South Africa's Depraved Foreign Policy Exposed

The Sunday Times, one of South Africa’s leading weekend newspapers, today ran a front page story exposing the South African government for a foreign policy that runs counter to South Africa’s human rights ethos.

Many of the most abhorrent examples of South Africa’s voting record at the United Nations, which we have consistently exposed over the last few years, have now thankfully found there way into the mainstream South African media.

Sunday Times: SA now skunk of the world

South Africa’s human rights reputation is in tatters after a series of “sell-out” votes at the UN on issues ranging from rape and gay rights to tyranny. This week the watchdog UNWatch ranked South Africa last, alongside China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria and Saudi Arabia, on a human rights list. Human rights organisations have branded Pretoria “the chief human rights villain”. SA is accused of shielding Sudan, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Myanmar.

A major source for the article was UN Watch, a human rights organisation based in Geneva, who we also regularly rely on for our information. Their reports, documenting the voting pattern of UN Human Rights Council member countries, show South Africa to have consistently taken anti-Human Rights positions. In fact we rank as one of the worst, along with China, Russia, Pakistan, Algeria and Saudi Arabia.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch described South Africa (and India) as “the biggest disappointments among free democracies”. Thomas Wheeler, of the SA Institute of International Affairs, echoed these sentiments complaining that South Africa had “lost the moral high ground.”

The South African government’s response has been posted on the Sunday Time’s website (although it was not published in the newspaper). Rather than dealing with the substance of the accusations, they have chosen to attack the messengers by casting aspersions about UNWatch’s agenda. The government’s response claims that

‘UNWatch is one organization that is actively campaigning to undermine a key South African initiative at the global level, the World Conference Against Racism. While the world is grappling with and trying to find solutions to the problems of racial hatred and intolerance UN Watch posts articles on its website describing the conference as a “global festival of hatred”. It is therefore important that while quoting these organizations the Sunday Times should also inform its readers about the extent of their agenda.’

It’s not surprising that the government has chosen to respond to such a serious issue in this manner. Sadly these type of paranoid accusations against any criticism have become commonplace in the twilight of the Mbeki presidency. UN Watch’s objections to the World Conference Against Racism have nothing to do with South Africa. They are guided by a concern for fighting the international institutionalization of anti-Semitism.

I was a delegate to that conference in Durban and I would say ‘global festival of hatred’ is a pretty appropriate title. Does the South African government think it is appropriate for Nazi like cartoons depicting Jews as bloodthirsty animals are acceptable murals for a conference against racism. Or pamphlets bewailing that Hitler lost the war, because there would then have been no Israel. Does selling the protocols of the Elders of Zion (available for R20 , an official publication of the government of Iran) set the right tone for solving the problem of racial hatred I wonder? Here are some of the posters that littered the conference (courtesy eyeontheun.org where you can find more of these monstrous posters).

If this is the case, then it has become clear that the South Africa international agenda is diametrically opposed to that of world Jewry and in fact the entire free world.

Steve adds

Something from our democracy of hypocrisy’s response that also deserves mention is the credit that South Africa claims for the replacement of the now defunct UN Human Rights Commission with the new UN Human Rights Council.

South Africa claims to have supported the creation of a new Human Rights Council because it lost it credibility due to problems of double standards, selectivity and politicization. Further to this South Africa explains that by double standards, they mean that the previous Human Rights body only concerned itself with human rights problems “in some and not in other countries.”

Ok, we can all agree with that. But has the problem of selectivity and double standards been remedied? The smuggness of the South African response suggests that it has.

Perhaps they take us for fools. The new Human Rights Council has only ever passed resolutions against one single country – Israel. No other country, not Sudan, Cuba, China, Myanmar nor Zimbabwe has been condemned by the Council. The problems that afflicted the old guard have been replicated in the new – South Africa should look to other places for credit because there is none to be found in the wretched UN Human Rights Council.

South Africa also respond with the tired and old ‘divisions of labour between the organs of the United Nations.’ This doesn’t fly. If South Africa’s voting could honestly be explained by these technical reasons then their diplomatic relations with the despotic nations would not match their voting records.

