The South African government has issued a statement playing down its stated readiness to serve as a permanent member of the United Nations (UN) Security Council.
In a statement issued by the Foreign Affairs Department on Monday, it noted that on Friday South Africa announced its readiness to do so ”and thereby serve the people of Africa and the world”.
However, spokesperson Ronnie Mamoepa said: ”Since the announcement by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and President Thabo Mbeki’s remarks on the matter, a number of articles speculating on the motives for our announcement and countries that may support South Africa in this regard have appeared in the media.
”Speculation on such a sensitive matter is both unfortunate and regrettable. It reflects the views of the authors and their sources and not the information at the disposal of government. The government disassociates itself from this speculation.
”South Africa wishes to reaffirm that its announcement in this regard is a consequence of current debates in the United Nations regarding the restructuring of the security council and a response to many African countries and others outside our continent who have inquired about the willingness of South Africa to serve as a permanent member of the restructured security council.
”Africa has always been convinced of the need for two permanent seats in a restructured security council. Accordingly, our announcement does not represent competition against any other African country or countries.
”South Africa will continue to work with the continent to ensure the outcome of this process is in the best interests of the people of Africa and the world.
”In this context, South Africa reiterates that it stands ready to serve as a permanent member of the restructured United Nations Security Council fully sensitive to the need to respect the interests and aspirations of all countries and peoples, and the imperative to build an equitable and humane global order,” Mamoepa said.
According to Globalpolicy.org, the Security Council today still largely reflects the global power structure of 1945, though its membership was expanded from 11 to 15 in 1965.
The five World War II victors, France, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation, have held on to their privileged status — they are ”permanent”, non-elected members and can each veto any council decision.
This arrangement has been criticised for making the council both undemocratic and often ineffective. The few powerful members dominate UN policy and frequently veto widely accepted decisions in order to further their own interests.
Despite the geographical representation of the 10 elected members, the Security Council remains imbalanced in favour of the industrialised north. – I-Net Bridge, Sapa