Say what you like about South Africa’s first five months at the United Nations Security Council, the country hasn’t suffered from stage fright.
Voting against a resolution to bring the appalling human rights record of the Burmese junta under council scrutiny laid down a marker early on.
Then came Iran, which South Africa had already backed at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. But its stance was exposed to much hotter lights in the Security Council, where the European Union and United States were trying to put a stop to the Islamic republic’s uranium-Âenrichment activities. Muscling in on this kind of terrain, at the heart of the most intense geopolitical bunfight of the day, hardly spoke of first-night jitters
On both these issues, it seemed, South Africa had sided with Russia and China rather than standing on the human rights and non-proliferation Âcredentials built up during the transition to democracy. The department of foreign affairs insists that these were decisions based on firm principles about the way the multilateral system works, rather than strategic alignment.
And now there is Kosovo, another tense face-off between the West and Russia, and an intractable mess.
The Serbs of the 14th and 15th centuries fought a series of crucial battles in the plains of Kosove against the Ottoman Turks who came to rule the Balkans, which is why they view it as the cradle of their national identity. And it is why, despite a nasty war, seven years of UN administration in the region, and a population that is now 90% ethnic Albanian, Serbia is unwilling to let it follow other post-Yugoslav statelets like Bosnia and Croatia into independence.
Europe and the US want to impose independence through the UN, along the lines proposed by special envoy Marti Arthisaari. Further negotiations are now pointless, they believe. But South Africa, a country born out of negotiation, is still chary of a solution that the Serbs do not accept, and about the potential precedent for African conflicts that would be set by UN boundary drawing.
No doubt there are hugely complex questions at play here, and it is clear that South Africa seems to be making a sincere attempt to navigate them. But it is difficult to see how opposition to the Arthisaari plan can possibly be in the interests of South Africa or the people of the Balkans.
Without a UN resolution, Kosovo will declare independence unilaterally, and probably be recognised by the US, among others. That would be a serious blow to the multilateral system South Africa is trying to bolster as a counterweight to Western dominance.
And if the resolution fails, it will be because of a Russian veto, not a South African vote. We should not share responsibility for such an outcome.
This resolution is an opportunity for South Africa to demonstrate that principle need not be an excuse to avoid tough decisions, or to play to the non-aligned gallery. We can either sign up as permanent members of the awkward squad or as serious players. Kosovo poses difficult questions, and our delegation is right to push for the best possible text. But in the end there is only one correct position on the resolution that will soon Âconfront the Security Council — to vote in favour of it.
A white herring
In any other country, this weekend’s rugby final — which means that a South African side is destined to be crowned Super 14 champions — would have been all the talk. We would all be enjoying the moment and gloating at the expense of the Australians and their neighbours, New Zealand.
All rugby fans would be wearing their favourite province’s colours or the Bok green in the knowledge that they are experiencing what is probably local rugby’s greatest on-field moment since Joel Stransky’s drop goal that Saturday afternoon at Ellis Park in 1995. But not here. Inevitably, the off-field shenanigans are doing all they can to steal the gloss from Saturday’s match between the Sharks and the Bulls at the Shark Tank.
For some people, Luke Watson’s exclusion from, and later inclusion in, the enlarged Springbok training camp squad has come to symbolise the fight for transformation in rugby. For others, it is about resisting interference in on-field matters by the men who wear leather shoes with their suits.
Rugby, in particular, has enough problems to deal with without making a song and dance about the personal relationship between a single rugby player, who is being treated as an honorary black on the strength of his distant links with the anti-apartheid struggle, and his coach.
Jake White may or may not choose Watson when he finally names the team he hopes will wrest the Webb Ellis trophy in France later this year. But the challenges of transformation, and the resentment and bitterness caused by this needless controversy, will remain.
The diversion from real problems in the sport would probably have worked had the South African team done what they habitually do, bowed out of the Super 14 long before the final and rendered the event an affair of vital interest only to those living elsewhere.
But it didn’t happen that way. Here’s hoping that the Sharks and Bulls remind us of the main reason rugby continues to inflame the passions that it does — on-field excellence, rather than bombastic posturing over red (or in this case, white) herrings.