Another+side+to+SA+conduct+at+UN,+Adam+Habib,+Business+Day

Business Day, Johannesburg, 30 March 2007
=Another side to SA’s conduct at the UN=


 * Adam Habib**

IT IS often said that you can never take anything for granted in politics. No one can attest to the truth of this better than SA’s foreign policy officials. The country’s tenure in the United Nations (UN) Security Council began in January with much promise, as both foreign policy officials and the domestic media hailed SA’s temporary ascension to the UN’s most significant decision-making body. Yet, within a month of joining, the foreign policy establishment has come under severe criticism, not only from western governments, but also from the domestic and international media, and increasingly strident academics and political commentators.

The turning point was SA’s vote preventing the increasingly repressive situation in Burma from being put on the agenda of the security council. Criticism was again raised when UN ambassador Dumisani Kumalo initially objected to the council being briefed on recent developments in Zimbabwe, and when he tried to significantly amend the sanctions package against Iran for its refusal to terminate its nuclear enrichment programme.

Critics cannot understand how SA can, given its history, take such a stance. Its conduct in all three cases is seen as antidemocratic and in support of autocratic regimes. The claim by South African officials that they are merely honouring the rules and processes of the UN is not taken seriously. It is interpreted as a technical smokescreen to justify its subversion of political principle.

But should one really be so dismissive of SA’s reasoning? Is there not a need for the UN’s rules to be observed and its structures used for the purposes for which they were intended? And is this respect for rules and processes not part of the struggle to advance democracy itself?

SA’s foreign policy establishment clearly believes so. And its reasoning deserves to be heard. One of the biggest problems for countries in the developing world is the undemocratic character of the global order. This has not only created conditions in which rivalry among great powers has undermined the prospects for security and freedom in large parts of the developing world, but it has also significantly compromised the development agenda of these countries.

Changing this situation is necessary if stability, freedom and development are to be realised.

How to do this has become one of the overriding priorities of SA’s foreign policy. One of the strategies developed has been to pursue multilateralism. In the South African foreign policy establishment’s perspective, the only way a developing country at the bottom of the African continent can advance a developmental and democratic agenda is through strategic alliances and the use of international institutions to constrain great-power behaviour.

But for these institutions to be used for this purpose, they have to be legitimised and their rules need to be respected. Moreover, they cannot be simply manipulated by great powers and used in ways that suit only their purposes. This is precisely what has always occurred, but has become even more blatant in recent years. The US and the UK use the UN when they can get their way, and act unilaterally when they do not. When countries are brought to the security council for violations of their citizens’ rights, they are selectively chosen. Burma and Zimbabwe are chosen because its suits US and European interests. When countries such as Israel and Pakistan commit such atrocities, they are not hauled in front of the council because they are in alliance with the US in the war against terror.

This outrageous manipulation of multilateral institutions constitutes a greater threat to international security, development and democracy. And it is essential that a plan be developed to address this. So when SA demands respect for the rules and processes of the UN, it should not be ridiculed. Rather it should be celebrated and supported by all those interested in democracy and a more just global order.

The real problem, however, is that both sides seem to be making a tradeoff between two necessary struggles in the advance of democracy. The South African foreign policy establishment seems to be prioritising the reform of the international order, and ignoring the struggle for democratic rights in national contexts. Its critics, on the other hand, prioritise national struggles and seem sanguine about the democratisation of the international forums. Neither position is reasonable. Both struggles need to be waged simultaneously.

How is this to be done? First, it is legitimate for the South African government to insist that the Burmese and Zimbabwean questions are not put on the agenda of the security council, because they do not immediately constitute threats to international peace. But they should take the lead in making sure they are placed on the agenda of the Human Rights Council, and they should provide leadership for international action to be taken against regimes that violate the rights of their citizens.

Some of the critical responses need also to be subjected to critical review. The more hysterical emotional responses do very little to advance the struggle for democracy, in particular because they often simplify and obfuscate the real issue. Critics must make sure that in their haste to fly the flag of democracy, they do not simply direct it to countries in the south, but also to those such as the US, whose actions are undermining freedom and democracy across the globe.

They must make sure that they do not become the unwitting soldiers of democracy for the neo-cons in Washington. After all, the path to hell is often paved with good intentions.


 * Habib is executive director of the Human Sciences Research Council’s Democracy & Governance Programme. He writes in his personal capacity.


 * From: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/opinion.aspx?ID=BD4A425307**

951 words