Washington, DC — There is a clear consensus among African governments that a unilateral move by the United States to engage militarily in Iraq would be a mistake. At last month's African Union summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, heads of state and government passed a resolution clearly demanding that any decisions should be taken within the United Nations system, specifically in the Security Council.
While that perspective may be broadly shared across Africa, it is clear that - viewed up close - individual countries' policies vary significantly in emphasis. For some, it is U.S. unilateralist tendencies that are uppermost, for others the process of disarming Iraq does take precedence, even if they would not support a go-it-alone policy in Washington.
As the United States urgently tries to build the support among Security Council members to get a green light for military action, the stance of the three African members - Cameroon, Angola and Guinea - as well as that of other influential African countries, is being seen as critical. Washington has been canvassing support on a bilateral basis and was angered by the anti-war declaration read out by France's President Jacques Chirac at the end of the recent Franco-African summit, apparently with the unanimous support of African leaders present.
Senegal's foreign minister, Cheikh Tidiane Gadio, is a widely-respected figure in diplomatic circles, credited with success in knotty conflict mediation, an energetic promoter of Nepad and African capacity to tackle Africa's problems and a man willing to talk frankly about the dilemmas African governments face. He talked in Washington to allAfrica's diplomatic correspondent, Charles Cobb, and Akwe Amosu, allAfrica's executive editor, about the Iraq crisis.
Can we start by talking about Iraq? What is your government's position on the possibility of a U.S. military engagement there?
Our problem is for Senegal to take the right position and for Africa to have a position that makes sense to her own people. I don't think people in general would like war and whenever it is avoidable, I think that's what people will try to achieve.
We were very glad, in Senegal, to see that the international community not only chose the path of the UN system and the Security Council but also to come together in a unanimous vote on resolution 1441. Now we know all the debate in the process of implementing the resolution but Senegal's position is as follows.
We don't want to make any confusion about the real issues. We agree that the main issue is to disarm Iraq and we put it first on agenda. Why? When the suggestion was made at the Franco-African summit that we include in our agenda discussion about Iraq, I opposed that for two reasons.
First, I said that if Saddam Hussein was in the same situation and Africa was in crisis, and he was leading a meeting in his subregion he would never change his agenda for Africa because Saddam doesn't care about Africa. We are absolutely certain of it. In Senegal, in particular, we know that once there was a problem in our part of the world, Arab countries did send mediators to help bring back brotherhood and peace but Saddam was sending weapons to fuel one country against another. So that's his nature and we have really no sympathy or support for Mr Saddam Hussein.
So I opposed changing our agenda to accommodate the issue of Iraq and particularly Saddam. I made the specific point that all the countries in the subregion are also in need of being checked for their arms programmes and for their military activities but we are not talking of Iraq as a single entity, we are talking about Saddam Hussein's Iraq; it's a particular problem for the international community and it needs to be disarmed.
Second, that being clearly said, the international community unanimously through the UN system has chosen the way of the Security Council so we want to stick to that choice and make it work as much as we can; only if the inspectors come back and say that unfortunately, after the time that was given to them, they have come to the conclusion that they could not do their job, or the outcome is unsatisfactory because Iraq would not let them do their job, then a new debate is needed to make a decision, as an international community. So that's the way we articulate our position
So in practical terms, what needs to be done?
What our president added, which is extremely important to us, in Kuala Lumpur - and it's an original way of dealing with this - he said that the international community is only putting pressure on the United States to get back in line and stay with the Security Council; but given the trauma of September 11 and everything that happened here and the reality of international politics, why only put pressure on one side and not put it on he other side?
His suggestion was that the Islamic community that was meeting in Kuala Lumpur parallel to the Non- Aligned Movement's meeting, should send a delegation to Mr Saddam Hussein and make a suggestion to him: "One, if you have weapons of mass destruction, where are they and can we collect them, or can we take the inspectors to collect them, so that one cause for war will be avoided? And two, if you don't have weapons of mass destruction, in the past you have recognised that you did have weapons of mass destruction; where are they? Show us the evidence of what happened to them. Show us and we will tell the international community what has been done with those weapons and that also will take away another reason or cause for war."
He got an ovation, he was applauded because they found it a balanced way of putting the issue, and a realistic way.
But to be clear, if the U.S. does decide to go ahead with military action without the endorsement of the Security Council it sounds, from what you're saying, as though that would be a position that Senegal would not support.
You know, in international politics and diplomacy, you don't say ahead of time what you would do if such and such is the case... I don't want to play games with you. My thing is we should not be pessimistic on the outcome. Many people are convinced that "that's it, we are wasting time, war is already here and it is just unfolding." Perhaps. But as long as there is hope for us to keep putting pressure, to say that war could be avoided, that perhaps there is another way of bringing an end to this crisis then we should keep going.
But if you do that at the same time as saying: "You know what? We are wasting our time, this thing is over, the war is on, now let's think about the post-war Iraq situation," I don't think that's the right way to go.
And then, to be honest, I don't want to foresee the terrible consequences of the US breaking away from the UN system - the U.S. taking care of the issue itself and then drawing the conclusion that the international community was not responsible in the face of this huge crisis with Iraq and deciding to remove itself from he UN system.
That would be a terrible crisis for all of us because we need to have the US, we need to have Europe and all the countries in the world, in the UN system so that we can keep it as a forum, first, to keep everyone in check, and second, to work together. Once we imagine a world with a UN system without the United States, I think it would be disastrous.
