PMB’s UNGA Speeches, 2015-2022: National Dreams in Unlawful Expediencies

Bola A. Akinterinwa 

The opportunity for President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) to begin to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), considered to be the forum of world leaders and therefore referred to as the international community,  presented itself in 2015. Only Presidents and Heads of Government of Member States are eligible to address the UNGA. The addresses are sometimes referred to as General Debates. These debates are stricto sensu not debates in the sense of arguing for and against but, lato sensu, opinions on international questions and what the leaders consider as salient issues and achievements of their countries in the previous year.

There are different types of sessions in which Member States participate: regular session, special, emergency and ordinary. Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure as amended by Resolution 57/301 of the UNGA stipulates that ‘the General Assembly shall meet every year in regular session commencing on the Tuesday of the Third week in September, counting from the first week that contains at least one working day.’ In the same vein, paragraph 2 of the same resolution stipulates that ‘the general debate in the General Assembly shall open on the Tuesday following the opening of the regular session of the General Assembly and shall be held without interruption over a period of nine working days.’ Thus, there is not only a regular session but also a special session for general debate.

Most importantly, based on the UNGA decision in paragraph 50 of its resolution 75/325, which amended Rule 1 of the Rules of Procedure, ‘the General Assembly shall meet every year in regular session commencing on the Tuesday of the second week in September, counting from the first week that contains at least one working day.’ Additionally, ‘the general debate in the General Assembly shall open on the Tuesday of the fourth week in September, counting from the first week that contains at least one working day, and shall be held without interruption over a period of nine days.’

In this regard, every annual ordinary session of the UNGA has a theme to which attending Member States are to contribute. For instance, the theme for the 77th UNGA is ‘A Watershed Moment: Transformative Solutions to Interlocking Challenges.’ As given, the theme is quite thought-provoking because it is necessarily a framework for further reflections. It is a tasking methodology because of the many insinuations and intrinsic questions in it: how do we interpret ‘a watershed moment’? What makes the moment a watershed? And more concernedly, which watershed moment are we talking about? One possible interpretation is to consider the current international situation as a watershed moment because of the unprecedented interstate war between Russia and Ukraine in the post-World War II era. True, the war is a major threat to the raison d’être of the United Nations itself.

UNGA Themes and PMB’s Submissions

What is particularly noteworthy about whatever session one is talking about is the theme addressed by every ordinary session as well as the differentiation of the time of opening the General Assembly and the time of commencing the General Debate. The opening date of the UNGA, also variously referred to as GA (General Assembly) and Assemblée Générale (AG), for the 77th Ordinary Session was Tuesday, 13th September, 2022 while the opening date for the General Debate was Tuesday, 20th September, 2022. 

In fact, the commencing dates for the next General Assembly and the General Debate of the 78th Session are already well known: Tuesday 5 September 2023 and Tuesday, 19th September 2023 respectively. The noteworthiness of the sessions is not only the ample time given to leaders of Member States to prepare their statements well in advance but also to deeply reflect on how to evolve transformative solutions to current global problems. World leaders have the freedom to talk about anything considered useful to them, especially about what they want the global community to know about their countries. However, there must not be too much deviation from the main purposes of the themes of the sessions which want shared opinions on the themes of every UNGA and on solutions to global problems.

For instance, as for transformative solutions and interlocking challenges raised in the UNGA’s 2022 theme, if we admit that the current global situation constitutes a momentous watershed in terms of a problematic, then transformative solutions cannot but be the remedy. There are many solutions, but those wanted are the transformative ones, which must have the capacity to ‘transform.’ More importantly, what are interlocking challenges and specific solutions that can tackle such interlocking challenges? These are questions that ought to be addressed in the speeches of any speaking leader at the UN podium.

The Heads of State and Government met from 21 to 27 September 2021 and addressed the UNGA on the theme, ‘Building resilience through hope to recover from COVID-19, rebuild sustainability, respond to the needs of the planet…’ In other words, the organisational expectation is that Member States would be kind enough to address how to recover from COVID and build resilience and not a priori providing narratives about developments in their home countries.

The same is true of the theme for UNGA 2020 whose theme was: ‘the Future We Want, the United Nations We Need: Reaffirming Our Collective Commitment.’ Three critical intellectual challenges are involved in this theme: which future do the Member States want beginning from 2020? Which UN structure will be appropriate to respond to the type of United Nations needed? And more fundamentally, how should Member States act together or reaffirm their togetherness, respect their obligations toward multilateralism or the United Nations?

