Zimbabwe: The Blame Game

15. South Africa vs. The United Nations

117 15 South Africa vs. The United Nations awrence Caromba, of the Centre for International Political Studies, at the University of Pretoria, feels that South Africa’s tenure at the Security Council has been a “foreign policy disaster.” He feels that instead of advancing its multilaterism goals, it has bloated its human rights copy book by voting for dictators like Mugabe and the Myanmar generals. Caromba believes South Africa’s multilaterism has a slightly different goal; to thwart the 5 permanent members of the Security Council. I would like to add that, especially the USA and UK, so that South Africa usually has aligned itself with China or Russia and thereby corrects what South Africa feels is a global power imbalance. Caromba and many others feels that this rather nebulous and unrealistic goal is hardly a price worth to pay for, in lost reputation and spoiled relations with especially the world’s superpower, the USA. He thinks that South Africa should have joined the USA in voting for the United Nations Security Council resolution to impose sanctions on Mugabe, to pressure him to make concessions during the negotiations process Is South Africa trying to be a strategic rival to the USA? NO! According to Pretoria; Pretoria posits that the African union is opposed to sanctions against Mugabe, in trying to avoid upsetting Mugabe and Mbeki’s mediation processes, thus South Africa is just obeying orders from its bosses. According to Peter Fabricius in The Star, of August 1 2008, this argument neglects South Africa’s wider obligation to the United Nations Security Council, who are South Africa’s real bosses. The United Nations Security Council mandate is to act in the best interest of mankind, wherever in the world- that is including the victims of Mugabe’s violence. Fabricius also draws a parallel with the Al Bashir resolution which South Africa, Libya and other Arab countries are strongly opposed to, against the USA and UK who are trying to get the council to pass a resolution which L 118 would enable the International Criminal Court(ICC) to indict Al Bashir for war crimes in Darfur. South Africa wants an African court, or even at that, a Sudanese court to try him rather than the ICC, who it feels is picking on African leaders only. But, how likely it is that a Sudanese court would conduct a fair and fearless trial against its leader, ask Fabricius? What does the Darfur victims or Zimbabwe victims want? Nobody seems to care. This South African government is a big hypocrite. It is always ranging about Israel but ups the tyranny of Mugabe. It opposes the UN Security Council resolution on Zimbabwe, Darfur, Burma but wax lyrical about Bush’s war on Iraq. Max Du Preez feels, and rightly so, that this has been the problem with our continent since the days tyrant and mass murderer Idi Amin was cheered at meetings of the old Organisation of African unity. “As a continent we fear and honour the violent dictates among us in the name of African pride and solidarity” says Max Du Preez, The Star, 29 January 2009. Du Preez is ashamed that an ANC leader has been a part of this African charade, not just one but now two leaders. Is the Security Council having excessive powers? South Africa tenure as the chairman of the United Nations Security Council has now ended on 31 December 2008, and it was fraught with the thinking that the United Nations Security Council is a rogue elephant that grinds developing countries by getting involved in the internal affairs of these countries. So, South Africa dedicated its time as the chairman at the Security Council to curb this marauding animal. But international law expert Hans Winkler, who is a former minister in the Australian government, offers a different perspective. “I don’t think you can find a single case where the Security Council authorised force illegally…but you can name a dozen cases where it didn’t act but should have.” Fabricius, in another article in The Star, of March 6 2009, also feels that the essential question that should be considered was not how to stop the Security Council exceeding its powers, but how to ensure it did not shirk from 119 exercising the powers it ought to. Consider what the situation would have been like if it had exercised its powers in the DRC, Rwanda...