Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Legally, should Tanzania Intervene in Zimbabwe?

Discussion in 'Jukwaa la Siasa' started by Game Theory, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #1
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0
    ADMIN/MOD

    Hii thread itatusaidia kutufafanulia mambo ya LEGAL matters kwenye hili. Nadhani bora iache hapa na tutaijadili kufuatana na sheria za Kimataifa. Nadhani itakuwa ni nafasi nzuri kwetu to learn a thing or two. Tushajadili sana kiini cha gogoro la Zimbabwe lakini naona bora tubadilishe mjadala kuangalia sheria inasemaje kuhusu hili.



    Ijumaa last week Gordon Brown na ODINGA walitoa matamko yaliyonitisha kuwa Dunia lazima intervene in Zimbabwe. Na kilichonitisha zaidi ni mtu kama Pundit kutoa matamko kuwa dawa ni kumuondoa Mugabe by force.

    Je wana JF mtakubali kuona Tanzania ina intervene militarily kumuondoa Mugabe japo tumewapa shilingi milioni 75 leo? kama uankubali tafadhali njoo na legal arguments kuback up your point
     
  2. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #2
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    I believe in "Responsibility To Protect" and just as Tanzania was involved in the liberation of South Africa, against the apartheid regime, Tanzania, as the current chair of AU should rally support for an international intervention.

    The people of Zimbabwe, including renown neutral clerics such as Archbishop Ncube as well as non Zimbabweans like Archbishop Tutu have called for international intervention and the subsequent removal of Mugabe.

    Responsibility to Protect calls on civil society as well as the international community to step and prevent " genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and crimes against humanity is an international commitment by governments to prevent and react to grave crises, wherever they may occur" ( see http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/). I believe what Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe constitute war crimes , crimes against humanity and grave crises bordering on genocide in clear violation of international standards including charters such as AU and UN, esteemed bodies in which Zimbabwe enjoy membership and the people of Zimbabwe should enjoy the protection of the internation community offered thereof.

    If we are making nice to Mugabe and waiting to have a diplomatic solution, another Rwanda is brooding in Zimbabwe, remember, Mugabe himself said he has "a degree in violence" that alone should disqualify him from the presidency.

    I would like to see an empowered AU force step in and take Mugabe and his cronies out, and ship them to The Hague to face justice.

    The world's presidents, prime ministers, royalties, heads of states and governments as well as the UN Security Council unanimously accepted the idea of R2P at the UN World Summit in September 2005.

    So what are we waiting for?

    Get On It!
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  3. M

    Mkandara Verified User

    #3
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Mar 3, 2006
    Messages: 15,419
    Likes Received: 76
    Trophy Points: 145
    Pundit,
    Well said brother..Apartheid regime has no color!..
    My biggest concern is the aftermath! - who comes to power - Morgan?!
    Trust me Zimbabwe will be another Iraq for sure...we will regret the cost of lives and money we dumbed in..the only way to evaluate success of Zimbabwe is not by looking at Mugabe alone but by assessing the possiblity of achieving the goal of making Zimbabwean safe, sustain and democratically govern itself.. 'cause it appeared that Morgan (uncle Tom) he isn't that popular.. winning 50 or 51% of the votes against Mugabe of all people..tells a lot!..
    Besides - to begin with, I think Zimbabweans should take arms themselves as they did during Apartheid for us show our support....We can't just jump into a war (invade) without knowing who is our enemy!.. Mugabe and his cronies an't alone -49% of the population (voters) voted for him while 70% of Zimbabweans still believe in ZANU PF..We can't afford same mistakes made in Iraq...I hated Saadam so is Mugabe but...their problems are more than just leaders!
    That's my two cents!
     
  4. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #4
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0
    I beg to differ with you on above statement. First of all the point of discussion here is not WHAT YOU believe but what the law states. I would have respected your initial argument for the AU intervention if only you would have looked the issues without stating what YOU believe in.


    Mind you at the heart of the debate is the alleged tension between the principle of state sovereignty, a defining pillar of the United Nations (UN) system, international law, and the evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force.


    Furthermore, You have dug yourself in a much bigger hole by mentioning Tanzania's involvement in Southern African liberation. Just to juggle your memory we NEVER sent troops to South Africa BUT we, intervened in Uganda, while thousand sof miles away Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, both taking place during the Cold War in the 1970s, may well have been justified today on humanitarian grounds despite both Uganda under Iddi Amin and Cambodia under Khamer Rouge having murderous regimes clearly guilty of genocide they did not attract international military intervention due to the geopolitical climate and superpower rivalry at the time. Therefore it was left to Vietnam and Tanzania to justify their actions as self-defence (the right of all states under the UN charter 51) and restrain from claiming the right to humanitarian intervention.

