It's Almost Supernatural

Palestinian Ambassador to SA Blames Hamas

The Palestinian ambassador to South Africa declared last week before parliament’s portfolio committee on foreign affairs that Hamas was mostly to blame for the recent crisis in Gaza.

In a surprisingly frank admission Ambassador Halimeh accused Hamas of ‘betraying the Palestinian cause by spreading disunity among Palestinians and giving Israel an excuse to go to war’. He cited Hamas’ violent coup in Gaza as the cause of internal Palestinian discord and described Hamas’ refusal to extend the recent truce with Israel as ‘a strategic mistake’ and complained that ‘the Palestinian people in Gaza are paying the price for it’.

Some of the South African Parliamentary committee members were not exactly thrilled by this honest submission. Job Sithole, the committee chairman and an African National Congress lawmaker, retorted that Hamas had won a democratic election to rule the territory. Other members of parliament accused Halimeh of speaking only for the Fatah faction and not for the Palestinian Authority as a whole, which the ambassador denied.

In another statement that can only have irked these anti-Israel parliamentarians even more, the Palestinian ambassador told the committee that the one-state solution to the Middle East crisis, although attractive to Palestinians, is simply not possible. "After 60 years we realise that it is not going to work," Halimeh said.

Israel’s new ambassador to South Africa, Dov Segev-Steinberg, also made a submission. He accused South Africa of having a ‘one-sided’ approach towards the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and argued that if it adopted a ‘more balanced attitude’, the country could help in bringing peace to the Middle East.

But all of this seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The committee came out strongly against Israel and called for a review of diplomatic ties between the two countries. ANC MP Mewa Ramgobin expressed the view that ‘South Africa cannot say trade, trade and more trade with Israel while this holocaust goes on in Palestine. We need to review our own stance in continuing to sell arms to Israel. We need to review our diplomatic ties’.

So now it would seem that South Africa’s political representatives see themselves as more Palestinian than the Palestinians. Whose interests do they think they are really representing? Certainly not South Africas.

South Africa Israel Relations Still Holding

Despite intense pressure, the new ANC government has surprisingly remained relatively restrained in its condemnation of Israel over the last 3 days. President Kgalema Motlanthe and his political allies are not exactly renowned for their pro-Israel views. A few month ago he, signed a hate filled declaration accusing the Jewish state of every crime imaginable from Apartheid to genocide. However the ANC has publically remained committed to a 2 state solution and continued relations with Israel. But if the military operation escalates and the death toll rises, one wonders if they will maintain this position. Thus this latest Mid East war will provide the first real test for the durability of Israel South Africa ties under the new ANC administration.

Almost as soon as the first Israeli planes stuck Gaza, South African trade union and ANC coalition partner COSATU called on President Motlanthe to ‘break diplomatic ties with Apartheid Israel and institute sanctions against it’ as a result of the Jewish state’s ‘criminal’ behaviour. They also implored South Africans to ‘intensify’ the boycott of Israeli goods.

Cosatu was supported in its condemnation of South Africa's official policy toward Israel, by radical South African Islamic organizations, the Media Review Network (MRN) and the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC). Chairperson of the MRN Iqbal Jassat and the president of the MJC Ighsan Hendricks in a press release made the ridiculous claim that South Africa’s 'balanced approach' to the Arab-Israeli conflict had ‘allowed Israel to intensify its illegal policies of collective punishment’. They too called for a change in approach. Citing the lessons learnt from the struggle against Apartheid they declared rather poetically that ‘It’s untenable to proclaim support for Palestinian rights while the Israeli flag flutters in the capital, Pretoria.’

The usual South African anti-Israel gang also wasted no time jumping on the bandwagon. Former minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils said he stood by his statement that Israeli security forces were 'babykillers'. In addition he claimed that that the attacks and the siege against Gaza were proof of Israel's 'genocidal intentions'. He also condemned in his usual over the top style the 'complicity and silence of the west' throughout the period of the 'slow murder of the people of Gaza'.

Prof Steven Friedman, another one of South Africa’s infamous Israel hating Jews, said the actions of the Israeli army cannot be called 'war crimes'. 'There is no war,' he said, ‘but a brutal massacre. These are crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the fourth largest army in the world.'

