South Africa Foreign Policy on Israel

On Sunday I attended the SAJBD Gauteng Council Biennial conference, where one of the guest speakers, Mr Andre Zaaiman, addressed the sizzling topic of South Africa’s stance toward Israel.

Andre Zaaiman is a member of the Presidential Support Unit (PSU), which advises the Presidency and South African Government on international conflict areas. He has recognised competencies in the fields of strategy, learning and cognition as well as national security issues; with extensive field experience in Africa and the Middle East.

Refuting all accusations of South African bias toward the Palestinians, Mr Zaaiman detailed the three critical keys to South Africa’s foreign policy in general.

1. Commitment to Multilateralism
The SA government are ardent multilateralists who believe in the principles of “nations coming together, making rules together, and seeking to protect the common interests of humankind together”. Mr Zaaiman said that the commitment to these ideas is a reaffirmation of the ideas of partition in Israel. This is an important point in that South Africa still believes in the 1947 partition plan, meaning that the government still seeks a two state solution to the crisis.

2. Commitment to Legality and International Law
Mr Zaaiman cited the need to bring the conflict into the domain of legality in trying to defend the South African decision to stand alongside 12 other terrorist supporting pariah states, and bring a case against the Israeli security barrier to the International Court of Justice, by saying that SA believes that we need to bring the conflict into the domain of legality. Zaaiman argues that international law, and the frameworks it embodies, is the best way to protect Israel's interests. It could be argued however, that international law is outdated when it comes to fighting a war against terrorists, who send children out to scout their targets, and then find cover amongst these children and women.

3. Promotion of Dialogue to resolve all international conflicts
Zaaiman acknowledged that people have been critical of South Africa’s promotion of dialogue when it comes to certain regimes (see Zimbabwe) but stressed that the stance is consistent with all conflicts that SA deals with. The usual idealistic rhetoric followed – with dialogue being noted as the only way to resolve conflicts. The sceptic in me still sees some aspects of a South African “democracy of hypocrisy” when one considers the lack of support we extend to the Tibetans right to have the Dalai Lama recognised as a legitimate negotiating partner with China (in contrast to the support we extend to Arafat).

In explaining the relationship SA has with Israel, Zaaiman said that there is cooperation on all tracks with the exception of military, security and defence.

The aspect that created some doubt in my mind about Zaaiman’s true stance was that, in speaking about the necessary compromises in a two state solution, Zaaiman neglected to mention Israel’s historical willingness to pursue this approach. The 1988 PLO acceptance of a two state solution was noted, but Zaaiman stated that it took up until 2002 for Israel to accept this idea. In reality the Zionist body accepted the two state solution way before 2002; in fact the Zionist body was always willing to settle for a two state solution, evidenced by their acceptance of the Peel commission in 1937 as well as the partition ten years later. Both these proposals were refused by the Arabs. In this context I believe it would have been proper for Zaaiman to acknowledge the historic concessions made by Israel in the 2000/2001 Camp David/Taba accords - which officially proposed a two state solution.

This was perhaps my only criticism of Zaaiman, as he went on to speak sincerely about how deeply hurt our government is when people from either side suffer in the conflict.

Speaking specifically of the SA role, Zaaiman said that SA is not seeking to be mediators in negotiating a solution to the conflict. Rather, he offered that there are many things that Israel and the Palestinans can learn from the past South African experience. He distanced himself from the “what worked in SA can work in Israel” stance; rather he posited a take it or leave it approach. Some things in SA that worked may work there; take it or leave it.

Zaaiman ended by describing the ME as an “environment of insecurity where it is imperative to make a move toward a permanent and sustainable peace”. “Israeli fears need to be addressed; we must acknowledge the long history of persecution and suffering of both sides. We must also seriously acknowledge the Palestinian dreams and needs. People need to unite around a clear vision for peace.”

When questions were taken Mr Zaaiman reaffirmed the essence of a true two state solution by almost mentioning that he does not support the so called “right return” (which would flood Israel with millions of people, many of whom believe that butchering Jews is martyrdom – ed: that’s my view, not his). Zaaiman said “We need one Palestinian state; not two.”

