UNITED
NATIONS, April
30 -- There
were some
who argued
that Rwanda
didn't
deserve to be
on the UN
Security
Council. This
despite its
Permanent
members, just
as timely
examples,
having used
chemical
weapons in
Iraq, nuclear
weapons and
running penal
colonies.
But
Rwanda was
elected, and
completed the
first of its
two
Presidencies
on Tuesday. At
the end of
presidency
reception at
the River
Club, it
emerged that
the Rwandan
mission's
leader had
questioned the
lack of
action on
Syria, when
Sudan and
South Sudan
are on the
agenda every
fifteen days.
In
the morning's
wrap up
session,
fellow elected
member
Argentina
memorably
questioned by
the
non-Permanents
are given
draft
resolutions so
late in the
process and
expected to
just vote yes.
It
should not be
that way.
Especially
for
troop
contributing
countries,
like not only
Rwanda but
Pakistan
and Guatemala,
for example.
UN
Peacekeeping
Under Herve
Ladsous
seems
to have given
up its claim
to
impartiality,
still on its
website, and
created an
"Intervention
Brigade" in
Eastern Congo,
and a
fig leaf for
the French in
Mali.
Still,
there was
praise for
Permanent
member the UK,
at least its
ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant, for
having tried
this year to
consult with
the
other members
before they
were assigned
committee
roles. There
were
still three or
four
disagreements,
but at least
consultations
took
place.
But
what about
"the pen"? Why
should former
colonial
powers
always hold
them? For now
among the
E-10, only
Australia
holds
Afghanistan,
with Guinea
Bissau held by
Togo, May's
president.
Outgoing
Rwanda,
amazingly, has
offered to
mediate a conflict
that the UN
itself has
shied away
from. Whatever
the outcome,
it's to
Rwanda's
credit. Watch
this site.
, 