Of course UN appointed Gaza massacre PI Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu could not hold back his anger. With his usual simplicity, he declared that the Israeli bombings bore ‘all the hallmarks of war crimes’. His logic is as follows: ‘in the context of total aerial supremacy, in which one side in a conflict deploys lethal aircraft against opponents with no means of defending themselves, the bombardment bears all the hallmarks of war crimes.’ Thus it’s not so much the civilian causalities that worry the Archbishop but the fact that Hamas is getting thoroughly beaten.

But the surprise outburst was from the South African Council of Churches (SACC) General Secretary, Eddie Makue, who called on the South African government to take a strong stand against Israel. On further research it turns out that Mr. Makue has just returned from an 11 city US speaking tour denouncing Israeli Apartheid. I was under the impression that the SACC had been seeking to build good relationships with the Jewish community. This is definitely a matter for the Chief Rabbi and the SAJBD to take up. He must understand that South African Jewry will not befriend organizations that seek to harm the Jewish state.

Yet despite all this protest, the South African government has not broken off diplomatic ties. In a rather mute statement on Sunday President Kgalema Motlanthe condemned the escalation of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians, saying it is counterproductive to efforts aimed at bringing about lasting peace and stability in the Middle East. He called on both sides to end hostilities and urged the international community to do make every effort to bring about a two - State solution with an independent Palestinian state co-existing side by side with an Israel State, existing within secure borders as a lasting solution to the ongoing Middle East conflict.

Today the South Africa government stepped up its condemnation summoning the Israeli ambassador to express its ‘grave concern’ at ‘the brutal assault’ by the IDF in the Gaza Strip. Deputy foreign minister Fatima Hajaig in a statement said that ‘the South African government called on the Israeli government to stop the military onslaught in Gaza and to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its forces currently amassing on the border’. She also urged all parties to return to peace negotiation immediately without preconditions.

As the violence escalates and the bodies pile up, we can expect the anti-Israel rhetoric to only amplify. While of course we need to be concerned about the developing situation on the ground in the Middle East, South African Jewry should also be strategizing about limiting the impact of this latest conflict on the community. A breakdown in diplomatic ties would be a disaster much more for us than for Israel. Despite my past personal objections, I really hope that the SAJBD’s policy a quiet diplomacy with the ANC government pays off this time.

President Motlanthe signs anti-Israel petition

I’ve been so busy at work that I haven’t managed to blog about the uproar surrounding an update to an anti-Israel petition from earlier this year that includes President Kgalema Motlanthe’s name.

It’s late and I’m tired...I’ll save you from my analysis and instead provide some quick, top-of-mind notes of interest .

• The ANC is no longer listed as an organisation who has officially endorsed the petition – although they did endorse its first incarnation.
• The new “saviour” of opposition politics, who recently called for smart Jewish minds to join his new political party, Mosioua “Terror” Lekota, is still a signatory to the petition
• The Jewish Board has spoken out against the President signing the petition. But it’s too little too late. Its particularly embarrassing for them after, just a few weeks ago, paying for an advert in the local Jewish Report outlining Jacob Zuma’s (and the ANC’s) commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis.

So very quickly, here’s all the information you need:

• Our write-up on the original petition
• A scan of the updated petition that appeared in the Mail & Guardian 2 weeks ago (PDF - right click and save target as to download)
• The news report on the Jewish Board’s reaction to Motlanthe’s name on the petition
• If you confused on where the ANC stands, click here
• The Zionist Federations press release condemning the President’s decision to sign the petition (see below)

1 December 2008 Anti-Israel petition signed by President Motlanthe The name Kgalema Motlanthe, President of the R.S.A., affixed as a signatory to the anti-Israel petition which appeared in the Mail & Guardian on 21 November, is a matter of grave concern to the South African Zionist Federation. The petition, headed “We fought for apartheid; we see no reason to celebrate it in Israel now!” and condemning Israel for having “caused six decades of catastrophe for the Palestinian people”, was signed by more than 120 politicians, trade unionists, members of NGOs, academics and business people. President Motlanthe’s spokesman Thabo Masebe attempted to allay the fears of the Jewish community, saying that “presidents don’t sign petitions” and that he “signed it in his personal capacity long before he became president – I don’t know why this has been published now” and continued that the president would have communicated any government view through official governmental channels. However President Motlanthe has not yet spoken out on this issue, which conflicts with the accepted ANC and government policies promoting a two-state solution in the Middle East with an independent Palestinian state existing side by side in peace with Israel. The South African Zionist Federation calls on President Motlanthe to distance himself as a signatory from this appalling and abusive petition and to confirm that not only does he not share its sentiments, but that he too condemns it as being counter-productive to any moves towards peace which are vital for the well-being of the region. Issued on behalf of: Avrom Krengel Chairman: South African Zionist Federation

