The problem with platforms like the United Nations General assembly is that just about any demagogue can stand up and say anything.
Take Michael Sata the ruler of mother Zambia for example; the old fool was asking the UN to include Africans on the Security Council.
Currently, the UN Security Council comprise China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.
There is a historical basis for that arrangements but we are not here to write history so we shall leave it right there.
Everyone knows that what Sata made was just a speech which has already been forgotten about.
Africa should be given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? Given by whom and for what? Does Sata think that the five countries on the Council were just given those positions?
No Sir. There was a war called World War 11 and that is what gave birth to the UN as we know it today.
It was the victors in that war who gave themselves permanent seats.
Do you still want to know why Germany, despite being the biggest economy in Europe is not one of the five? Do you know why Japan, the second biggest economy in the world, India and Brazil, the emerging superpowers are not among members of the security council.
Now Michael Sata, from somewhere in the middle of the Dark Continent goes to the UN and says Africa must be given a permanent seat?
Didn’t Haile Selassie say that more than 50 years ago? Did anything change? How many times has Mugabe and others said that?
Yes we agree some reforms of some kind have to take place in the UN system, but does Sata and his fellow dictators in Africa know why they need a permanent seat on the UN apart from egoistic reasons? Can just having an African seat on the Security Council change anything?
African rulers are failing to run or make the African union a sensible organisation yet they want to be in charge of the UN.
That AU thing in Ethiopia is useless. It saves no purpose apart from being an annual meeting for old dictators to share ideas on witchcraft and rigging elections.
To show how incapable of running big organisation African leaders are, even the AU headquarters building itself had to be built by China as a donation.
Now, the AU origins can be traced to the liberation of Africa. But Africans cannot even build a structure to house the organisation that is a symbol of liberation.
And just in the SADC region where Sata comes from, was it not Sata and his fellow regional charlatans who, just last month, banned the SADC tribunal just because the lawyers on that tribunal questioned the actions of elements like Robert Mugabe?
Sata can rant all he wants about Africans being spectators on the UN. But is that true? Who has really benefited from the UN between USA and Africa? What has France benefited from the UN? The truth is that these countries are spending their money to resolve problems in Africa caused by African leaders.
Sata and his friends should ask themselves how much they have contributed to the UN. Does Sata know how the UN is funded and that if the countries he is attacking withdrew their money that UN will crumble within weeks?
African can claim to send soldiers for peace keeping missions. But who funds those operations? Is it not a known fact that African Peace Keepers love to go for these assignments not because they believe in peace but because of the allowances they get? Who does not know that most peace keepers who are sent from Africa are usually relatives of politicians because of the money involved?
Can Sata and friends tell the Africans how much they have contributed to the operations of the UN? Do they even know the annual budget?
Putting Africans on the Security Council is risky as the UN as that noble organisation will be turned into an instrument of oppression against the opposition.
Sata should not be excited and follow the behavior of terrosrists when he is at the UN.
People like the Iranian leader have their own reasons for condeming the UN. In fact it is not the UN they are condemning but countries like USA and France which the see as enemies. UN is just used as a plartform.
So what is Sata’s contention and source of bitterness?
And why is Sata speaking for Africa not Zambia? Africa is not even a legal entity but just a map or at least a geographical reality.
If there was to be some inclusions on the UN Council, it would be a specific country that would have veto powers as opposed to Africa?
Now Zambia stands no chance in that envisaged inclusion. It will be countries like South Africa, Nigeria, and Egypt etc competing for that seat.
And if for the sake of argument, Sata’s wish for a permanent African seat is granted to a powerful nation like South Africa, Egypt, or Nigeria, how does he hope consensus on the much needed veto power will be reached when these African dictators still have serious disagreements among themselves?
Already these countries can’t resolve a small leadership dispute within the SADC region to do with Zimbabwe where Sata was busy shouting ‘pemberi na ZANU-PF’ and that of a small island of Madagascar.
The truth is that Africans in general will not benefit in anyway. It will just be fulfilling the egos of certain politicians who will be seating there.
So Sata should have chosen to say something realistic and beneficial to Zambians who sent him there other than engaging in dumb calls.
Besides, Sata is a hypocrite. How can he go to the UN to talk about equal regional representation when in his own country he marginalises other regions?
Sata runs a tribal government where more than 80 per cent of political appointments are from one region.
His cabinet comprises of people from his region. When he was asked by people of North-western to balance his cabinet, he said he does not balance regions but brains.
But this is the same person who wants the UN to balance regions.