    Therefore legally your first argument is wrong and in admissible!



    Yeah I've read their comments and you can add up Bishop Sentamu in that list. Strangely none of the so called clerics have not given us any legal reasons on why and what sort of International intervention is required and under what grounds should it be applied to Zimbabwe

    So this second argument is technically dead!





    My friend this argument is also flawed since forcible intervention on humanitarian grounds is illegal as the only case legitimate intervention 'the right of self defence' as stated in article 51 of the UN charter in other words, there is no provision for intervention on humanitarian grounds. So your argument number 3 is also wrong since it violates UN charter!







    You can believe what you want but legally you cant do nothing. Its alo important to point to you that states never actually intervene for humanitarian reasons, it may be a side effect, or just a veil, because they actually only intervene to pursue their own states self-interest. Actually states do not have the right to cause the bloodshed of their own people by getting involved in interventions in other countries regardless of how you see the situation in Zimbabwe.



    Thats not a legal argument





    another flawed argument with no legal merit



    Mjomba narudia tena. Forcible intervention must be legally authorised by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in accordance with the consent of nine of the fifteen members, though any UNSC resolution can be vetoed by any one of the five permanent members.
     
  5. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #5
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0

    BOB.this is not a legal argument for intervention. Its too descriptive
     
  6. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #6
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0
    Alha vipi upo?
     
  7. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #7
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    The law, to be meaningful, ahs to be alive and evolving, suitable to the environment.If the existing law gave us Idd Amin, Bokassa, The Holocaust, Pol Pot, Bosnia and Rwanda, we need to change it.This is recognized in international circles hence the current wave of R2P.

    If you live in the law, unchangingly at a time that demand change, you will be akin to the papacy invoking geocentrism in a wave of evidence showing the need to embrace heliocentrism.

    If you want to dispute the merit of heliocentrism (in this case R2P) you can do so by going at the core issues behind R2P, and not by hiding behind some ineffective laws.

    Even as we speak the legal framework, the last straw to break the bone of contention, is being laid down starting with the 05 UN Summit. If the US and it's allies can get the UN's support to invade Iraq on some trumped up charges of weapons of Mass Destruction, the needlessly dying people of Zimbabwe should give the AU a stronger case to get the UNs blessings on this.
     
  8. jmushi1

    jmushi1 JF-Expert Member

    #8
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Nov 2, 2007
    Messages: 16,048
    Likes Received: 41
    Trophy Points: 145
    Kwani tatizo ni nini hasa hapo Zimbabwe mpaka tuingize jeshi?
     
  9. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #9
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Although the point is not what about what I believe in, I am beginning by showing that to me this is more than an exercise in legalism, or rhetoric in IR.Unlike you, I begin by showing a deep personal conviction.Legal arguments will follow. Even in a court of law, one cannot underestimate the opening argument well constructed and preceded by a personal experience and a narration of a sense of personification of the law.

    The nation-state itself is dying a natural death due to the non-creativity insisted on by the exact and impractical overt legalism embraced by your ideologically informed arguments.

    Your argument does not hold water, speaking of The liberation struggle in South Africa, the situation did not escalate into an open war.And Tanzania being one of the Frontline States did participate heavily and openly to aid South Africans against the apartheid regime.I have said before that military intervention is to be held at the last card.It was held so for South Africa and should be occupy the same spot for Zimbabwe.Frankly I don't think military intervention is necessary as political and economic pressure may be sufficient to oust Mugabe.The problem is these two may take too long and by the time Mugabe is bled from these two, the people of Zimbabwe may have very well undergone extinction.[/QUOTE]

    What you also seem not to understand and/ or acknowledge is the fact that I am not advocating for Tanzania to impose it's military (sic) might on Zimbabwe, rather I am advocating for Tanzania, especially in it's capacity as AU chair, to coalesce AU and International support and gather the necessary, legal and extra judicial means to combat this extra-ordinary pestilence personified in the obscene self of Robert Gabriel Mugabe.




    They have gone beyond the legal arguments, they have gone into that which makes the basis of legal arguments, age established traditions such as human rights, basic fairness, regional security and economic well being

    Only if you want to insist on your interpretation of defunct legalism.

    Again, If George Bush got the UN's blessing (with a fight allright) the AU should have a stronger and more genuine case against Mugabe.

    Overtly legalism invoking failed IR clauses can only be interpreted as support for the shameful Mugabe regime.







    My friend this argument is also flawed since forcible intervention on humanitarian grounds is illegal as the only case legitimate intervention 'the right of self defence' as stated in article 51 of the UN charter in other words, there is no provision for intervention on humanitarian grounds. So your argument number 3 is also wrong since it violates UN charter!