SA Embraces Chavez

In a disturbing but not unusual move, the South African government is hosting Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez this week in what the DFA website has dubbed an‘historic’ visit. Chavez is in South Africa to sign an energy cooperation agreement. But even more worrying, South Africa is also hoping to increase its arm sales to this rogue regime. At a time when those who value freedom and democracy are putting their differences aside to stand united against growing international totalitarianism, the South African government has once again made it abundantly clear where it stands.

Chavez, not unlike the new leadership of the ANC, portrays himself as a cadre of a new popularist revolution. Although democratically elected Chavez has shown a particular disdain for liberal democracy both at home and abroad. Venezuela’s once independent judiciary, now stacked with Chavez’ supporters is a mere rubber stamp, the oversight functions of the legislature have been curtailed and now media critical of the president have been closed down and threatened. Drunk with the power that petro-dollars have brought, internationally Chavez has sought to roll back the neo-liberal reforms that South America has made over the last 2 decades. He has explicitly attempted to meddle in the democratic processes of his neighbours and is rumored to have been funding FARC Leftist rebels in their struggle to overthrow the pro-Western Columbian government.

The Center for Security Policy describes Chávez as a "self-absorbed, unstable strongman" who has found "common cause with terrorists and the regimes that support them." While Foreign Policy Magazine says that Chávez has "updated tyranny for today" and "is practicing a new style of authoritarianism". Clearly not the type of guy a democratic country like South Africa should be flirting with!

But more worrying from a Jewish perspective is Mr Chavez’s extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and his strong support for Iran. In an interview with Al Jazeera during the Lebanon war, Chávez likened Israel to the Nazis saying, "They are doing what Hitler did against the Jews." He was also quoted by the Miami Herald, two days later, on his Sunday radio program, Aló Presidente (Hello President), of accusing Israel of "going mad and inflicting on the people of Palestine and Lebanon the same thing they have criticized, and with reason: the Holocaust. But this is a new Holocaust”, he added. If this wasn’t bad enough, Jewish human rights groups like the ADL, have chastised Chavez of more classical anti-Semitism. In 2005, he attacked 'some minorities, the descendants of the people who crucified Christ, [who] seized the riches of the world'. Chávez stated that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession of all the wealth of the world."

Given these views it’s not surprising that Chavez is also a major ally of the Holocaust denying Iranian regime. As a reward for this friendship, on his birthday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presented Chávez with Iran's highest honor for "supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community". Decorating Chávez with the "Higher Medal of the Islamic Republic of Iran", Ahmadinejad said, "Mr. Chávez is my brother, he is a friend of the Iranian nation and the people seeking freedom around the world. He works perpetually against the dominant system. He is a worker of God and servant of the people." Chávez in response pledged that Venezuela would "stay by Iran at any time and under any condition". He has stated subsequently that he "admired the Iranian president for 'his wisdom and strength.”

Now is not the time for South African Jewry to remain silent. We need to speak out loudly and firmly against our government’s warm embrace of this man. That South Africa has been so willing to sell its international reputation for a few gallons of cheap Venezuelan oil once again brings into question the ANC’s support for democracy. The closer we move towards the totalitarian bloc and away from the Western sphere of influence, the greater the risk that our hard fought for freedoms will go the ways of the poor Venezuelans.

COSATU Calls for Sanctions Against Israel

I’ve just come across a recent COSATU press release dated 3 March 2008. It’s really frightening and is the sort of stuff that can effectively chase Jews away from South Africa.

COSATU is a partner in the Tripartite Alliance together with the ANC and the South African Communist Party. Bear in mind that COSATU has renewed strength and power since Jacob Zuma's election to the ANC presidency. They are his strongest backers and certainly have the ‘ear’ of the president.

