Shocking! Liberia, Ghana gang up with Francophone nations against Nigeria

By Funmi Komolafe, Assistant Editor, Just back from Addis Ababa
Saturday, May 26, 2007

SINCE late Head of State, General Murtala Mohammed declared that Africa would be the focus of Nigeria’s foreign policy, successive governments in Nigeria have stuck to that focus. Indeed, Nigeria has done so much for other African countries but has it paid off? The recent meeting of the African Union (AU) Labour and Social Commission held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia revealed otherwise.
 

The Africa Union (AU) Social and Labour Commission meeting that should have passed on as an ordinary meeting of experts discussing labour and social issues turned out to be a political parley of sorts. Experts from African countries  representing the three social partners; workers, government and labour were in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to discuss issues of common interest  to them especially those relating to creating jobs, youth unemployment, social security, immigration among others.


They also discussed how to get Africa her rightful place at the International Labour Organization (ILO). The three social partners' forum  at the ILO is  known  as the “African Group”.  At the International Labour Conference of 2005, President Olusegun Obasanjo addressed the group. Last year, Madam Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia also met with the same group. During both meetings, Africans discussed the problems of the continent and proffered suggestions.


The Addis Ababa meeting as usual was aimed at taking  critical decisions on the role Africa should play at the 96th session of the ILO due to begin May 30, 2007 at the ILO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. It was unanimously agreed that Africa should get a permanent seat on the governing body of the ILO which is the body that takes decisions on the running of the secretariat and other policies articulated by the ILO. Other issues which they mutually agreed on were Africa’s presidency of the International Labour Conference (ILC), chairing of ILC committees, capacity-building in regional offices and review of field structures.


After deliberations, a draft report was presented.  It was to be read to the full house and members were to either adopt or call for amendments. But Section 42 of the draft report tore the meeting apart. It read: “On the issue of the presidency of the forthcoming 96th Session of the ILC in June 2007, the meeting was informed about the decision adopted by the 10th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of January 2007, which had proposed Congo for the presidency. After a lengthy debate on the procedure adopted, the meeting concluded as follows :


lThe practice is that any proposal of candidates  for the ILO’s High Offices/ Conferences should be submitted through the Labour and Social Affairs Commission

lFurther discussions on the issue of nominations should be referred to the ministers for consideration.

Hardly had the reader finished reading this paragraph when many hands were raised indicating their intention to comment. The Executive Secretary of the Organization of African Trade Union Unity ( OATUU), Alhaji Hassan Sunmonu, a Nigerian, protested the so-called decision of the Executive Council. (The Executive Council is another name for the Heads of State meeting).


Sunmonu told the chairman that “it has always been the African group that makes decision on  positions of the ILO and forwards it to the African Union Social and Labour Commission which then sends it to the ministers.” At this point, the issue became two-fold, not just that Nigeria and not Congo was nominated by the African Group, the procedure of the decision emanating from a meeting of the Heads of State was unprecedented and therefore, Nigeria’s Dr. Timiebi Koripamo-Agary who led the  delegation insisted that it was “unprocedural”.


If Sunmonu protested mildly, the executive secretary of the International Conference of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), Mr. Andrew Kaliembo was more vocal when he said “we, as workers of Africa, cannot accept this.  This kills the spirit of tripartism. We cannot accept a caucus decision. The way you put it here, we workers will never accept to be a rubber stamp”.


But the position taken by countries took the Nigerian delegation by surprise. Before anyone knew what was happening, bloc solidarity had taken place. Congo Brazzaville claimed she was nominated by the Heads of State to chair the ILC because Congo had been margainalized for long. The Congolese minister, Ondongo Gilbert  was so impatient with the Ghanaian Labour Minister who was presiding that he retorted: “I thought this meeting was to adopt the ministers’ decision. In our country, we don’t talk to unionists”.


This comment threw Congo’s supporters off balance but they still stood by her insisting that Congo must preside. This caused a stir with Hassan Sunmonu threatening that if the country was allowed to preside, “Congo will preside over an empty hall. If you don’t talk to workers, you can’t preside over the ILC”.

Gabon, Senegal, Congo, Burkina Faso all allied with Congo. To them, it was Franco-phone solidarity. They could not be bothered about the procedure. But the entire Southern African Development Community in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and others, stood on the side of Nigeria. Delegates from Ghana who supported Nigeria initially, later began to speak from both sides of their mouths.


The greatest surprise was Egypt. Egypt, the country for which Nigeria stepped down for her to chair the closing session of the 95th session of the International Labour Conference opposed Nigeria. Egypt allied with other Arab-speaking countries against Nigeria. Liberia, a country for which Nigeria made a great sacrifice in terms of materials and men also opposed Nigeria. It would appear that for the Arabs, once Congo claimed marginalization, the country got their support. The meeting which was scheduled for two days went on till the third day, a Sunday.


Even more surprising was the attitude of the secretariat of the African Union Social and Labour Commission which has Namibian, Bience Gawanas as Commissioner. Ms. Gawanas who should have set the records straight merely intervened to announce that the meeting may be discontinued because the interpreters had to close for the day. When the meeting resumed on Sunday, the interpreters were still not available. Congo in a very cynical  tone told Nigeria to, as usual, play the ‘big brother’ of Africa and leave the seat for her.


Moderating voices: Government delegate from Algeria expressed regrets at the political and linguistic dimension that the issue had taken. He said: “It would be a great pity for Africa if we cannot agree. It is a dilemma to choose between two brothers especially as all positions are based on valid reasons. Please, let’s go to Geneva together in order to protect the spirit of tripartism. Let’s  show wisdom and sort out this problem before Geneva”.