    You can believe what you want but legally you cant do nothing. Its alo important to point to you that states never actually intervene for humanitarian reasons, it may be a side effect, or just a veil, because they actually only intervene to pursue their own states self-interest. Actually states do not have the right to cause the bloodshed of their own people by getting involved in interventions in other countries regardless of how you see the situation in Zimbabwe.





    Thats not a legal argument







    another flawed argument with no legal merit





    Mjomba narudia tena. Forcible intervention must be legally authorised by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in accordance with the consent of nine of the fifteen members, though any UNSC resolution can be vetoed by any one of the five permanent members.[/QUOTE]
     
  10. M

    Mama JF-Expert Member

    #10
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Mar 24, 2008
    Messages: 2,858
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 0
    Kwanza Zimbabwe yu mbali huko. Kiherehere na kimbelembele cha kupenda kwa jirani kuliko kwetu wenyewe chatu-cost hadi leo. Yetu yashatushinda, ya jirani tuyawezee wapi?

    Hakuna cha low wala law, wamelikoroga wenyewe na walinywe.
     
  11. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #11
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0
    4 issues:

    1)You havent given us legal reasons why we should intervene in Zimbabwe



    2)The highlighted part can be argued as not part of this discussion as its got to dom more with reforming the United Nations...system as a whole so you cant pick and chose



    3) Holocaust happened under THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS and not THE UNITED NATIONS




    4) UNSC recent years, has authorized military intervention to restore democracy in Haiti, (UNSC 1994,) end the repression of Kurds in northern Iraq,(UNSC,1991 res/688) curb famine in Somalia,(UNSC,1992 ) stop ethnic cleansing in Bosnia,(UNSC,1992 ) and limit genocide in Rwanda.(UNSC,1994) In each of these cases, the Council cited a threat to international peace as the principal legal justification for intervention. The existence of internal disorder in these cases, with the exception of Bosnia. So it might be that effective but when followed some good came out of it...better than illegal invasion

    I have read the mentioned R2P and its 6 principles which are all flawed


    Now two questions for you:


    1)Are you saying that UN article 51 is irrelevant?


    2) Some internal conflicts do not respond well to traditional peacekeeping or enforcement operations where the UN is required to develop new techniques for operating in the violent circumstances such as that of Somalia. Do you really know why UN failed in Somalia? R2P wont give you a straight answer but patiently will wait for your answer and how R2P failed

    Check your facts my friend. USA and its allies never got a UN approval for the invasion of Iraq

    Actually i remember correctly KOFI ANNAN sid [F]rom our point of view and from the Charter point of view [the war] was illegal."


    sOURCE: BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Excerpts: Annan interview

    Therefore your whole argument is flawed due to in accuracies that i have pointed out
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  12. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #12
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0
    [/QUOTE]




    Can you edit this post so i can answer your points correctly


    NAONA UMECHANGANYA QUOTES ZANGU NA ZAKO
     
  13. Nyani Ngabu

    Nyani Ngabu Platinum Member

    #13
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2006
    Messages: 65,153
    Likes Received: 16,125
    Trophy Points: 280
    Haki ya Mungu tena naenda kubadilisha signature yangu.
     
  14. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #14
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    Sorry

    F*cking Firefox imenicrashia baada ya kuspend over a good thirty minutes going over your post and replying to your arguments.

    Basically I was attacking your overt legalism and academism and embraced solutions. R2P is not heavy on legalism and academism, but is practical and progressive, and that is what we need, the only concern I have is to ensure an airtight framework that will pass everything through the UN (a hurdle if there ever was one, especially the SS) but since you seem to dwell on principles, academism and legalism, we can disregard whether a proposition will apss or not and focus on just the merit and practicality of it.

    I think if you eliminate the element of possible abuse R2P is very attractive and can prevent a lot of needless atrocities.Think about Amin and Nyerere and all those people who died before Kagera simply because everybody was shy due to legalism and sovereignty.

    We are revolving around two different centres and it is hard to see eye to eye, you and your legalism and academism, me and my passionate and progressive need to revamp the status quo, as always.

    Huu ni ufisadi, sema umevalishwa sheria za kimataifa tu watu wanauogopa.

    So strictly sticking to your heading, I am a bit off, but I believe shaping the legalism is part of nthe legalese. And do not underrate this I, for it is not a mere mortal's I, I is the holy spirit.

    Aisee lemme go home from this tower, maybe I will find time to continue, maybe not.

