LESSONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN LEARNT

The African countries have frequently, of late, been in the spotlight of the most influential media.  And not surprisingly: developments in Sudan and Zimbabwe have created major tension in international relations. No one finds it unusual, either, that this has coincided with tension between Moscow and Washington over the deployment in Eastern Europe of components of the US missile defence system and over the situation in Georgia's separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Russia's and China's Veto

Western politicians were both angered and shocked by Russian and Chinese decisions to veto the UN Security Council's resolution which proposed sanctions (financial restrictions, embargo on weapons sales, ban on travel for the country's leadership) against the Robert Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. Moscow's decision was particularly surprising, after the satisfaction expressed by the international media that Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev had promised, at the G8 summit, to support punitive measures against the Zimbabwe president.

As a result, Western politicians and analysts concur that Moscow's veto is "inexplicable" and makes them doubt "Russia's reliability as a G8 partner." The effectiveness of the Security Council has also been thrown into question once again. The Guardian notes that the Russian and Chinese vetoes clearly show "the malign influence both countries can play on the international stage." "The Security Council might have been exposed as toothless, but the UK, especially by acting through the EU, and the US still have real power to exert diplomatic, economic and moral pressure on the Mugabe regime," the paper declares.

On 27 June this year, Robert Mugabe, who has been in power for 28 years, won the presidential election solely because he was the only candidate left after the opposition boycott. From that day on, the country has been in acute political crisis. The economy there leaves much to be desired too:  the inflation rate in Zimbabwe reached 2.2 million percent (although some independent economists mention 7 million percent). No economy in the world has seen such lamentable figures since the end of World War II. The country has a banknote worth $100 billion local dollars. As a result, the Los Angeles Times writes, the country has run out of paper to print money. The EU banned the German company Giescke & Devrient from printing currency for the country as part of the sanctions against the Mugabe regime.

However, Moscow and Beijing decided not to subscribe to the opinion of those who think that Mugabe can be brought to his senses via sanctions. Yuriy Fedotov, Russian ambassador to Britain, noted that the final document passed by the G8 made no mention of the Security Council at all, and this was done at Russia's demand. Moscow was ready to support the harsh tone of the resolution proposed to the Security Council by the Republic of South Africa, but Britain and the United States blocked it, intending to propose their own resolution on sanctions. "All the countries whose delegations come back from the G8 summit are trying to prove that they reached their goals. When the British Government says that the parties agreed on new, stricter sanctions against Zimbabwe, it is understandable, albeit a little unfair. It is much worse when they turn on their G8 partner when, in reality, there was no agreement," Yuriy Fedotov said. The diplomat also stressed that the UN Security Council is a mechanism for resolving emergency issues related to global peace and security" and that using it to "deal with the domestic problems of individual states directly contravenes the UN Charter."

The Russian side expressed its certainty that sanctions imposed on the Mugabe regime will thwart the very important talks in Zimbabwe between the government and opposition on the restoration of stability. The decision of the African Union, which at its July summit directly asked other countries to refrain from action because it would adversely affect the dialogue which the union is trying to start, was cited as yet another argument.

But even cogent arguments were of no help and the West condemned the "double standards" applied, in its opinion, by Russia in advocating "non-interference in the domestic affairs" of states on the one hand and, on the other, violating its own professed principles in Georgia.

Message for the West

In the mean time, Russia received a request from Sudan to protect President Omar al-Bashir, whom the International Criminal Court pronounced responsible the situation that has taken shape in the Darfour province. Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor, produced evidence showing that Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir was personally associated with the extermination of 35,000 civilians belonging to three ethnic groups in the Darfour province, in the country's west - the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa, who were killed on his instructions and with his assent. Some 80,000 to 265,000 people, who were forced to abandon their homes and flee from war, are doomed to a slow death. This is the first ever detention order issued by the ICC for an incumbent head of state.