I don’t wish to come across as alarmist, but this venom really does frighten me. Zuma himself has called to 'mobilise our people to condemn Israel and its backers.' Are my fears unwarranted?

COSATU condemns Israeli massacre Patrick Craven, COSATU National Spokesperson, 3 March 2008 COSATU is outraged and disgusted at the latest massacres by the Israeli Occupation Forces in Gaza, which have claimed an estimated 100 Palestinian lives in the past five days alone, most of them civilian women and children. The Israelis have even targeted ambulances, trapping the injured people inside. There can be absolutely no justification for such brutality. While United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon has rightly condemned the violence as a “disproportionate and excessive use of force”, that is too mild; COSATU sees the Israeli attacks as nothing less than mass murder, an escalation of the ongoing genocidal campaign to crush and destroy the people of Palestine. COSATU reaffirms its 2006 National Congress resolution which pledged solidarity and support to the struggle of the Palestinian people for freedom, and demanded that: • Our government should impose sanctions against Israel until the aggression on Palestine and Lebanon is stopped. • We should step up the campaign for the release of Palestinian prisoners. • COSATU members must boycott Israeli goods and demonstrations must be held at the embassies of Israel and the United States in South Africa. • The government must end with immediate affect the diplomatic ties with Israel including recalling the ambassador. COSATU will support any moves by the South African government to promote peace in the Middle East and advance the struggle of the oppressed people of Palestine for national sovereignty and human rights, and appeals to the workers of the world to take to the streets to show their disgust at these Israel atrocities and demonstrate their solidarity with legitimate fight of the oppressed masses of Palestine.

The ANC press release wasn’t much better. You can read it at the ANCToday website: Stop the collective punishment of the Palestinian people

According to a Pew[1] Global Attitudes study in 2007 28 percent of South Africans overall sided with Israel compared to 19 percent which sided with the Palestinians? So why such one sided hostility from our leaders? To me its clear that the Palestinian lobby exerts great political influence in South Africa. COSATU has even used their terminology calling the IDF, Israeli Occupation Forces. I wonder if Craven even wrote this. Take a look at the similarities between their press release and this one from a local Palestinian lobby group.

* Apologies to anyone who clicks on the COSATU link. I reckon the person who advises them on policy is the same person who does their website. I hope your eyes are ok.

[1] Pew Global Attitudes Project: Spring 2007 Survey of 47 Publics," Pew Global Attitudes Project, 2007

South Africa Cajoled into Voting for Iran Sanctions

In a surprising move last week South Africa voted for a resolution imposing greater sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). While of course I believe that the ultimate decision was the right one, I don’t know how, given South Africa’s stated positions on the issue, the Department of Foreign Affairs will be able to justify it. They had previously raised serious objections to the very resolution they landed up voting for and their official explanation for their vote does not mention a single positive reason for the resolution

The answer to why South Africa voted as it did, must lie in the visit to this country of French President Nicolas Sarkozy with a bunch of economic goodies days before the UNSC meeting.

Originally South Africa’s major objection to the resolution was the obligatory inspection provision in respect of certain Iranian vessels and aircraft. Rather embarrassingly, our UN Ambassador Dumisani Khumalo used South Africa’s administrative incompetence as the reason. He was quoted as saying:

"We just want to be sure that that is done right if it's ever done, because it's an obligation (for us). We wouldn't want confrontation on our shores. And what happens if you search the wrong boat? ... It may be an Iranian boat but it may be an innocent one. They'll sue us."

Yet this requirement was not changed in the final draft and South Africa still voted for the resolution. In their explanation, the DFA goes even further and warns that this inspection requirement ‘could spark confrontation and further threaten international peace and security’. If this is the case, then why would they have supported such a resolution?

Furthermore, South Africa argues that this resolution serves to undermine the work and authority of the IAEA. Fighting against the centralization of power in the hands of the Security Council by ensuring that all the organs of the UN adhere to a stick definition of their roles has been South Africa’s only guiding principle in its voting in New York, Vienna and Geneva. This was the basis that was used to justify our abhorrent vote on Burma for example. And yet now we have supported a resolution that the government itself claims violated this principle.

