
someone in
Pretoria had a
problem with
including the
words
'genocide' and
'African
Union' in the
same
paragraph. But
who
could really
be against
working
together to
prevent it?”
(c) UN Photo
Parham
previously in
the Council,
it's not easy
being
President of
the UNSC
Was
it really the
US, and if so
why didn't the
US join in an
explanation of
vote? A
request to the
US
Mission at
deadline for
comment was
not responded
to. One
response to
the above was
that the
resolution was
not about
these
atrocities;
another
afterward was
what about
atrocities in
Europe like
Srebrenica?
This
is how
arguments are
made in or
around
the Security
Council.
Update:
on January 13,
South African
Deputy
Permanent
Representative
Doctor
Mashabane told
Inner City
Press, "You
can put this
on the record,
I even said to
the Brits,
tell us an
English way
other than
'coordination,'
we don't want
to say
exchange views
or
information."
He also
praised a
paragraph
proposed by
the UK,
opposed by the
US. Then the
UK did its
explanation of
vote... And
so it goes at
the UN.
, 
