Myanmar+vote+critics+missing+UN+aim,+Thenjiwe+Mtintso,+Sindy

Sunday Independent, February 04, 2007 //Edition 1//
=Myanmar vote critics missing SA's aim at UN=


 * Thenjiwe Mtintso**

It is highly commendable that many South Africans took interest in the issue of the vote on Myanmar in the United Nations security council. Yet, it is unfortunate that some of our subsequent comments indicated both ignorance of the UN and how its institutions function or are intent on undermining the very efforts that we claim to support.

The ANC, SA Communist Party and SA Congress of Trade Unions, long before 1994, always fought in defence of democracy, self-determination, human and gender justice and rights, and against all forms of oppressions. These allies marched side by side with the people of Palestine, East Timor, Saharawi, Burma (now Myanmar), to name but a few. Post-1994 and to date, the ANC government and its allies continue to engage with these struggles, including those in Myanmar. The government has not changed its course and has no reason to do so.

The government has committed itself and vigorously struggles for, among others, the transformation of the UN and its institutions; promotion and protection of multilateralism; respect of sovereignty; freedom; democracy; gender equality and women's emancipation; sustainable development; good governance; promotion and respect of human rights, peace and security; and peaceful resolution of conflict.

The government is part of the fierce struggle for the transformation of the UN and its institutions in content, form, composition, rules, processes and procedures.

Some countries resist this transformation for very obvious reasons and tend to want to undermine the institutions of the UN, its policies and procedures. They, in most cases, want to shift matters that can be discussed in the UN general assembly, which is the most representative, to a forum such as the security council, which is selective and where they can exercise their veto powers. In some instances, they want to use the security council to exercise their own foreign policies and to punish those countries they do not agree with.

The Myanmar question is an example of selectivity on the part of some of the most powerful countries. It is also an example of the security council encroaching on the mandates of other bodies of the UN. This matter, as most of us know, does not belong to the security council, but rather to the general assembly and the UN human rights commission.

If precedence is set to support this type of unprincipled selectivity by those who use the security council as their weapon, the UN and its institutions will never be reformed - let alone transformed. Permanent member states will continue to pick and choose issues they prefer to take wherever it suits them and completely disregard appropriate institutions and platforms within the UN. Some of the most powerful countries have ignored or vetoed many resolutions, including those against the war in Iraq, the blockade in Cuba and the terrible conditions in Guantanamo Bay.

The UN secretary-general's office has been, and continues to be, seized with the human rights abuse in Myanmar. Professor Ibrahim Gambari, the UN undersecretary for political affairs, has recently visited Myanmar and has briefed the security council on his interactions and proposals for the resolution of the matter. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Association of South-East Asian Nations are engaged in seeking a resolution of this matter and are convinced it does not belong to the security council. However, without giving these processes a chance, and in a manner that would undermine the office of the secretary-general, the UN charter and processes, this matter is thrown to the security council, where it does not belong.

South Africa is for the first time a non-permanent member of the security council and, in particular, carries the expectations of Africa. It also sits in the UN commission on human rights. This is an opportunity for it to stamp its, and Africa's, principled positions on these matters, especially in defence of the integrity of the UN institutions and multilateralism. It also seeks to promote political engagement rather than assault in seeking resolutions to international problems in keeping with the latest NAM resolutions. In this instance, South Africa did not comment or pass judgment on the content of the resolution. On the contrary, we have clearly expressed our concern at the situation in Myanmar; we have continued to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and to fight for the restoration of democracy, human rights and freedom.

Admittedly, because of the complexity of international politics and the dynamics within multilateral diplomacy, some of the decisions may be confusing to some among us. South Africans must be careful in pursuing principled positions and not find itself a party to and tools of the agendas contrary to those of the African agenda, including South Africa's own national interests.


 * **Thenjiwe Mtintso** is South Africa's ambassador to Cuba. She writes in her personal capacity


 * From: http://www.sundayindependent.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3662771**

818 words