After the talk I spoke to Mr. Zaaiman and posed the following question:
“In the Presidents monthly “ANC Today” newsletter which is published on the Internet, the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) openly stated their perspective on the conflict. Without any balanced criticism of the Palestinians in general and of Arafat in particular, they condemned Israel as a terrorist state; expressing doubt over it’s right to exist. They also gave full support to the armed struggle."

"What influence does the ANCYL have on SA foreign policy and what level of education does the SA foreign policy body administer to the ANCYL?”

Zaaiman responded that although the ANCYL is a body of the ANC; they are not a body of government and have no influence on our foreign policy. He indicated signs of regret at the radical stance the ANCYL take, and downplayed their views as coming from the uninformed and over-zealous youth. A large number of the ANCYL members will be our future leaders one day, but Zaaiman thinks that their radical youthful views will have matured, becoming more balanced, by then.

When it was posed to him that COSATU also takes a similar stance Zaaiman said that they are just protecting their specific self interests.

Finally, Mr Zaaiman mentioned the proverbial “cycle of violence.” I thought of questioning whether he honestly held the myopic opinion that follows the “cycle of violence” analysis: If it’s a cycle, then Israel could end the cycle by simply not responding to the next terrorist attack.

But, I think that people use the term without really thinking about its implications – i.e. I don’t think that Mr Zaaiman really believes in the implications of the statement; rather he just wanted to convey that both sides do suffer in the conflict. And so I left it at that.

Comments

[Harry FM]

Very good commentary! Sounds to me like a true polititian. Its a pity that Zaaimans perspective does not come through more in SA,s obvious bias in the ME.

[Impi]

Excellent analysis, it's nice to see something resembling balance from the SA govt, and I especially like his "We need one Palestine, not two" statement with regard right of return.

However, his utter denial of any bias towards the Palestinians is a load of bollocks, as it's quite plain for any observer to see otherwise. In addition, relations between SA and Israel have at times deteriorated to such a point that I recall Israel's ambassador saying something along the lines of:"We recognise the Republic of South Africa, but sometimes it seems as if South Africa does not recognise the State of Israel."

South Africa was one of the leading countries to send delegations to the Hague to present legal arguments against the security fence, something practically no other western country did, yet the most it can do on Israel's behalf is to mouth obligatory condolences each time a really bad suicide bomber attack occurs, even as it never misses a chance to condemn each and every Israeli action against terrorists.

Perhaps the biggest indicator is the deputy minister of foreign affairs, Aziz Pahad. Quite frankly, he would do well as the foreign minister of an Arab country, that's how blatant his anti-Israel and anti-American bias is. This is, after all, the man who went on a tour of the ME and conveniently forgot to visit Israel, whilst visiting nearly all its neighbours.

So, while we still have people like Aziz Pahad in senior positions in our govt, the offerings of advisors such as Zaaiman, however balanced, will have little, if any, effect on SA's foreign policy. That's why you won't see his perspective come out more.

Impi

[Anti-UN]

And...if he was speaking to a crowd of only Jews I am sure that he pandered to the crowd somewhat. But I agree with Impi about the "One Palestine not two" comment.

The sceptic in me still sees some aspects of a South African “democracy of hypocrisy”

We are still the "democracy of hypocrisy"

[Impi]

Yep, without a doubt. That's actually a good term to use, it fits rather well.

I mean, how else do you describe a country that professes to support democratic ideals, human rights and all that, yet lobbies to have Libya chair the UN Human Rights Commission? That's akin to lobbying to have Robert Mugabe chair a commission on responsible land reform and good governance....

Nevermind the fact that our govt has sided with just about every tin-pot dictator it can find, Aristide being the latest.

Foreign policy should have an element of morality. Despite claims to the contrary, the ANC's foreign policy has zilch to do with morality, and everything to do with ideology.

[Steve]

"I mean, how else do you describe a country that professes to support democratic ideals, human rights and all that, yet lobbies to have Libya chair the UN Human Rights Commission?"

Exactly.

I also seem to remember us blocking a UN resolution which would have condemned China. China is a anti-Western economic powerhouse. Two things that perfectly meet our requirements for support.

That said, I am pleased that SA have come out in support of a two state solution, but I still worry about pur views on "right of return".