South Africa faces the third major test of its United Nations Security Council tenure, in a vote on a proposed framework for the independence of Kosovo, which could happen within weeks.
South Africa’s stance in the five months it has sat on the council has raised eyebrows. It intervened controversially in support of Iran’s nuclear programme and voted against proposals to bring human rights abuses by the Burmese government to the council’s attention.
In these cases, South Africa sided with Russia and China, irritating the Western powers. On the issue of Kosovo’s independence, where Russia and the West are at odds, it remains poker-faced.
At issue is a resolution on Kosovo’s future based on a report by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari. This recommends independence ‘supervised by the international community†and includes measures to protect the Serbian minority in a country that would be 90% ethnic Albanian.
Kosovo has been a UN protectorate for seven years, following the war between ethnic Albanian separatists and Serbs, who see it as the cradle of their national identity.
All other non-permanent security council members, barring Indonesia, have now committed to supporting the Kosovo resolution, according to diplomats. That means it has enough votes to pass in the absence of a veto from Russia, which, this week, was being pressed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and EU leaders to soften its opposition to the Ahtisaari plan.
Nevertheless, after a fortnight of hectic lobbying, including meetings with European ministers, Foreign Affairs Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has yet to communicate any decision to officials in her department.
Western diplomats believe South Africa is again leaning towards Russia and China, putting its credibility in Europe and the US at risk.
But South African foreign affairs officials insist that they are approaching Kosovo purely as a matter of principle and are still grappling with the complex questions it raises.
‘If the council endorses [the draft], it will create an international precedent,†said one insider. ‘Normally in such situations you have prolonged negotiations, but here Serbia is being asked to give up 15% of its territory without a negotiated solution.â€
That raised concerns not only for Russia and China, worried about the status of territories like Chechnya and Taiwan, but also for the African Union, which insists on territorial integrity.
But the foreign affairs official added: ‘On the other hand, the argument is that Kosovo’s independence is part of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and is inevitable.â€
Western diplomats said the language of the draft resolution is scrupulous in its efforts to avoid setting a precedent. ‘It clearly describes Kosovo as sui generis,†said one. ‘I can’t see how the South Africans can seriously object on that basis.â€
Local officials concede that Ahtisaari clearly understood that the Kosovar and Serbian positions were so implacably opposed as to rule out negotiations. It is unclear whether Pretoria is holding out for changes to the language of the draft resolution that would mollify Russia, or whether there is a real possibility that it will abstain or vote against.
South Africa’s reluctance to back the resolution, even after other developing countries like Ghana and Congo have swung behind it, lends fresh urgency to the question of how it will use its two years on the council.
Foreign affairs officials insist that each issue is addressed on its merits, and that there is no South African agenda to line up with Russia and China against the West.
‘It is just a coincidence that we have tended to agree with them,†said one.
The officials said the principle at stake in Burma’s case was not the conduct of the military regime, but a battle within the UN over where to set the bar for Security Council involvement.
The department and the South African delegation believe the Western powers want to bring more and more issues to the council, where they have a majority, rather than to other UN organs where power is more evenly distributed.
The ‘no†vote was a shot across the bows in that battle.
This ‘tough†stance is seen as a way of building support and credibility in the developing world, to be used in other multilateral forums like the G77 and in South Africa’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat.
The risk is that Western support for a South African permanent seat, which has looked assured, will be eroded. The government is betting that strong bilateral relations with Europe and the US will ease tensions. But Western diplomats are clearly concerned about the way South Africa is playing the game.
‘Tanzania also said it would approach every issue on principle, and it was able to do that without always coming down on the same side,†said one.
‘It just doesn’t make sense to us,†said another.