By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- There were some who argued that Rwanda didn't deserve to be on the UN Security Council. This despite its Permanent members, just as timely examples, having used chemical weapons in Iraq, nuclear weapons and running penal colonies.
But Rwanda was elected, and completed the first of its two Presidencies on Tuesday. At the end of presidency reception at the River Club, it emerged that the Rwandan mission's leader had questioned the lack of action on Syria, when Sudan and South Sudan are on the agenda every fifteen days.
In the morning's wrap up session, fellow elected member Argentina memorably questioned by the non-Permanents are given draft resolutions so late in the process and expected to just vote yes. It should not be that way.
Especially for troop contributing countries, like not only Rwanda but Pakistan and Guatemala, for example. UN Peacekeeping Under Herve Ladsous seems to have given up its claim to impartiality, still on its website, and created an "Intervention Brigade" in Eastern Congo, and a fig leaf for the French in Mali.
Still, there was praise for Permanent member the UK, at least its ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, for having tried this year to consult with the other members before they were assigned committee roles. There were still three or four disagreements, but at least consultations took place.
But what about "the pen"? Why should former colonial powers always hold them? For now among the E-10, only Australia holds Afghanistan, with Guinea Bissau held by Togo, May's president.