Case in point – look at the lavish welcome that the Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir recently received from President Mbeki. No highfalutin explanations of the types of human rights that we protect, or technical meanderings about matching the appropriate UN forum to the right abuse can explain these facts on the ground.

Comments

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

Mike and Steve,

In the light of this wayward/ politically incorrect/
repressive/anti-democratic Sunday Times article, perhaps The FXI / MRN
should now make a bid for the newspaper... with financial backing from
George Soros ? The latter funds The FXI and has plenty of dosh... he
could afford 7 billion.

Interesting, however, that The Sunday Times article concludes with
quotes from " Professa Non Grata USA":
Adam Habib said South Africa had been right to oppose the “hidden
political agendas of the Western powers”, although by failing to “go on
to take the lead on those issues ... our reputation has taken a hit.”

Do you know how South Africa could "have taken the lead on these
issues" ?? Is Prof Habib suggesting that Mbeki now holds joint press
conferences with Ahmadinejad?

(btw, I wouldn't be surprised if Prof Habib actually wrote the govt's
response to the Sunday Times. If he didn't, he would certainly agree
100% with the contents.)

[Richard Catto]

There is nothing wrong with the South African government.

The UN Watch (led by the US) is criticising the ANC, because they are racist white scum with hidden agendas.

The United States is a total and utter disgrace.

I completely and utterly support an anti-Western foreign policy stance as adopted by South Africa.

The West is corrupt. That is EVIDENCED by their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

They are the ones at fault. South Africa is in the clear.

[Benjamin]

Richard

The term anti-Western is a bankrupt and meanginless one. Sorry for the long quote but here is the words of Arundhati Roy (someone who, I think, is politicaly on your side):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,800015,00.html

"Recently, those who have criticised the actions of the US government (myself included) have been called "anti-American". Anti-Americanism is in the process of being consecrated into an ideology. The term is usually used by the American establishment to discredit and, not falsely - but shall we say inaccurately - define its critics. Once someone is branded anti-American, the chances are that he or she will be judged before they're heard and the argument will be lost in the welter of bruised national pride.

What does the term mean? That you're anti-jazz? Or that you're opposed to free speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias? Does it mean you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?

This sly conflation of America's music, literature, the breathtaking physical beauty of the land, the ordinary pleasures of ordinary people with criticism of the US government's foreign policy is a deliberate and extremely effective strategy. It's like a retreating army taking cover in a heavily populated city, hoping that the prospect of hitting civilian targets will deter enemy fire.

There are many Americans who would be mortified to be associated with their government's policies. The most scholarly, scathing, incisive, hilarious critiques of the hypocrisy and the contradictions in US government policy come from American citizens. (Similarly, in India, not hundreds, but millions of us would be ashamed and offended, if we were in any way implicated with the present Indian government's fascist policies.)

To call someone anti-American, indeed, to be anti-American, is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not good, you're evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,800015,00.html

If you vote against a resolution that suppourts human rights you are not anti or pro the West you are anti human rights. Lets judge the UN on its proffesed ideals for human rights and justice.

I suggest reading:
"Complicity with Evil"
The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide
Adam LeBor

[Hillel]

I'll address only one or two points of Richard's crazed rant, not because his tone or syntax suggests that he is prone to reason or clear thought but just for the hell of following his untrodden thought paths ...

If, as Richard puts it, "there is nothing wrong with the South African government", then by implication there is nothing wrong with those governments it seeks so vehemently to support and protect i.e. Zimbabwe, Sudan, Myanmar etc. This says more than needs to be said about the clarity of Richard's thinking, not to mention his ability to consider the moral universe.

Irrespective of one's position on Iraq, to suggest the US is "evil", and that it somehow controls the UNWatch who are suddenly a bunch of looney KKK fans because they think the UNHRC should do something about the killing of black people in Sudan/Darfur and the neighbouring regions smacks of a little Newspeak.

Richie you make Orwell (not to mention the Politburo) proud!

Richard Catto. I suppose Sudan, Zimbabwe and genocide-threatening Iran are also in the clear.
You are a very sick man- Richard.

[Gary]

The last post was by me.

