South Africa can influence human rights abusers by maintaining contact, writes Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad
IN an article under the heading “SA open to business with anyone who pays” (April 4 to 10), the Mail & Guardian presupposes that South Africa has a one-dimensional approach to developing relations with certain countries where human rights abuses might be prevalent.
After South Africa emerged from isolation, it began to trade with many nations that, in the past, had joined in the economic boycott of apartheid South Africa. No one would dispute that this contributed to an expansion in employment opportunities for South Africans, and increased prosperity. But commercial interaction with countries like Malaysia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and China should not axiomatically lead to the conclusion that South Africa has adopted an indifferent approach to human rights internationally.
The advancement of human rights and the promotion of democracy are pillars on which South African foreign policy rests. Since 1994, for example, South Africa has:
* Signed 15 human rights treaties and voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
* Voted for and co-sponsored numerous UN human rights resolutions and actively promoted human rights in other international organisations
* Been elected to the UN Commission on Human Rights for a three-year term
* Hosted a pan-African meeting in Cape Town to draw up a Draft Protocol on the establishment of an African Court on Human and People’s Rights, which will hopefully be approved at the Organisation of African Unity Council of Ministers in June.
We remain convinced that in most circumstances influence can more effectively be brought to bear on governments through diplomatic dialogue rather than by strident public criticism. There are several examples where South African emissaries have been sent to countries in an attempt to persuade their rulers to move towards a restoration of democracy.
Human rights issues have been raised in high-level discussions with countries on a number of occasions. The object is always to bring about an improvement in the situation of people who are the victims of human rights abuses, preferably through the introduction or restoration of democracy.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has made a commitment to play a more prominent role in the field of human rights and humanitarian assistance. This has been given practical effect by way of financial contributions to various international efforts in this connection.
South Africa has already established diplomatic relations with all the countries mentioned above, except China. Full diplomatic relations with that country will be instituted by the end of 1997. There is little reason to have diplomatic relations, but no economic ties, with countries.
Although an important consideration, the human rights situation in a particular country is not the only element taken into account when deciding whether to establish diplomatic relations. South Africa’s overall national interest (in terms of commercial factors, historical considerations, political ties, etc), the geopolitical importance of a country and its influence in world affairs have to be assessed.
South Africa may decide to maintain existing or to establish diplomatic relations with a country – despite a poor human rights record – because our presence in that country will enable us to promote human rights and democracy. Communication and persuasion are often more constructive than isolation.
As far as trade sanctions are concerned, these are rarely instituted by any government unilaterally. Other less scrupulous countries will happily fill the gap and the gesture easily becomes meaningless.
However, UN member states are obliged to comply with the combined will of the international community, as expressed in Security Council sanctions. Apart from this, the importance of regional decisions and initiatives to overcome the problem, and the value of the threat of sanctions, should not be underestimated.
In many situations, unilateral retaliatory measures against offending states are likely to exacerbate the problems, and at the same time reduce any influence other governments may have in helping the people they are trying to help. South Africa has to take into account the consequences of its actions.
However, sanctions remain an instrument of policy that can be used when it is in our national interest to do so.
The National Conventional Arms Co- ordinating Committee, under the chairmanship of Kader Asmal, has to take note of human rights criteria when deciding on the approval of possible arms transfers. The Department of Foreign Affairs is represented on this body and provides key input on the advisability of arms transfers. In cases where, for example, an oppressive government is seriously and systematically violating the rights of its citizens, and engaging in foreign aggression, arms sales will never be approved.
The fact that South Africa enters into trade with nations with perceivably poor human rights records does not mean that human rights considerations are not an integral part of South Africa’s foreign policy. We would find few nations to trade with if an unblemished human rights record were the sole criterion. Any nation that ignores the range of issues involved in policy decisions on relationships in this complex world, does so at its own peril.