So how then does the government justify its vote? ‘To preserve previous decisions of the Council, which Iran has not fully implemented’. But the official explanation then argues that Iran’s failure to halt its uranium enrichment is only a minor infringement and that this is an unjust condition anyway. In fact the DFA’s official statement makes it clear that halting uranium enrichment is only a temporary requirement that will be lifted once the IAEA has given Iran the all clear. And given that South Africa feels ‘it can be said that since all the outstanding issues have now been clarified there ought to be, to that extent at least, increased confidence in the peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme’ why would Iran’s refusal to halt enrichment be a problem for our government?

The truth is that South Africa did not want to vote for this resolution. They don’t support it one bit. It violates their ideological position and will seriously harm their relationship with their friends in the Islamic Republic. But when push came to shove the Government chose the pragmatic option. French help in overcoming our crippling power crisis and R5 billion in investment aid was too sweet an offer to refuse.

While of course I am happy that economic good sense prevailed over the ANC’s usual Third World solidarity, it does create the perception that South Africa’s UN vote will always belong to the highest bidder.

So much more so with JZ as president.

Jacob Zuma Addresses Jewish Community

What will you do about crime? What of the Death Penalty? Will the current market friendly economic policies continue? These were some of the questions addressed by ANC president Jacob Zuma in Sandton last night as part of the Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Dr Warren Goldstein’s, Enriching Tomorrow forum.

There were some positives and some negatives that I took from Zuma’s talk, which in the end probably balanced each other out in terms of whether I feel more hopeful about our future. It must be said however, Zuma’s willingness to engage with ordinary South Africans is indeed a positive sign for which he deserves praise.

Before I get into it, a quick message for Jon Qwelane (read his latest whinge here) – black people were not excluded from the event. Media that wanted to cover the event were not assessed based on the colour of their skin or their religion.

The most controversial part of Zuma’s speech was his opening. He began by praising the role played in the anti-apartheid struggle by prominent South African Jews. He singled many out by name...but there was one glaring omission – you guessed it, no mention of Minister of Totalitarian Affairs Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils! Was Jacob Zuma pandering to his audience or was he sending a message to a prominent member of President Mbeki’s cabinet?

Throughout the speech I felt uneasy about comparing our presidential hopeful with those battling the primaries out in the USA. In the USA Obama, Clinton and McCain have quick and sharp answers to most policy questions. They are prepared and trained to speak to an audience. Zuma seemed to stumble through his speech, reading it in a slow and monotone manner. He fared better on the questions, but failed to concisely describe his preferred policies, always falling back on the old ‘policies are defined and established by the whole ANC, not just the leader.’ That may be true but I expect the leader of the ANC to at least be able to articulate those policies.

As far as the content was concerned there were some positives.

Zuma tried to allay fears about the future of democracy in South Africa. He remains committed to a separation between the Executive and the Judiciary. He said that the new ANC is not really new – the elected leadership is comprised of experienced and mature cadres. He committed the ANC to the principles it has enshrined since 1955 and beyond – a South Africa for all who live in it.

Zuma spoke sharply on crime. He said that there is a crisis and believes more needs to be done to fight crime. Here he did offer ideas on how to improve the situation. Police visibility must be improved and police officers need to be better paid and incentivised.

He called for laws that bite. The laws must allow the rights of the victim to trump the rights of the criminal – this was greeted with loud applause. He said that in a country where the constitution outlaws the death penalty, we need radically tougher laws to compensate for the lack of this ultimate sentence. I’m choosing to ignore his later response to a question on the death penalty where he indicated he would be happy to have a referendum on the issue – I don’t believe there is much chance of this being possible. I also liked the way he spoke of a shift in perspective from providing safety and security to enforcing law and order. It sounds tougher and less forgiving.

On the socio-economic issues Zuma affirmed the ANC’s focus on poverty, unemployment and inequality but stressed that the ANC does not want to create a welfare state. Social grants need to be structured in a way that does not harm economic growth. The focus on these issues will not come at the exclusion of other constituencies in South Africa. He tried to calm fears, stating that economic growth and development are the weapons that will lift South Africans out of poverty.

He also spoke frankly on issues of racism that are currently plaguing this country. He believes that racism is inevitable and must be confronted. His easy-going approach struck me as superior to the stiff –necked approach of President Mbeki at dealing with these issues.

