Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad’s excuses for why South Africa voted against a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning human rights abuses in Burma ”are dismal”, says official opposition Democratic Alliance foreign affairs spokesperson Douglas Gibson.
And he has been joined by Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) economic affairs spokesperson Eddie Cross, who says that the vote against Burma made South African diplomacy ”even more murky than we have thought”.
Gibson said Pahad’s excuses were also in contradiction to South Africa’s own Nobel Peace laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who had been at the forefront of a campaign for human rights in Burma.
Gibson said the fact remained that after fighting for two years to secure a non-permanent seat on the Security Council, ”the very first opportunity South Africa had to vote in favour of human rights and good governance and against dictatorship, we chose the wrong side.”
Pahad had offered two excuses for South Africa’s vote.
”First, he says that the matter of Burma should rather be discussed by the United Nations human rights council. As several commentators have pointed out, the human rights council, in its various forms, has over the years adopted a total of 29 resolutions unsuccessfully urging change in Burma.”
But, Gibson said: ”South Africa has a record of either abstaining or voting against such resolutions in the human rights council. It is thus disingenuous for the deputy minister to claim that South Africa favours such action.”
Second, Pahad claimed that the Security Council was not the appropriate forum to discuss Burma because the situation there was not a threat to peace in the region.
”This is despite the overwhelming evidence, documented by Archbishop Tutu and others, that more than a million Burmese people have fled the junta to neighbouring countries; Burma has become a regional centre for drug trafficking; over 600 000 people are internally displaced; and rape and forced labour are common practices of the junta,” said Gibson.
”That South Africa chose to attach itself to Russia and China, both of whom have business interests with the dictators in Burma, and are known to place their interests ahead of protecting human rights in many instances, is highly questionable.”
”South Africa’s vote also raises other questions: Did we vote against the resolution out of fear that a vote in favour might contradict our ”quiet diplomacy” policy towards Zimbabwe? Are we perhaps afraid that the UN might try to pass a similar resolution condemning the human rights abuses in Zimbabwe?
”If we carry on like this, our tenure on the Security Council will be an unmitigated disaster. South Africa needs to be a beacon shining strongly for human rights and good governance. So far, the signs are not encouraging.”
Cross noted that China and Russia — which, as permanent members of the council, can veto the resolution — were states that claimed on paper to be in favour of human rights.
”But when it comes to these as against economic interests and political influence, they take second place. Self-interest comes first. They should be ashamed of themselves,” said Cross. — I-Net Bridge