    I am surprised you are still up at GMT mate.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2008
  15. Kichuguu

    Kichuguu Platinum Member

    #15
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Oct 11, 2006
    Messages: 6,945
    Likes Received: 282
    Trophy Points: 180
    It will not make sense for Tanzania to invade Zimbabwe on the pretext of restoring good governance while hers is questionable.
     
  16. Nyani Ngabu

    Nyani Ngabu Platinum Member

    #16
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: May 15, 2006
    Messages: 65,153
    Likes Received: 16,125
    Trophy Points: 280
    Absolutely. I doubt there is any African country that has the moral authority to unilaterally invade Zimbabwe under those pretexts.
     
  17. G

    Game Theory JF-Expert Member

    #17
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Sep 5, 2006
    Messages: 8,575
    Likes Received: 44
    Trophy Points: 0
    Google chrome should be your back up!

    The thread it self is about legal matters so its not my fault. now another argument against the R2P is any criteria established by the international community may produce perverse reactions from actors on the ground. For example, if the only "just cause" for external intervention is large-scale and systematic human rights abuses, rebel groups desiring outside help may trigger that threshold themselves and provoke mass killing as was the case of Somalia. Ultimately, threshold conditions are political--subject to interpretation and manipulation. Similarly, if proportionality is a key criterion for legitimate action, and the West continues to prefer strategic air campaigns, opponents may put civilians next to military targets to test resolve was the case in Bosnia where NATO's 'smart bombs' failed miserably so R2P dethroned itself here.


    Well Tanzania justified its actions against Uganda under pretext of self-defence (the right of all states under the UN charter 51) which we signed up for



    We all know that 1990s saw a series of military actions explicitly supported by humanitarian rationale. In these cases, the apparent conflict between sovereignty and human rights were addressed in two ways;

    fIrst was through an evolution in the notion of sovereignty, from 'sovereignty as authority' or control over territory to 'sovereignty as responsibility' which incorporate respect for a minimum standard of human rights, and through an expanded definition of what constitutes a 'threat to international peace and security' under chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. As a result of the first move, massive violations of human rights inside the domestic jurisdiction of a state have been transformed into a matter of international concern; as a result of the second, the UN can legitimately authorize international action to address security threats that emerge from humanitarian crises.



    Bwana Pundit the central problem with your case for humanitarian intervention is that your arguments advanced in its favor are largely incoherent.


    Your R2P is also flawed and Somalia is a classic example , there has been a near-complete breakdown in central government authority. In the south, this has resulted in fractious warlordism. In the north, in Puntland and Somaliland, we see a state of near secession. For almost 20 years, the country has verged on anarchy.

    What i have learned is the proponents wa hii "R2P," and particularly military intervention, are very casual with other people's blood. It is much easier to advocate for the use of force when you are not the one doing the heavy lifting. Do you seriously believe ODINGA atatoa troops kwenda kumngoa Mugabe?

    Pundit i am afraid to tell you that in the end, the principle of R2P remains fundamentally aspirational. And aspirations do not make a foreign policy.

    Nataka sana kwenda kulala lakini hii thread inanitia midadi na nina usingizi kibao hapa niliko
     
  18. Pundit

    Pundit JF-Expert Member

    #18
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Feb 4, 2007
    Messages: 3,742
    Likes Received: 14
    Trophy Points: 0
    I have all the major browsers, it is just that when you are typing you cannot type in more than one browser.

    Your dismissal of R2P based on its infantile failure reveals more about the commitment and stock assigned it than it's effectiveness.

    Kusema kwamba rebels watafanya atrocities ili kutumia R2P to their advantage is to assume that due diligence will not be carried out, as long as you are talking principles, lets go with the assumption that due diligence will be carried out, and governments will either be in control or the international community will know what is going on and have the means to capture and prosecute rebels, or at the very least, acknowledge what it does not know and intervene only where there is evidence beyond doubt.

    There are laws and unjust laws, a discussion of the existing legal framework and it's effectiveness is part of the legal procedure.

    As much as you do not want to see needless blood shed, I would equally hate to see Kikwete plundering and maiming my people and everybody looking on just because Tanzania is sovereign.

    Above all, let it be known that, like you I suspect, violence and force is never my first choice, but sometimes, as a last resort, it is much needed.
     
  19. Ab-Titchaz

    Ab-Titchaz Content Manager Staff Member

    #19
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Jan 30, 2008
    Messages: 14,702
    Likes Received: 15
    Trophy Points: 0
    ..Hili kweli ni darasa nami nashuhudia tu!
     
  20. Masanja

    Masanja JF-Expert Member

    #20
    Dec 9, 2008
    Joined: Aug 1, 2007
    Messages: 2,487
    Likes Received: 1,168
    Trophy Points: 280
    Thanks GT for starting this thread.