The same was also true of the 2019 UNGA theme, which focused on ‘Effective Responses to Global Crises: Strengthening Multilateralism and Dialogue among Civilisations for International Peace, Security and Development. The United Nations recognised that there were global crises and therefore wanted responses, particularly from the perspectives of how to foster multilateralism as a potent instrument. The United Nations wanted dialogue among various civilisations on sustaining international peace, security and development. In essence, the attitudinal disposition of the United Nations is simply ’Striving Together, Delivering for All.’ It is against this background that the various addresses given by world leaders at the UNGA 2022 should be explained.

Therefore, going by the 2022 theme, the United Nations has admitted that there are inter-locking challenges and that the likely solutions to them can only be transformation-seeking solutions. By implication, participating world leaders have one mother of all  inter-locking challenges which is to come up with suggestions or transformative solutions. Most unfortunately, however, rather than engaging in critical thinking on the theme, many leaders routinely go to the UNGA to report themselves and seek to polish the international perception of their countries. They hardly address the themes as intellectually required. The speeches of PMB at the UNGA in the last seven years, but particularly in the past four years, clearly illustrate this point of observation. 

As noted by PMB himself in his statement at the 77th UNGA, ‘in every address I have delivered to this august Assembly, I have dwelt on the issue of climate change, especially as it fuels conflicts and complicates food security.’ Explained differently, climate change is a regular feature in PMB’s UNGA speeches since 2015. One apparent reason for the annual rhetoric again, in PMB’s eyes, is because ‘climate change reduces opportunity and prosperity which in Africa, Latin America and some parts of Asia, also contributed to transnational organised crimes.’ 

Apart from PMB’s observation that climate change complicates food insecurity and generates conflicts, was the issue of climate change always an integral part of every annual theme? If not, why the much interest in always recalling it in PMB’s speeches? If yes, what really has Nigeria meaningfully contributed to solving the problems of climate change? Or what is the significant impact of PMB’s simply drawing attention to it without being able to act on the problem? 

PMB’s statement on climate change at the UNGA 2022 was simply an amplification of what he said in 2021. Therefore, it is really not a big deal. He said that ‘climate change and unpredictable shocks, such as the current global pandemic, further exhibited vulnerabilities in the global setting and that it is a source of many other societal problems, particularly food insecurity. 

In terms of transformative solutions, what is the leeway from the perspectives of the Federal Republic of Nigeria? PMB has suggested that ‘as a first step, we must all commit to releasing the financing and the technology to create a stable and affordable framework for energy transit.’ Additionally, he said ‘development finance institutions must prioritise de-risking energy projects to improve access of renewable projects to credit facilities. There should be no countries “left behind” in this equation.’ This is the type of submissions required by the international community. The suggestion can be feasible and may not be. However, by directly addressing the themes, PMB has kick-started the thinking wheel of solutions. This, in itself is commendable.

If every country makes suggestions on possible leeway to whatever societal challenges the United Nations want to address, then there can be a good basis for comparative approaches, commentaries for and against, etc. Most unfortunately, the so-called General Debate is nothing more than a platform for self-glorification, show of power and arrogance during which the manifestations of uni-decisional and unidirectional statements are made.  

National Dreams and Unlawful Expediencies

In every UNGA speech made since 2015, PMB has always noted the challenges of the international environment and the efforts of the United Nations in the conduct and management of peace promotion, security pursuit, fostering development, and protection of human rights. The current challenges with which the Member States of the United Nations are confronted include proliferation of small arms and light weapons, terrorism, malignant use of technology, violent extremism, climate change, irregular migration, as well as disparities in opportunities from improved standards of living. It is in light of these challenges that the dreams, not to say plaidoyers of PMB, should be discussed.

In his 2022 UNGA address, PMB dreamt about many things. First is his call for a nuclear-free world. The call is at best a non-realisable dream. Possession of nuclear weapons is a status symbol. The Nuclear Weapons States have constituted themselves into an informal exclusive club to which access of new members is closed. It is important to note that nuclear status was one of the major criteria for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. It also explains the enjoyment of veto power. And perhaps most disturbingly, it largely explains the importance of Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter and why they are the main obstacle to UN Security Council reform. 