On foreign policy he indicated that the existing government’s approach to conflict management will continue. He didn’t mention Israel in his speech but answered one question on the topic, saying that he hopes for continued ties between Israel and South Africa. This is however, in stark contrast to a worrying letter he sent to the Palestinian lobby’s "end the occupation campaign" where he called people to "mobilise to condemn Israel and its backers”. One begins to understand why critics argue that he sings from a different hymn sheet depending on his audience. What are his real positions?

The most negativity was created by his answer to a question on Zimbabwe. He basically praised the current approach directed by President Mbeki and seemed to side with Mugabe, explaining how Zimbabwe has been singled out by “Bush and Blair” only because there are white people in Zimbabwe. He implied that Bush and Blair are fine with massacres elsewhere in Africa as long as there are no white people involved.

He reinforced the argument that the previous Zimbabwean elections were free and fair and supported Mugabe’s views that Bush and Blair are in no position to criticise Mugabe when it comes to democratic elections. He spoke of their Western foreign policy hypocrisy noting American support for a man in military uniform who was never even democratically elected in Afghanistan. (In fact, Mohammed Karzai of Afghanistan was democratically elected – he must have confused Afghanistan with Pakistan.) This anti-American/Western attitude stirred some concern.

He also indicated his belief that the sanctions on Zimbabwe serve no purpose. Well I’d like to swing the charge of foreign policy hypocrisy back in his direction - did he also oppose sanctions on apartheid South Africa? Does he believe they served ‘no purpose’?

The star of the show in my view was the Chief Rabbi who delivered his speech with great prose and ability. He called for a government of compassion and accountability that realises the enormous moral weight of responsibility that comes with the power of holding the fate of 45 million South Africans in its hands. We can only hope that Zuma heeds this call.

---
As an aside, someone jokingly asked if Zuma would consider a Jewish woman for his next wife. Zuma took it well. He laughed and said he would if one becomes available. Any takers?

How Will SA Vote on Iran?

South Africa once again finds itself in a catch 22. Will it stand steadfast in solidarity with its Non Alligned Movement (NAM) ally Iran in nuclear defiance or will it once again vote with the West for greater sanctions? As we speak, our UN representatives are doing all they can to delay and water down the Security Council resolution to the point of it being meaningless.

This week South Africa publicly raised concerns about the timing and nature of the draft sanctions resolution against Iran that is currently being circulated by the 5 permanent members of the Security Council (including Russia and China). The text is reported to be calling for mandatory travel bans, asset freezes and vigilance on all banks in Iran as well as the inspection of suspicious air and sea cargo to and from Iran transported by the firms, Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line. It is this compulsory inspection regime that South Africa has specifically objected to. UN Ambassador Dumisani Khumalo was quoted as saying:

"We just want to be sure that that is done right if it's ever done, because it's an obligation (for us). We wouldn't want confrontation on our shores. And what happens if you search the wrong boat? ... It may be an Iranian boat but it may be an innocent one. They'll sue us."

It’s an interesting approach to use South Africa’s administrative incompetence as an excuse. I guess if we can’t keep the lights on how can the international community expect us to effectively search ships and planes. I also wonder what confrontations on our shore he is alluding to. Is he implying that there are groups of people in South Africa who are holding the government hostage? That is a very serious admission.

South Africa is also trying to delay the actual vote. While America and the other permanent members of the Security Council want it to take place as soon as possible, South Africa is pushing for the council to wait for an IAEA report that is scheduled to be released at the end of the month. It is expected that the report will praise Iran for its co-operation with the nuclear watch dog. South Africa has made it clear that Iran should be awarded for this.

This argument is somewhat disingenuous. South Africa knows very well that the sanctions are for Iran’s continued Uranium enrichment in defiance of a previous Security Council Resolution. Its co-operation with the IAEA on its historic illegal nuclear activities is obligatory for all signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and not something it should rewarded for.

From reports in the Iran press it’s clear that Iran is placing Pretoria under significant pressure to help squash the resolution. They have been praising South Africa’s ‘independent and principled position’. And in return for continued support they are offering to ‘share the benefits of its scientific achievements with the other countries of the Global South.’