The delegate from Cameroon, one of the few Francophone countries on the side of Nigeria said that “we should not leave without a consensus by the three parties . We should not forget that ILO is based on tripartism — government, employers and workers.” But Senegal which opposed Nigeria noted that “if we violate the rules of procedure, lack of the absence of interpreters, we would be wrong. He said already “Ministers have endorsed Congo”.


Nigeria had earlier insisted that the word ‘unprocedural’ must be included if Congo must chair the ILC but Congo objected. However the position of Liberia took the Nigerian delegation aback.  Liberia opposed Nigeria but used the excuse of the absence of interpreters to dismiss Nigeria’s claim to the ILC seat. After a needless debate on the absence of interpreters which the AU Labour and Social Commission secretariat could have provided for but refused to, the chairman of the session, Ghana’s minister for Manpower, Youth & Development, Mr. Boniface Abubakar Saddique closed the meeting with these words:


“The meeting is inconclusive. We have come to a deadlock.” He said that a meeting would hold in Geneva to resolve it. Some delegates raised their voices asking “when?”  He also shouted back that the date would be communicated to delegates.


But if the diplomatic scheming within the four walls of the conference room was understandable, the image of Nigeria at the AU secretariat is even more disappointing. For all that Nigeria contributed to the construction of the secretariat, promotion of peace in Africa through contributing men and material, not a single hall or even a room is named after Nigeria. Yet, we have names of smaller African countries on the rooms or halls.



What exactly is the problem with Nigeria’s image in the comity of nations? Are we only useful to our African countries to the extent that we can squander money in the name of peace-keeping as in Liberia, Sierra Leone or in the name of liberation struggle as in the former South Africa, Namibia or Mozambique? Or even throwing away  millions of dollars which could have been used to put our refineries in shape and provide energy,  in the name of restoring a democratic government in Sao Tome & Principe?


Our experience has shown that in many of these countries, Nigerians are not wanted even when their citizens commit more crime than Nigerians. Perhaps, it is time to take a second look at our foreign policy. Nigeria played the big brother role when she stepped down for Egypt but when it came to our turn, not only did Egypt oppose Nigeria, several others ganged up against Nigeria with some even saying that Nigeria should have taken her turn then. Suddenly, the merit of the reason why Nigeria stepped down for Egypt made no sense to no one again.


As Nigeria gets set to go for the International Labour Conference with the issue of who chairs the conference unresolved, this is the time to realise that we have no friends in the real sense of the word. The in-coming government of Alhaji Umaru Yar’Adua should re-focus our foreign policy. The national interests should be the focus of our policy. We need to take a cue from the United States of America. Nothing matters to America except it is in the interest of America.

It is the right time to focus on Nigeria for the sake of Nigerians.

i agreed with you ,i think its time we review our foreign policies .

Africa Loses ILO Seat to Albania
From Juliana Taiwo in Abuja, 05.31.2007



Following Nigeria's decision not to step down for Congo Brazzaville over what it termed illegality at the Fifth Ordinary Session of African Union Labour and Social Affairs Commission (LASAC), in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Africa yesterday lost the opportunity to head the presidency of the 96th Session of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), in Geneva, Switzerland to Albania.
Congo's nomination was characterised by crisis at the LASAC meeting in April and was only resolved in Geneva by African representatives where it lost woefully to Albania. The 96th Session of the ILO is expected to be opened Tuesday.
From a total vote of 376, Alibania, a European country unexpectedly defeated the African candidate by 198 to 90.
The African Group in Geneva, especially the workers and employers groups which vehemently kicked against the nomination of Congo, blamed the loss of ILO Presidency by Africa on the Director-General of the ILO, Juan Somavia.
Somavia is seeking a third-term as the ILO Director-General, and the African Group accused him of creating frictions amongst their groups.
However, South Africa remains the chairperson of the ILO Governing Body, till the new voting takes place, but no date has been fixed for the election.
The issue of who become African nominee as the ILO President, which had been zoned to Africa polarised the last (LASAC) meeting which ended in crisis, as the workers and employers groups rejected the attempt to impose Congo, instead of Nigeria, which had been nominated based on the normal procedures.
Procedurally, Nigeria had been chosen by the African Group in Geneva to be the ILO President during the 96th Session of the ILO, the position which was ratified by the expert meeting at Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia, before the arrival of African Ministers of Labour.
However, an objection raised by Congo that the African Heads of State meeting had ratified its candidature was described by the Expert Meeting as “unprocedural,” and rejected attempt by the Government Group (Ministers), to imposed Congo.
The crisis could not be resolved and was moved to Geneva, where Nigeria finally withdrew for Cameroon, which turned round to withdraw for Congo, being a fellow Francophone country.

They don't like us but we with our ignorant minds will say it not my business. There are five million nigerians in Cameroun alone and guess what they are discriminated upon by making them pay higher taxes and them being deported whenever those governments feel like. Another thing is that all the big powers who don't like us but try to act like our friends have gotten us planned out and for ur knowledge there are many ways to break naija choose one.

The past administration of Obasanjo was the bane of Nigeria. Notr only did he bully other African nations, he used our money to oppress and belittle other African nations. Obasanjo tried unsuccessfully to hold on to the AU chairman post. This is why nigeria lost respect and face among other African nations.
As for Cameroon, Nigeria should never have ceeded Bakasi to them. Nigeria was made a laughing stock for this one point and lost a lot of respect.