bullies
The Human Rights Watch report on the Democratic Republic of Congo this week, detailing assiduous attempts to hide evidence of the widespread massacres of civilians in Eastern Congo, is a sobering check on South Africas moral claim to a permanent seat in the United Nations security council.
Five weeks ago, after a meeting with Congolese president Laurent Kabila, President Nelson Mandela confidently proclaimed, without any attempt at independent verification, I have no reason for doubt when President Kabila assures me that his people were not involved in any massacre.
This raises an intriguing question: if South Africa were represented in the council now, would we support UN sanctions against Congo for frustrating investigations into the massacre sites? In short, would our primary concern be solidarity with Kabila or with those who have been slaughtered?
The issue of a security council seat has moved well into the forefront in recent weeks, and was given further impetus by the visit of Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral, who is also demanding a seat for his country, the second most populous on the planet.
It is hard to fault these calls for a democratisation of the international order. In a world where the rich nations already have so much military, governmental and economic power, it is outrageous that world bodies such as the UN reinforce that disparity rather than redistribute or ameliorate its effects on the poor and the weak.
There is no question that, morally, Africa deserves a seat and that South Africa is the best candidate of the continents larger nations. We are a stable democracy not prone to coups; Mandela is the most visible living symbol of the struggle for human rights; and our system is the product of compromise that is a model for other heterogenous nations confronting seemingly intractable differences.
But our moral standing has been compromised by a blinkered foreign policy, in which we have failed to move beyond parochial commercial interests and in which our leaders spend their time supping with tyrants and bully boys with dollars to dispense.
The mandarins rub their hands and mutter about the need for foreign policy to be guided by pragmatism and realpolitik. If that is their choice then let us not indulge in hypocrisy by proposing a vision of renewal for the African continent. Let us not mislead by mouthing values that we do not intend to uphold.
If we get that seat it will be on behalf of all Africa. But not the Africa of the generals and those who have pawned their countries to foreign adventurers for a share in the diamonds and oil billions. We would have to be the voice of ordinary Africans, the humanity that has been bullied, raped and marginalised, and denied participation in the economic leap forward of the late 20th century.
Are we ready for that? How, for instance, would we vote if the UN wanted to impose mandatory sanctions on Nigeria? Our record over the past months indicates that we would vote against it out of a misplaced solidarity with the generals rather than concern for ordinary Nigerians.
If that is our understanding of what representing Africa means then they might just as well give the seat to someone else.
Horror vs terror
The new thriller from the Middle East should be stocked on the fiction shelf in airport bookshops. The trouble is it really did happen. When Israel released the Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Yassin from jail, this seemed a useful gesture as talks with the Palestinians were about to resume. Instead it turns out to have been forced on Binyamin Netanyahu by King Hussein of Jordan, as a result of the arrest of two agents of Mossad, the Israeli secret service, caught while trying to assassinate another Hamas leader in Amman.
Israels excuse is that terrorism has to be fought by unconventional means. But does anyone in the Likud government believe that, if the operation had succeeded, it would have deterred Hamas instead of provoking it? Has not the lesson of the murder in Gaza last year of the Engineer, which led to more horrific bombings and then to the electoral defeat of Shimon Peres, been learnt? Netanyahu behaves in such a way as to suggest either an alarming lack of judgment or plain indifference to working for peace. Either way it is a very gloomy prospect.
In these baffling and demoralising times, the Israelis and Palestinians need good friends and good advice. It may be a matter for regret that international convention and preponderance of power have cast the United States as the best friend available. But since this is so, it places a premium on Washington to provide strong support and clear encouragement for the peace process.
The Palestinians, though well aware of the historical bias towards Israel, value what has been achieved through US good offices and hope for more consistent treatment. Yet that is exactly what is missing under the new administration. Madeleine Albright went to Israel last month sounding one-sided in Netanyahus favour. In the end she said more to please the Palestinians than they had expected. She repeated her call for a time-out on new Jewish settlements when Netanyahu announced plans for new units in Efrat.
Then last week she inexplicably described settlement-building as legal. What is illegal is attempted murder on foreign soil by agents using false passports. If Albright is to create any impression of US impartiality, she should condemn what happened in Amman as loudly as she has denounced the terrorism of Hamas. The US has to become a more consistent broker, or ask others to take up the task.