The Editor Zambia
Zambia’s election to the United Nations Human Rights Council with an outstanding 177 votes out of 193 member States has delivered a powerful message to the world.
It has also raised uncomfortable questions about the conduct of some opposition figures who campaigned against their own country’s bid for international recognition. 
Instead of allowing Zambia to present its case before the international community, Emmanuel Mwamba, Augustine Mukoka, Charles Kakula, Sishuwa Sishuwa, Lillian Mutambo and Given Mutinta were among those writing to UN member states, urging them not to vote for Zambia.
If the intention was to derail the country’s campaign, the outcome was a humiliating failure.
The international community ultimately made its own assessment, and Zambia emerged with the highest number of votes among the successful candidates.
The result demonstrated that the country’s diplomatic engagement and international standing could not simply be dismissed through opposition correspondence and negative publicity.
A particularly revealing incident involves a video circulating on social media in which a man identified as Kanyanta, presenting himself as the leader of an organisation called the Zambian Organisation based in the United States, is seen handing a letter to staff at the Botswana embassy, appealing against Zambia’s election.
The episode raises questions about the motives behind such interventions and the extent to which certain individuals were prepared to go to influence the outcome.
There is also a broader question of national identity and political inclusion. In the video, Kanyanta alternates between English and Bemba while addressing the issue.
Speaking Bemba, when viewed against wider concerns about ethnic divisions in national politics, raises uncomfortable questions.
If political mobilisation increasingly revolves around ethnic loyalties and opposition to a sitting President because of his regional identity, the country must confront that danger honestly.
The same scrutiny should apply to Chishala Kateka, leader of the New Heritage Party, and every other politician who have been complaining in Bemba deepening divisions rather than building national unity.
Ultimately, Zambia’s 177 votes are a diplomatic achievement that belongs to the nation, not merely to the ruling United Party for National Development (UPND). The victory should, therefore, unite Zambians across political and ethnic lines.
Those who allegedly campaigned against Zambia must reflect on whether their actions served the national interest. The answer is that it does not.
A government can be replaced through elections, policies can be challenged in Parliament, and leaders can be held accountable.
But a country’s international reputation is a collective asset that should not become collateral damage in the struggle for political power.
Zambia has received its international endorsement. The challenge now is for its political class to demonstrate that patriotism means more than professing love for the nation; it also means recognising when the national interest must rise above partisan rivalry.