Article 108 as amended stipulates that ‘amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ In other words, it is not sufficient for an amendment to be adopted by the UNGA. What will be sufficient will be ratification by the P-5 of the Security Council. 

The spirit of paragraph 1 of Article 109 is not different: ‘a general Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.’ Paragraph 2 of the same Article 109 further provides that ‘any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.’ What is noteworthy in the two paragraphs is that, regardless of who is initiating or recommending or voting, any adoption without the concurrent consent of the P-5 cannot but be null and void. 

It is therefore not a surprise that when the African Union was divided on the issue of Africa’s membership of the UN Security without veto power, it put an end to the spirit of Ezulwini Consensus on the matter. Consequently, PMB’s call for UN reform and a nuclear-free world is a child’s play, especially if it is remembered that China and France initially refused to cooperate during the negotiations for non-proliferation of nuclear arms. The two countries only came back after successfully acquiring a nuclear power status.

PMB wants the reform of the United Nations to reflect fairness and justice. The quest for reform dates to 1960 when Mr.  Khrushchev proposed the abolishment of the Office of the Secretary General and its replacement by an executive organ consisting of three persons representing the Western Powers, the Socialist States and the neutralist countries. The quest has been to no avail since then. In fact, even though the UNGA amended on 17 December 1963 Articles 23, 27 and 61 of the Charter to enable the increase of non-permanent membership of the Security Council from six to ten and that of the Economic and Social Council from eighteen to twenty-seven, it has been unnecessarily difficult to secure the ratification by the P-5 in amending Article 108. 

If PMB says ‘we must find quick means to reach consensus on the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty with related commitments by Nuclear Weapons States,’ which are synonymous with the P-5 of the UN Security Council, PMB’s call is simply playing to the gallery and the observation of the World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA) on Article 109(3) cannot but provide a good summary of the foregoing. Article 109(3) provides for the organisation of a Conference to address the modalities for the review of the Charter. It says ‘if such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the Conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.’

In the eyes of the WCPA, ‘now not ten years, but 75 years, have elapsed and still the process has not been taken up. Many smaller countries do not have any say in the world administration. India which is a largest democracy of the world does not have a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.’

PMB also raised a number of other issues, such as leaving a democracy legacy behind after end of tenure in office, terrorism, irregular migration, small arms and light weapons, as well as the ‘the need to address the burden of unsustainable external debt by a global commitment to the expansion and extension of the Debt-Service Suspension Initiative to countries facing fiscal and liquidity challenges, as well as outright cancellation for countries facing the most severe challenges.’

At times, diplomacy is about saying ‘yes’ when one really means ‘no.’ It is about making a third party or an ally to act on one’s behalf to save face when there is problem. In fact, diplomacy can be very interesting during crises of legitimacy and protectionist policies. Thus, how can PMB be dreaming of a democratic legacy when his political party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) has been accused by other parties with proofs of fraudulently working on voters registration for the purposes of 2023 general elections? How can PMB feel comfortable talking about illegal migration when Nigeria’s sagacious minds are leaving Nigeria one by one for greener pastures abroad? The illegality of migration is only one side of the coin. The need for survival at all costs is another side of the coin. If PMB can accept to frolic round the world to the detriment of striking ASUU lecturers, why would anyone not find alternative futures elsewhere? PMB also talks about terrorism and violent extremism. What is it that PMB has done about what former Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, once said: there will not be any enduring peace in Nigeria until Nigeria is divided into Muslim North and Christian South? On small arms and light weapons, will the manufacturers of arms not be out of business the moment there are no buyers to proliferate the arms and weapons? Those that PMB are appealing to are also the manufacturers. The truth from which PMB government is running away is the strategic miscalculation that Government can embark on a Fulanisation and Islamisation agenda and still expect public acquiescence of the policies. Government is currently perceived to be aiding terror, fighting corruption but condoning vote buying, and preaching the sermon of democratic goodness, national peace and unity abroad while promoting the contrary with nepotistic policies and forceful unity back home. Party constitutions are disobeyed in order to satisfy selfish interests. Same religion flagbearers cannot be adopted based on expediency or doctrine of necessity, but to the detriment of legal fairness and justice. Expediency and lawfulness must be simultaneously and carefully managed.

 I

Attachments area