The Sudanese authorities categorically deny the allegations. The country's ambassador to Russia, Chol Deng Alak, noted at a press conference in Moscow that ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's demand is "very dangerous, since it involves arresting the president of a sovereign state which did not sign the Rome Statute and is not a member of the ICC." "Such a request breaks confidence in international justice and violates international law because it shows that very different standards are applied to different regions and countries," said Chol Deng Alak. The diplomat said that his country was on its way towards democracy (universal elections, including those for president, are to be held there in 2009). At the same time, at another press conference in Moscow, the head of the League of Arab States mission to Russia, Giuma Ibrahim al-Ferjani, stressed that the countries behind the accusations against al-Bashir have never allowed anyone to judge their leaders, although they have perpetrated numerous crimes against humanity in Somalia, Iraq or Sudan. The next day, the heads of the Arab countries' foreign ministries issued a joint statement which reads that the Sudanese judiciary bodies should deal with crimes in Darfour themselves. The ministers stressed that Sudan has an independent and highly professional judiciary system. The ICC indictment was also condemned by the African Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. As for Russia's official reaction, it was quite reserved, similarly China's reaction. Russia's envoy to the United Nations, Vitaliy Churkin, said that the "ICC prosecutor's actions might affect the peacekeeping operation in Darfour and, generally, the situation in Sudan." Nonetheless, all that Russia needed to say to the West was included in this message. Because Sudan does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Security Council must have its say...

In the meantime, the civil war in Darfour has been under way since February 2003. Government forces and their supporters are opposed by numerous rebel groups who fight for the independence of the province. Some 300,000 people have died and 2.7 million have become refugees. But experts note that the conflict in Darfour, a province which is populated by people of many races and religions (Muslim Arabs - more than 70%, black Christians - about 5%, pagans - almost 23%) is but a fight over natural resources and land.

The leading economies of the world are of course very interested in Africa's natural riches. The cargo turnover between China and Africa increased from $5 billion to $40 billion over the last decade. No country in the world compares to Beijing in terms of the rate of growth of its cargo turnover with the Black Continent. But the United States, Russia and the EU, whose shares in trade with the African nations are also large, do not lag far behind and intend to consolidate their positions.

Sanctions:  To be or not to be?

It should be noted that the situation in Zimbabwe has again brought to the fore the issue of the effectiveness of international sanctions. After all, this is directly linked to the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme, which is one of the most serious problems facing the international community at present. Increasing numbers of analysts point out that sanctions are not helpful at all in achieving the goal of influencing the authorities of the country in question, who are stubbornly unwilling to take account of international community opinion.

In the years following World War II, sanctions have been used many times against the Castro regime in Cuba, against Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's regime in Libya, against the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and others. But we can see that Fidel Castro recently transferred his power to his young brother, the military junta in Myanmar remains in power and Iran persists in stating that nothing will force it to abandon its nuclear programme. And toppling the Taleban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq took large-scale military intervention.

However, there is an opinion that sanctions are but a political instrument which cannot resolve all problems. They are part of the process of searching for a better course of action. Especially as the methods of punishment have become more localised of late, targeting not the entire country, but individual politicians or sectors of the national economy to minimize the suffering of ordinary people.

The sanctions against Libya, for example, which were in force for 11 years, are held up by international experts as a positive example: the punishment (political and economic isolation) proved effective and the authorities chose to comply with the demands of the international community. The economic sanctions against the Slobodan Milosevic regime are also considered to have achieved the intended effect.

The most memorable negative examples were the sanctions against Iraq which in the "skilful" hands of the dictatorial Saddam Hussein regime became a source of income and even foreign political dividends for the ruling class.

However, it emerged on 21 July that Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai had somehow reached agreement to resume talks on signing an agreement on a division of power.

All this makes one ponder over what we know about the Black Continent, beside the fact that bloody armed conflicts break out all the time there and people are dying from starvation and epidemics. What should we do to avoid making the long-suffering people of Africa suffer even more because of the settling of accounts between the leading global powers?