So we need to do our best and not be passive or wait for the U.S. to make the decision and then criticise or support it but to find a solution in the UN system. Senegal's a small, tiny country but that's how we feel about this.
It's true that Senegal may not be a superpower like the U.S. but it has a fair amount of influence in Africa. To what degree does your stance reflect a broader African position?
I was in Addis Ababa representing my country and president at the summit. The way the Iraq resolution was presented there, Senegal would have wished for it to be more balanced and to fit our diversity [of opinions] more; because some of our countries, like Senegal, we now want, for once, to keep the focus on our problems.
Like I said, when have you ever seen Saddam Hussein calling a meeting of the Baath party or the Arab nations to have a resolution on Cote d'Ivoire? Ask Saddam Hussein what is Cote d'Ivoire and he will ask you if it's a fruit, or a make of car; I don't think he knows what is Cote d'Ivoire. So to be honest, to have this African meeting where we talked about all our problems like Somalia, Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire and then all of a sudden - paf! - a resolution on Iraq...
But if the concern was that Africans have also to voice their concern about the risk of war, I think it's a healthy concern. That's why we didn't [challenge it] - you know we usually raise our hand on almost all issues but this time around, we looked round the room, everyone was quiet, and we said, "OK, this is not, like, disastrous." If the resolution was condemning the U.S. or one country, then we would have raised an issue but it was broadly presented, that we think the UN system should work and that we should avoid war, so we said "fine".
In Paris also we had this declaration read by President Chirac. We agreed on the idea of starting it by saying that Iraq must disarm, we thought that was a thoughtful attitude because other countries would understand that we appreciate that the main issue is that Iraq should disarm. Now, all countries are under pressure -
Under pressure from the U.S., do you mean?
You know, that's funny because, you know, the dialectics of international politics... people tend to think that the U.S. is touring Africa - Cameroon, Angola, Guinea - and they are putting all this kind of pressure in order to have their vote. But which country in the world is today dealing with the most pressure? The U.S. itself! Because, having chosen the path of the UN security Council, the U.S. is doing its best to legitimise the whole process through the UN system.
Because the U.S. could do without the international community. Would that be good for the U.S.? It's their internal decision, but I would advise, as a friend of this country, that they should go with the international community. But they can do without us, they really don't need us to take care of this problem.
Some people are saying, "well, there is no effort from the U.S. because the decision is already made, they're going to war, 300,000 troops on the ground, the UN is clearly not relevant." But I think we need to be consistent. The UN system is relevant [to the U.S.], which is why Colin Powell is going to Japan, going to Korea, around the world and trying to sell the idea that this is the way to go and why Africa Under-Secretary of State Kansteiner is touring Africa and going back and forth. The U.S. is actually making a huge diplomatic effort to convince the Security Council.
So I think it's fair to notice that and acknowledge that the U.S. is working in the UN system and doing its best. Now, Senegal is not in the Security Council but it doesn't get us off the hook; of course, people are asking, what do you think? I think our position is fair and balanced, France likes our position, the U.S. likes our position, -
That sounds like a miracle!
- because I think it is extremely important to be yourself in this kind of situation! We have an excellent historical relationship with France - everyone knows that - we have always been the spoiled country within the Francophone system so this is not the time for us to run away. It is time for us to insist on our identity as a country that is independent, within the African system.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
If I have to express our position in order of priority, I would say first, that this is the national interest of Senegal, then that this is the interest of Africa and then I will consider the interests of the international community; because like the Chinese who, I was told, when they draw the map of the world, they draw China first, and then they organise the world around China; so me, I draw Senegal and Africa first and then the rest of the world.
But did you feel that, to some extent, France was trying to manipulate Africa at the Franco-African summit? President Kagame and the Rwandans, for example, say they were not consulted, that the Iraq declaration was announced as a unanimous position even though they had not been asked.
That's interesting because I was sitting next to Mr Kagame - you know Rwanda comes next to Senegal in the alphabet - and he was out of the room having an audience with someone. I was speaking to his foreign minister when the declaration was read out and I saw him looking very anxious, then he went out to go and explain to his president, that's true.
But at the same time, what Mr Chirac explained was that he consulted with President Mbeki and because the African Union had already passed a resolution in Addis Ababa, he took that resolution and added one or two sentences and presented it. So I understand Mr Kagame, what he described is exactly right since he was not in the room when the decision was made but I don't think France was trying to [push] all the African countries in this, because we had the meeting in Addis Ababa and made the decision already with this resolution.
Of course, if the U.S. had an African summit in this period, they would say: "You know, guys, we want to disarm Iraq; lets work in the UN system, but if it doesn't work, let's take action!" Then everyone would clap and shout "bravo"!
So it isn't manipulation, it's international politics. And we Africans, we respect our host, you don't challenge the host! But then you have the courage to say, "this is our position." We did not challenge our host; but [after the Franco-African summit], President Wade said, "this is our position, we are not following France, we have our own views." I think that's the merit of the new African leadership - you are courteous to your friends but when it comes to stating the African position, you put Africa first.
This interview has been posted in two parts: to read Minister Gadio's views on the Cote d'Ivoire peace process, see : What Went Wrong with Ivory Coast's Peace Process - by Senegal's Foreign Minister
