South Africa Deserves a Security Council Seat at the UN

Mugabe’s recent remarks (June 11, 2015) to exclude South Africa and Nigeria from any security council seat is self-serving. Given that in 2013 then South African President Thabo Mbeki ( and I believe him) is on record as refusing to allow Britain to use military force to remove Mugabe's regime, this is an attack that should not be taken lightly.
Mr. Blair's suggestion for invading Zimbabwe is not without precedent. In 1979 Tanzania and her allies counter-attacked Uganda; and in 1994 the U.S invaded Haiti for restoration of Democracy during Operation Uphold Democracy. To say the British were motivated by racism is insidious given the human rights record of Mugabe and what his policies are doing to that country. 
The soul of Africa wedges on whether Mugabe's politics survives his demise. And the refusal, by a whole generation of Africans, to play passive follower to Mugabe is a crucial piece to the puzzle. A new kind of politics must define the next generation  of Africans. Not the politics of anti-colonial rhetoric, but the politics of accountability, rule of law and respect for human rights. This is a turning point, will Africa rise or fall. Intellectual buffoonery or the exaggerated love of Roman concepts of international law should come after food, shelter and security for all Africans is addressed. What good is a discussion on the UN Security council when Zimbabweans have no food?
Africa cannot be strong unless Zimbabwe is strong. No where in the world is a continent greater than its individual States. Mugabe's politics is a concerted effort to direct Africa post Nelson Mandela in the persuasion of himself. To shift the center from Pretoria to a collapsing Harare.
Indeed, Africa must change its position in the world but is this the way? Should suggestions that certain African States are not ‘Mugabe enough’ be allowed to hold sway? What I am hearing from Mr. Mugabe is a constant need for attention. The Zimbabwean people are in dire need of basic life needs; how does Mugabe's position as African Union and South African Development Committee head help Zimbabweans? Perhaps, this is a symptom of what is wrong in Africa -   misplaced priorities and the hunger for more power.
, my concept of presidential democracy in Africa giving security, so-called after Mandela's resting place. Qunuism: the idea that you leave the presidency at the height of your power is taking  too long to catch onto the rest of Africa.
You cannot build Africa as a whole when Zimbabwe is burning; you cannot suggest that the history of others is on record while yours is above record. Mugabe's governance of Zimbabwe is a relevant issue here! The individual parts of a whole (or thing) affects the quality and performance of the end product. An Africa in which individual States are undemocratic, militarized and bitter at white people is not a strong Africa.
This is a turning point for African rule of law and politics. Does Africa call Mugabe to question or does it pretend that an imagined fight against imperialism justifies Human rights violations. The Chiadzwa Massacre in Zimbabwe for example in 2008 and the disappearance of Itai Dzamara are serious human rights violations in Zimbabwe - does Africa care about such militarized politics.
To suggest that Africa must withdraw from the International Criminal Court; that it must shun South Africa and Nigeria as UN security seat holders does not help the African cause. It merely ameliorates the existing problems. Africa needs to honestly address its food shortages, human rights and security concerns first before taking on the world. To have a set of leaders that champion its industrialization without adopting an angry and confrontational monologue.
Ken Sibanda, is a South African American Constitutional Lawye. He is a contributor to the Jerusalem Post. In South Africa he has written for the Sunday Independent, The Star and City Press.