During apartheid rule in South Africa, the country’s liberation movement used the United Nations as a key battleground to win support for its struggle for democracy and human rights.
But these days, South Africa’s UN diplomats find the issues are rarely so clear cut.
Post-apartheid South Africa has found itself in the firing line after a string of UN votes in which critics say it supported dictatorship and repression in countries ranging from Zimbabwe to Burma.
It has also raised Western hackles by wanting to drop sanctions against Iran in the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme, fuelling accusations that Pretoria puts its Third World credentials ahead of its broader responsibilities.
South Africa, which joined the UN Security Council in January as a non-permanent member, says it is fighting against manipulation of the world body by powers such as the United States — trying to preserve the voice of smaller nations in an international system weighted against them.
Critics, at home and abroad, say the government risks losing the uncompromising moral compass clearly set by Nelson Mandela.
”Do we defend the oppressed in other countries; do we fight for the protection of human rights across the globe?” opposition Democratic Alliance leader Tony Leon asked recently.
”Looking at our current foreign policy, the answer to this question is regrettably too often in the negative.”
No rubber stamp
Suggestions that South Africa is betraying its own moral values draw angry responses in Pretoria, where officials say they want to ensure the UN is not hijacked by ”Great Powers” who hold veto power on the Security Council.
”We will never allow ourselves to become rubber stamps within the UN or any other multilateral grouping,” Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad told a recent briefing.
South Africa joined China and Russia in voting against a US-drafted resolution urging Burma to end persecution of minorities and opposition groups in January, arguing this was a matter best left to the less powerful UN Human Rights Council.
It also opposed a British move to bring Zimbabwe’s crackdown on the opposition before the Security Council last month, and suggested changes — later rejected — which would have gutted a deal forged by Britain, the United States, Russia, China, France and Germany to take a tougher stand on Iran’s nuclear programme.
This week, South Africa joined China, Russia and others arguing against a British-led effort to bring climate change issues into the purview of the Security Council.
Adam Habib, head of the democracy and governance programme at South Africa’s Human Sciences Research Council, said Pretoria was right to try to block ”the outrageous manipulation of international organisations” by the United States and others.
”The US and UK use the UN when they can get their way, and act unilaterally when they do not,” Habib wrote recently, noting Western powers took no action against allies like Israel and Pakistan which have also been accused of political abuses.
”When South Africa demands respect for the rules and processes of the UN, it should not be ridiculed. Rather it should be celebrated and supported by all those interested in democracy and a more just global order.”
Critics say Pretoria is also keeping an eye on possible reforms to the UN structure which could eventually give it a permanent Security Council seat of its own.
”South Africa has created the impression it sides with countries that do not have much respect for human rights. From a public relations viewpoint it has been a disaster,” said Tom Wheeler, a researcher at the South African Institute for International Affairs.
”But their focus has always been on United Nations reform, and on keeping this in the spotlight.”
Lukewarm reception
Analysts say Pretoria’s policy of standing up for developing nations has received little UN backing from such countries.
Other African members of the Security Council have not lined up behind South Africa, partly from concern that Pretoria’s UN ambitions may eclipse other regional contenders for a Security Council seat such as Egypt and Nigeria, analysts say.
South Africa’s rocky Security Council presidency in March may also leave Pretoria’s diplomats chastened as they plan its policy for the rest of the year.
South Africa ended up voting for the Iran resolution, and may be more conciliatory in future, analysts say.
”The idea of reform of the Security Council and the ‘development agenda’ are going to stay there, but I don’t think they will be as prickly about it,” Wheeler said. ”You learn as you go along.” – Reuters