[Gary]

Tell me Benjamin, I'm glad that you admit that anti-Americanism is racism. Now wouuld you also agree that anti-zionism and anti-Israelism are racist, as they are against a whole people i.e the Levantine Jews.

[Benjamin]

Gary.
Its Arundhati Roy's words not mine. I wouldn't have framed it as racism (after all America/Israel is a mix) but it shares the same flaw - "it's a failure of the imagination".

I don't think you can lump the whole of the West/Israel/Zionism/etc. together and say anything meaningful, for or against. Are you pro-American or anti-American? For me its an impossible question to anwser.

[Gary]

Leftwing radicals, inbcluding the ANC-SACP will support any genocidal or ruthless regimes providing they are anti-western.
It is clear to see that those forces who oppose the modest claims of the Jewish people to a small homeland , are the same forces who oppose democracy and freedom throughout the world.
today it takes the form of the battle for the soul of the world between the believers in Judeo-Christian/Western/democratic values on the one side and the hard left/Islamic alliance ,whose ultimate aim is the total destruction of Judeo-Christian and Western civilization , on the other.
Throughout the world the universities are dominated by these same forces who justify every tyrant regime and terrorist organization as part of the battle against the cardboard bogeys set up by the left : 'colonialism' , 'imperialism' and 'globalization'.
Thus they will use the struggle against `colonialism', 'imperialism' and 'globalization' to justify and encourage the killing of Israeli women and children, and totalitarian brutality in regimes such as Red China, Cuba, Libya , Syria , Zimbabwe , Venezuela , Sudan, Iran etc.
It is no wonder that these forces which have no respect for human life will terrorize those who do not conform to their sick and twisted ideas.
Let us pray that George W Bush , (may G-D bless him for removing Saddam and his Nazi regime from power) will continue to be firm in resolve , in the war on terror and tyranny and that the West and Israel will in the words of Churchill 'never surrender' . May the forces of darkness , the Islamic terrorists and their Satanic Marxist allies be defeated and destroyed.
G-D bless the USA and Israel.

[Derikboy]

Racism is okay if you're racist towards racists.

[Benjamin]

Gary I have nothing, all I can say is: wow. I think we should stick to talking about the posted issue on the UN and SA's voting record. Which I think we both agree is abismal.

[Hillel]

Thanks for that last comment Benjamin. I was worried you'd remain in your cosy seat on the fence.

Fortunately one place where imagination is not lacking is Pallywood. From the epic tale known as "al-dura", to other timeless offerings such as "the 10 staged scenes of Hizbulla" their ME studios just keep delivering edge of seat entertainment. Such a shame the gullible West, (who the pallywood producers are so vehemently against), keep managing to swallow this hubris - if you're looking for " "a failure of the imagination"." - look no further than the Main Stream Media.

[Hillel]

In respone to Benjamin's request to stay with the topic of the post, I ask the general reading public this:

1) If this is the state of SA's foreign policy - what impact will it have on domestic policy?

2) if the people's candidate (JZ) is the next president - what will foreign (and domestic) policy look like then?

3) How long will "paying up" be a lasting and viable strategy?

[Gary]

Hillel wrote:
"if the people's candidate (JZ) is the next president - what will foreign (and domestic) policy look like then?"

I am not too worried about z JZ presidency as the architect of SA's current foreign policy Fat Ronnie, is very much in the Mbeki camp, and would most likely not be back in government in Zuma became President.

[Hillel]

Gary, point taken, but irrespective, the question remains:

- which intellectual and moral comets is JZ likely to appoint as Red Ronnie and Essop's successors? - and more importantly - what are they going to do to SA and its people?!

[Benjamin]

Hillel
Regarding your third question, How long will "paying up" pay?

One of the points made by Mike in, A warm SA welcome for the President of Sudan, on a strategic level we aren't getting anything. "Quite diplomacy" has given us a basket case for a neighbour and a refugee problem. The ANC doesn't seem capable of learning from its mistakes.

[Hillel]

Benjamin

I'm not sure I follow your point, I think I wasn't clear in making mine. I was referring specifically to the domestic position and the potentially precarious position in which citizens, and special interest groups may find themselves. Specifically the position they may find themselves in when they run foul of the groupthink.

