It’s a scandal for Africa not to be part of the UN Security Council- Ayebare

Kampala, Uganda | IAN KATUSIIME | Adonia Ayebare is Uganda’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN). He spoke to The Independent’s Ian Katusiime about Uganda’s relationship with the UN and other pertinent international affairs.

It’s been more than a year since your appointment to the UN. What have you been up to?

The work of the UN is divided into three pillars; peace and security, human rights, and development. But we also have our national interests; like the UN service centre in Entebbe which the UN wanted to relocate. For us that is very critical because over 400 Ugandans are employed there in professional capacity and there are other economies of scale. We had to defend our regional service centre.This issue has taken a lot of my time. We were able to convince other member states to critically examine the UN Secretary General’s proposal to relocate the service centre from Entebbe. A decision has been taken where he has to come up with up new proposals and we are waiting for those proposals to see how Entebbe fits in but we stopped its relocation.

I do other things like peace and security because Uganda is in a tough neighbourhood- South Sudan, DRC, even though we do not neighbour Burundi, Uganda has a role as a mediator there. All these issues are on the agenda of the UN Security Council which is the UN organ tasked with maintenance of international peace and security.

 As Uganda’s ambassador to the UN, what exactly is your brief besides what you have been up to?

My task is to defend, secure and protect Uganda’s interests and the priority is regional peace and security. Here, Uganda’s involvement in Burundi is key. I participate in Security Council debates on Burundi and brief member states on the South Sudan peace process since Uganda is a mediator there.

Uganda being the largest host of refugees in Africa means we have a lot of work that involves mobilising support for refugees and showcasing Uganda’s example as a refugee host. Uganda has one of the best refugee policies and countries like Turkey have similar issues which means we have a lot to learn from each other. I also host Ugandan delegations at the UN.  The Uganda mission at the UN also does some commercial diplomacy. Our main area at the New York mission will be tourism and promoting investment.

 You have been spearheading the granting of immunity to sitting heads of state at the UN. Why now?

This is a decision of African Union (AU) heads of state. In January, at an AU summit in Addis Ababa, all African heads of state took a decision saying this is not about granting immunity. As you may know, immunity of heads of state is as old as the nation state and it’s enshrined in international law. If you are a head of government, you enjoy some immunity when you are performing your duties. The Rome Statute though has contradicting obligations; Article 98 grants immunity while Article 27 takes it away. We had an interesting case when the President of Sudan (Omar el Bashir) went to South Africa to attend an AU summit and the ICC took South Africa to court for failure to arrest. Under the Rome Statute, if you do not arrest someone who has been indicted, you have to answer to the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a country. South Africa argued that heads of state enjoy immunity under customary international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed this several times.

There is a recent case of the vice president of Equatorial Guinea where French authorities charged him with corruption and confiscated his houses and cars. Equatorial Guinea argued that he had immunity as a vice president and they prevailed. To avoid confusion, African countries, both those who are signatory to the Rome Statute and those who are not, sought clarity from the ICJ, since it is charged with interpreting international law although the position of the court is not binding, just advisory. The countries agreed that the question of immunity should be clarified even for strengthening of the ICC. For example, President Bashir was referred to the ICC by the Security Council but he was not indicted by the court’s Special Prosecutor.

So the countries decided that their ambassadors in New York (UN headquarters) should handle the issue. To get advisory opinion from the ICJ, you need to go through the UN General Assembly where you must get two thirds of the 193 countries. I was not even there when my colleagues sat but they decided that one person should coordinate this and that is how I was selected. Africa has 54 votes and we need about 98, I am positive we will get them.

President Museveni remains very critical of the UN; especially its mission in DR Congo. Doesn’t this complicate your work?

No it does not. It is positive criticism. Member states have an obligation to keep the UN on its feet and his criticism has been on its effectiveness on dealing with negative forces in eastern DRC. The UN agrees it is not a problem of their making. When you talk about the UN, you are talking about countries- the UN is not an abstract entity. If we do not keep them on their feet, they will not register our concerns. I engage the UN on issues of peacekeeping in the region on a daily basis.

There is still uncertainty on whether Uganda will keep the UN base…

You have to look at the UN base in the context of UN reforms. UN is undergoing deep reforms since it was created. It is about efficiency. How do we make the UN more efficient to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? Entebbe comes in that context because of the service delivery model. The whole idea was to decentralise service delivery from New York and send it to the field.  A few years ago there were about 45 different service centres set up. Then there was a proposal to reduce those to three or four but Entebbe is a regional service centre. What is being proposed are global centres to deal with issues like payroll and human resource. Our concern was that the process was not transparent and most member states supported Uganda. We told them to go back to the drawing board and consult the affected countries like Uganda.

 Uganda has a liberal refugee policy which has brought it international acclaim. But to what end can this go on because refugee numbers are not about to go down?

Our progressive policy on refugees has roots in Uganda’s culture and the Pan African philosophy. For example people from South Sudan speak the same language like those in West Nile where they are. Those from eastern DRC are the same with those in Kasese. These are not strangers, they are the same people save for the borders. How all this is sustainable is a critical question and it is the reason we are working for peace in their countries of origin like South Sudan. If the recent peace accord holds, they will go back home. Remember, they went back home after independence only for them to come back after the recent outbreak of war. It’s the same with DRC, now with President Kabila’s announcement (to hand over power), we hope the tensions will go away and then have an administration that addresses the security concerns of the eastern part of the country because that is what generates refugees.  Somalia refugees have been here for a long time and they have become part of the economy but their country is on a trajectory of peace. So the solution to the refugee problem lies in having peace in their countries of origin.

 You have been involved in the reconciliation of Uganda and Rwanda in the past. Now the relations are fragile. As a former envoy to Rwanda, what do you think is the way forward?

It has been many years since I last dealt with Rwanda-Uganda relations. Of course, as a diplomat I am aware of what is going on but I don’t think there is cause for alarm. We work with Rwanda at an international level both at the UN and at AU. Our working relationship is excellent. As you know, President Kagame is doing a good job as the chair of the AU to carry out reforms.

The UN always talks about inclusion but to date there is no African nation with a permanent seat at the UN Security Council. Why does this persist?

This is a scandal. It is a scandal in a sense that it does not capture the reality now; it captures the reality of 1945 (when the UN was formed). Africa should have permanent seats at the Security Council and everybody agrees but it’s the politics. Uganda is actively involved in the C10; the 10 African countries that were selected to spearhead African positions on Security Council reforms. Debates on these reforms have been going on for 25 years but there is no progress because some countries don’t want it to be reformed. Every year in the General Assembly there is an item on Security Council reform but the power dynamics cannot let the change happen. Africa has a common position called the Ezulwini Consensus. This position states that Africa should have two permanent seats with veto powers and four non-permanent ones. Currently we only have three non-permanent seats. These negotiations are very tough and with no outcome.

 How is the UN adapting to the disruptive nature of Donald Trump?

That’s a tough question. I don’t think President Trump is disruptive, he is simply stating America’s policy at the UN which some countries may not want to hear. Remember America was the leading founder of the UN under President Roosevelt. The U.S. hosts the UN.  They have concerns like any other country. America pays a big chunk of the budget both regular and peacekeeping.