So what will South Africa do? If the past is an indication of the future then despite its protests, the government will ultimately vote for sanctions in the name of consensus. But the makeup of the Security Council is not as it was last year. We have a new member, Libya, who is as opposed to the sanctions resolution as South Africa. Consensus might be impossible. And then South Africa will have no excuses left for betraying Iran – other than the reality that Iran is a threat to international peace and security. Our days of straddling the diplomatic fence are over.

ANC Stabs Zimbabweans

More on the ANC resolutions passed at their 52nd conference at Polokwane...

PARTY-TO-PARTY RELATIONS Conference resolves that: 35. Party-to-Party relations amongst former liberation movements like SWAPO, MPLA, FRELIMO, ZANU PF, PAIGC, CCM, SPLM/A, etc, must be prioritised by the ANC and meetings and structured support of the former liberation movements in the region must be pursued.

So support of Zanu PF must be prioritised and pursued? No ifs and buts?

And if you thought that this new ANC will bring about a new foreign affairs agenda you are wrong. It seems like more of the same. Sleep with anyone who opposes the US...

1. Imperialism has mutated into a sophisticated system in the globalised world, often associated with violence and aggression in its pursuit for exploitation of resources in the developing countries and its impact on the African continent. 2. Globalisation is also being shaped by the agenda of the dominant global forces, these include transnational corporations controlling trillions of Rands of humanity's wealth, alliances around one "hyper-power" whose dominance is reminiscent of empires of bygone era, and cultural domination reflected in trends towards homogenisation of media content and the arts. A critical consequence of all this is the undermining of a system of global governance. 3. We live in a situation in which an exploitative socio-economic system rules the world, and the danger should not be underestimated of widening wars of conquest and other more sophisticated means of subversion in search of resources, markets and geo-political advantage. 4. That the system of capitalism holds sway across the world; and it is underpinned by the unique dominance of one "hyper-power". This situation of unipolarity also has secondary multi-polar features reflected in geopolitical blocs among developed and developing countries. Believing that: 5. In responding to this challenge of imperialism, the ANC needs to strengthen itself and other progressive forces and develop a common agenda with an objective of realising a just and a better world. Such a world order must be characterised, inter-alia by greater security, peace, dialogue and greater equilibrium between the poor and the rich. In this we are guided by the ANC principles of "a better life for all and a vision of a better Africa and a just world". 6. Internationalism is a crucial feature in the unique character of the ANC inspired by the spirit and ideals of human solidarity. 7. That the ANC correctly became part of the progressive forces that fought against colonialism, racism, poverty, patriarchy and other social ills, and the founders defined the movement as a unifier and premier representative of the African people beyond the borders of South Africa. 8. The international front was one of the key pillars of the struggle that led to the defeat of the apartheid regime in 1994 and remains one of the catalysts in the creation of a better world.

The new ANC has a unique opportunity to right the wrongs of the current government's foreign ministry. Let's hope that reason ultimately trumps ideology.

ANC Resolution on Israel

Joel at Guide to the Perplexed has a post on the ANC resolutions passed at their 52nd national conference at Polokwane. (See the ANC resolutions document.)

Israel, as usual, is allotted one of the largest sections in their resolutions document but there is not much change, which is bad news for Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils who had hoped to pass a resolution calling for a complete boycott of Israel. Still, as Joel notes, the resolutions indicate a “severe and irrational level of hostility towards Israel”.

66. The 60th Anniversary of the Palestinian catastrophe, known as the Nakba, which resulted in the dispossession of Palestinian lands and their birthright through a systematic policy of colonial expansion, ethnic cleansing and military occupation of the most brutal kind, which as South Africans we readily recognise from our own experience of apartheid.

Prior to the conference a discussion document was circulated amongst ANC members. The section on International Relations included this gem.

The resolution of the Middle East and in particular Palestine: We need to strengthen the resolution as already done at the NGC of 2005 on the resolution of the Middle East question and the Independence of Palestine, coexisting along side peaceful Israel. We have to re-look at the resolution in relation to the new developments in the Middle East and forging strategic links with Iran and Syria, and others towards developing common approach on the matter, for just solutions on the matter.

Worryingly, whilst the resolution does call for the strengthening of an independent Palestinian state, it omits the part about the state existing alongside a peaceful Israel. On the plus side however, there is also no mention of the forging of links with Iran and Syria. (Though I believe this is nonetheless both government and ANC policy.)

Head over to Guide to the Perplexed for more.