My reference to paying up refers in particular to my perception that the current wealth transfer, though in certain aspects a form of reparation, is perhaps also or is perhaps rather extortion / ransom. Consequently, as long as there is adequate wealth to hand over then government may be happy - but the time may come when the goose is slaughtered to see where those eggs are coming from ... ala Zim and Mad Bob.

[Gary]

Hillel, the truth is that the ideologies of Mbeki and Zuma are not that different, and whichever of the two win, it will not really have an effect on policy or ideas.
So I am not that overwrought about the 'succession' in the ANC topic.

Hillel, I missed your point. I thought paying up refered to the failure to criticize old struggle commrades (the AU seems to be an old boys club of African dictators). I think I have it now...

The Zim land grab came about due to domestic pressure on Mad Bob, he bought off the militry with land to stay in power. The ANC currently doesn't have that problem. If COSATU or the SACP splits and their is some real pressure on the ANC who knows what they will do (Jz appealing to the poor downtrodden masses to gain the vote might be a clue). African revolutionary movements have had, historically, a hard time letting go of power.

Our current BEE (black elite enrichment) I see as more dangerouse by creating a isolated ruling class than the money running out. The current ANC looks more like CEOs than ex-Revolutionaries and land grabs are very bad for business.

But back to SA and our foreign policy. I have this thought experiment, if we could go back and make lots of noise instead of "quite diplomacy" (it would have been far better for our international reputation) but would it have outsted bob? Sadam came with the price tag of around $1000 000 000 000, we certainly don't have that sort of money, so besides making lots of noise, what can we do?

[Gary]

"we certainly don't have that sort of money, so besides making lots of noise, what can we do?"

So why make a lot of noise when it suits their ideological purposes like scremaing at Israel?

[Gary]

And why make a lot of noise when it comes to protecting dictaors like Saddam i.e the ANC regimes hysterical opposition to the US liberation of Iraq from Saddam's Nazi regime?

[Hillel]

Benjamin

You wrote "The ANC currently doesn't have that problem" ... the KEY word being "currently"!!

Land Grabs are indeed bad for business, but so is killing the goose - but if the goose stops laying those golden eggs, or the eggs don't come fast enough, then what?

Re: The thought experiment (are you a dilbert reader?)
Firstly, nobody is asking SA to spend a dime, or to oust Bob. What is being requested is to make a noise. SA has no problem making a noise about all manner of arbitrary issues - why can't they spend a little time making noise about mad bob too.
Secondly, even if an invasion was being asked for, the cost (lives and cash) of taking out Mugabe and installing the opposition is in no way comparable to taking out Saddam. Firstly Zim has a modicum of an opposition, secondly Bob is a tinpot - nothing of the order of Saddam and thirdly, there is no problem of Islam and it's anti-western kick back or insurgency. In all likelihood the average Zimbabwean would be happy to see Bob go, and would not be prevented from saying so by johnny-come-lately ideological fascists - i.e. in short I don't think you've been thorough in your thought experiment.

"besides making lots of noise, what can we do" is on the button - apartheid didn't fall because of the anc insurgency - it fell because of a lot of noise and sanctions.
Saddam may too have fallen if his regime had been subject to the same pressures, i.e. without a war (but this may be doubtful given his pan-arab support) - Nevertheless perhaps the US decided they couldn't wait because he may just have the weapons he claimed to have had.

[Gary]

One of the things I hate most about the Left is their kneejerk reaction of shreaking 'Fascist!' at everyone who rejects their Stalinist-Islamist agenda.

[Benjamin]

I wish they had made lots of noise and brought as much diplomatic pressure as possible, I just don't think bob would have given up power (that is not the same as supourting quite diplomacy).

Apartheid ended partially due to a well co-ordinated international effort, but if the ANC didn't have a significant power base I don't think the Nats would have budged. The MDC didn't and still doesn't have that power. I wasn't advocating force quite the opposite.

I'll make this my last point as the blog has moved on (not a dilbert reader, I prefer calvin and hobbes).