On the face of it, the rights and wrongs in the crisis over Iran’s uranium enrichment programme are easy to discern: the Islamic republic conducted a clandestine nuclear programme for 20 years. When details finally emerged, and inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency began, it failed fully to satisfy investigators that its activities were peaceful in nature.
Despite efforts to find a diplomatic solution involving not only Iran’s main antagonist, the United States, but its backers in Russia and China, Tehran has remained defiant. As the Mail & Guardian went to press it looked certain to ignore a United Nations Security Council deadline to suspend enrichment or face possible sanctions.
The choice, as US nuclear envoy James Schulte insisted in Pretoria last week, seems clear. So why, in the face of a state apparently intent on building a nuclear arsenal, and an international community united in condemnation, is South Africa lending its diplomatic support to Iran? Is it simply an expedient choice, like the decision to welcome a ministerial delegation from the pariah state of Belarus this week? Or a bizarre one, like the decision to entertain the deputy foreign minister of North Korea at the height of the standoff over missile tests in June?
It is not that simple.
To be sure, there are domestic interests in play: Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin believes the development of the nuclear sector should form a crucial part of both energy and industrial strategy, and has been pushing hard for “coherence” between foreign policy and the interests of state-owned companies such as Eskom, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Company and the Nuclear Energy Company of South Africa.
Efforts by George W Bush’s administration to impose new global constraints on the possession of highly enriched uranium, and on enrichment activity more broadly, would, if they came to fruition, limit the options available to South Africa and other major developing countries. In addition, there can be little question that South Africa wants to draw a line in the sand over the future and status of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad is correct to point out that the delicate balance of compromises that make up the NPT is in danger of being destabilised, and with it the multilateral non-proliferation regime. Not only have the nuclear weapons states failed to disarm as energetically as the treaty requires them to, they have, when it suits their interests, condoned the spread of nuclear weapons outside the NPT regime. Bush’s reversal of earlier US policy on the arms race between India and Pakistan, in India’s favour, is the most recent and egregious example.
Global nuclear diplomacy may be one area where South Africa still punches above its weight, thanks to its status as the only country to have dismantled its nuclear arsenal and its role in convincing non-aligned countries to agree to the extension of the NPT. It is right — even if self-interested — to stand up for the principles embodied in that agreement.
But it is not impossible that Iran is trying to build a bomb and misled inspectors — so we find ourselves in awkward company.
Whether the world can be made safer while ensuring equitable treatment for all countries wanting to use nuclear technology is the tough question. South Africa must stand up for the treaty it has helped to create, without standing up for states that are trying to dodge it.
Lessons for Parreira
Carlos Alberto Parreira should use his current visit to South Africa to take a first-hand look at the team he will be in charge of from the new year. If the Brazilian takes in the Bafana Bafana vs Congo match, he might get an inkling of the problems on and off the field he will need to address to start justifying his enormous salary.
Star striker Benni McCarthy has used his years in the national football side to wangle a work permit to play in England for Blackburn Rovers. That achieved, he has decided he no longer needs to turn out for his country. His actions epitomise the low regard most players seem to have for the national jersey.
Interim coach Pitso Mosimane could also tell Parreira a few unpleasant home truths. About, for example, a back-up staff that is throwing a collective hissy fit because their advice has not been heeded. The Brazilian might want to check his contract and discuss with his new employers whether he will be able to bring in his own people.
But if Parreira wants a good insight into the country he’ll be calling home for the next four years he should take a ride to Rustenburg on Saturday. Jake White would be able to tell him an interesting tale.
The rugby coach’s job is again on the line, supposedly as a consequence of poor results on the field caused by injuries to key players. But White’s tale would include how his employers let his conditioning coach go because they could not get around to finalising a contract; how he is without a team manager because the authorities will not let him appoint the person of his choice; and about how he is constantly being accused of refusing to bring in black players when his record on transformation is the best of any Springbok coach.
Perhaps it would be better if Parreira spent the weekend in a game reserve, far from a television set. Otherwise, a deeper understanding of how South African sports administrators treat their coaches might mean he will never return.