    GT, Pundit et al, from the start you CAN NOT separate legality and politics/self interests in any intervention. Not anywhere has it happened. That a country intervenened when its own interests were not at stake. Let me explain.

    From the legal perspective, one of the ways to intervene in Zimbabwe is through the United Nations Charter (Chapter VII) In which case the situation in Zimbabwe can be construed to constitute threat to peace and security. Now knowing who makes up the Security Council, this is a dead possibility because China and Russia will veto such a resolution. The General Assembly has no power to do anything (and remember GA is filled with third world countries who feel that Mugabe is just a victim of the western hegemony irrespective of what he has done). Because you cant trust this Muzungu man! Never!

    Intervention through the African Union is possible using the newly African Union Constitutive Charter which allows countries/the Union to intervene in any member state to stop atrocities. As we saw in Comoro, they can do it if they want. Here the problem is politics. No African country can DARE send troops in Zim without the CONSENT of Mugabe or his governement. We saw it in Sudan, when the UN wanted to send troops, China (a veto wielding member) insisted on the Consent clause from Sudanese government) and definetely you know what Bashir did. The mantra of SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF STATES still rules Supreme in international law! No matter where we go.

    Humanitarian intervention, Yes this is possible through the newly embraced mantra of the R2P WHICH WAS ENDORSED BY THE UN in its summit in 2005. The problem is WHO will intervene? Through the UN? Ofcourse not, because countries are very wary of the concept itself especially AFRICANS. so everybody looks upon US to intervene. This doctrine of humanitarian intervention was only used in Bosnia in 1998 when US/NATO justified its millitary attack on Bosnia using this doctrine. Why did they jump the Security Council? Precisely because Russia and China would have vetoed the resolution and hence allowing Milosovic to stay in power. Again why did NATO intervene? precisely because Bosnia is in the conclave of Europe, so Western Europe was shouldering the consequences of the war such as millions of refugees and alike. Here THEIR interests was at stake. Hence the intervention even without the UN backing.

    Now can we expect that one day "international community" will invoke R2P to intervene anywhere? Not quite sure because in anycase whenever there is contradiction between legal principles and politics the later will prevail. Infact who is international community? If I were to ask? It is those who pay the bill for the UN to function. Infact UN exist as long as western powers can foot the bill and not otherwise.

    Now coming to Zimbabwe, all that is happening in Zim shows clearly that there is wide spread atrocities and the governement has failed to protect its own citizens. But reality check is..who can intervene? Yes AU, UN and other regional blocks have compelling reasons and legal mandate to intervene, but political exigencies dictates that Zimbabwe is an internal issue (British/West vs the rest!).

    To sum it: AU has a legal mandate and obligation to protect citizens of the member states when their government cant protect them. But coupled with all the problems we have in Africa such as Darfur, Congo, Somalia, Guinea Bissau etc..Africa or any other African country can not afford military confrontation with Zimbabwe! Simply huo uwezo haupo.

    UN CAN NOT intervene, because you will never get such a resolution through the UN security Council. NATO can not intervene, because Zimbabwe poses no serious threat to the western world. Its just "another bloody African country where they are just killing each other"

    R2P, Is a good idea and I applaud the Canadians who came up with the whole idea, but frankly speaking this doctrine is so theoretical that it depends on the good will of the international community to enforce. As I said from the beginning no country can ever intervene when its interests are not at stake.

    Example in 1998 NATO sent close to 50,000 peacekeepers in Kosovo (a size 200 times smaller than Darfur!), in Darfur you have less than 12,000 soldiers who are ill equipped to do anything.

    What I can say is, you CAN NOT separate politics and law when it comes to international diplomacy. UN is very bureacratic, undemocratic and a platform of the strong against the weak but its alternative will be worse! So where do we go from here?

    My take: Africa should just press Mugabe using all available means such expulsion from the AU, impose sanction among others. But so far millitary intervention is a dream because no African country can afford it without western support. And western Support as simply unwilling to sacrifice their resources to intervene where their interests arent at stake.

    Can Mugabe go to the Hague to face ICC? Legally NOT. Because Zimbabwe has not ratified the Rome Statute establishing the Court. The only way would be for UN Security Council to refer the situation there. Now can that happen? Probably Yes and NO. Because China will veto such a resolution. We have seen it in Sudan and everywhere.

    Unless Africans tujikomboe kiuchumi, international law is not there to protect us. no body is interested in the development of Africa. No body. I say again NO BODY wants to see peace and prosperity on the continent. Its our duty as Africans to do it!
     
Loading...