Ezulwini Consensus

The Ezulwini Consensus is a position on international relations and reform of the United Nations, agreed by the African Union. It calls for a more representative and democratic Security council, in which Africa, like all other world regions, is represented.[1]

Background

The consensus is named after Ezulwini, a valley in central Swaziland now known as the Kingdom of Eswatini - with several tourist hotels - where the agreement was made in 2005.[2] The consensus was then adopted at an Extraordinary Session of the Executive Council of the African Union, in March 2005, in Addis Ababa.[1]

Agreement

The agreement covered several areas, including: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, 7th Extraordinary Session (7–8 March 2005). THE COMMON AFRICAN POSITION ON THE PROPOSED REFORM OF THE UNITED NATIONS: “THE EZULWINI CONSENSUS” (Report). African Union.

Collective security - preventive measures
  • Underlining the serious threats posed by HIV/AIDS, poverty, and environmental degradation
  • Encouraging debts of highly indebted states to be written off
  • Recommending adoption of the Lomé Declaration and Algiers Declaration on Unconstitutional Changes of Governments.
  • Calling for an end to illicit manufacturing, trade, and stockpiling of small arms & light weapons (SALW).
  • Recommending steps toward "complete elimination of nuclear weapons"

Collective security - use of force
  • A cautious approach to the Responsibility to protect: "It is important to reiterate the obligation of states to protect their citizens, but this should not be used as a pretext to undermine the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of states."
  • Prohibiting any use of force outside Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defence) and Article 4h of AU (preventing genoicide and serious crimes against humanity).
  • Calling for the UN to fund and support peacekeeping forces provided by regional organisations such as the AU.
  • Proposing a Peacebuilding Commission.

United Nations reform
  • At least two permanent seats (including veto power), and five non-permanent seats on the Security Council.[3]
  • The African Union would choose which African governments get the seats.[3]
  • Further calls for ECOSOC to be strengthened.

Sirte Declaration

The Ezulwini Consensus was followed by the Sirte Declaration of July 2005, which required at least two permanent seats and two non-permanent Security Council seats for African states.[3]

References and citations
  1. "AFRICAN UNION (AU)" (PDF). Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 October 2011. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
  2. "Walking a tightrope: SA, Africa and the UN". Helen Suzman Foundation. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
  3. "'OUT OF DATE AND OUT OF TOUCH', SECURITY COUNCIL REQUIRES URGENT REFORM, ASSEMBLY PRESIDENT SAYS, URGING DELEGATIONS TO MOVE SWIFTLY TO END IMPASSE". GA/10786. United Nations. Retrieved 13 October 2012.
gollark: It's easy to say that if you are just vaguely considering that, running it through the relatively unhurried processes of philosophizing™, that sort of thing. But probably less so if it's actually being turned over to emotion and such, because broadly speaking people reaaaallly don't want to die.
gollark: Am I better at resisting peer pressure than other people: well, I'd *like* to think so, but so would probably everyone else ever.
gollark: Anyway, I have, I think, reasonably strong "no genocide" ethics. But I don't know if, in a situation where everyone seemed implicitly/explicitly okay with helping with genocides, and where I feared that I would be punished if I either didn't help in some way or didn't appear supportive of helping, I would actually stick to this, since I don't think I've ever been in an environment with those sorts of pressures.
gollark: Maybe I should try arbitrarily increasing the confusion via recursion.
gollark: If people are randomly assigned (after initial mental development and such) to an environment where they're much more likely to do bad things, and one where they aren't, then it seems unreasonable to call people who are otherwise the same worse from being in the likely-to-do-bad-things environment.I suppose you could argue that how "good" you are is more about the change in probability between environments/the probability of a given real world environment being one which causes you to do bad things. But we can't check those with current technology.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.